Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 39. (Read 636443 times)

Sure.  Overpopulation of anything will 'harm' the environment and/or result in harm to one another.  It's a perfectly valid argument that even at our current population levels humans already have crossed that point, but to have this argument one must agree on the meaning of 'harm' among other things.  This seems to me to be the point where many of the 'scientists' often start to become quite 'religious' in their definitions.  More like high priests than like rational engineers, and more and more that is how they are marketed to the plebs.

The way I see it 'we' still have plenty of time to figure out reasonable ways to modulate human population before 'the danger' becomes to great.  Again though, this is simply a values judgement involving my own personal ethics and what-not.  The proposals put forth by 'sustainability' crowd vis-a-vis energy use are flat out genocidal in practice by my estimation, and I think it is a refection of the values judgement of others which differ from my own.

Again, it is beyond absurd that CO2 from human fossil fuel use will be the big problem, but there are plenty of other things that will rupture at certain critical population densities.

But with our population growing exponentially our farts have to be considered too. Its our farts and poop plus all land animals on earth which includes all our food. At some point wouldn't it start to penetrate the glass in your analogy? or is that like only after a million years of growth? (asking because i honestly don't know the math)

Crazy as that sounds off hand, it is technically not all that crazy in a back-of-the-envelope sort of way.  Imagine the weight of the gas in a can that one puts into a car daily.  Imagine picking up the amount of grass that a cow munches down on a per-day basis.  Comes down to the number's count.  But before one goes into a panic, note that the grass (or alternate plant which WILL be growing there) is not destined to become a carbon rich fossil absent the cow.  It would rot and 'pollute' the atmosphere with carbon anyway.

I've heard that among the largest contributors to CH4 are termites and beavers.  The latter due primarily to environmental impacts which create 'wetlands'.  The former hosts more or less the same microbes which can break down cellulose as do ruminates.

This comes back to the suggestion I made earlier that we humans probably made our greatest contribution to global atmospheric carbon about 100,000 years or so ago when we started lighting environments on fire.

It's worth note that the impacts of any greenhouse gas is not linear.  The higher the concentration (of various constituents), the greater the 'atmospheric opacity'.  The analogy I uses earlier is that if one is already behind a sheet of bullet-proof glass, strapping on some body armor is not going to make that much difference since something else will already have stopped the bullet.  I'd have to look again, but I recall methane, while being a 'powerful greenhouse gas', is also especially prone to this principle.  Water vapor has already absorbed most of the energy on the spectra in which methane is most active.  The same principle applies to CO2 but just not as much.

Sorry chiming in from the peanut gallery here... in the new movie Cowspiracy, they say that all burning of fossil fuels actually only makes up less than 15% of contribution to global warming, its actually being caused mostly by our diet. its animal agriculture releasing methane run off that's causing climate change.

I said 'at least'.  I'm simply not all that familiar with his work.


So the guy is a truther?


That could happen here in a few billion years.  Or tomorrow.  It simply will not happen due to humans using fossil fuels.  Indeed, we could probably burn every ounce of fossil fuel we could possibly dig up and not impact the climate or mean global temperature in a noticeable way, or at least in a noticeable way which would last for more then a few decades.  There is simply not enough carbon sequestered as fossil fuel to do so.

If we learn how to burn carbonate rocks in an energy positive manner and turn half the earth into a huge open pit strip mine, then maybe we could do so via CO2.  Or we figure out how to get the deep ocean to release it's sequestered CO2 and for some reason do it, that could also create the proposed atmospheric CO2-as-greenhouse-gas  problem.  The amount of CO2 sequestered in this manner is something like 40,000/400 relative to the total carbon storage of all potential fossil fuel reserves.

The only reason CO2 is 'in the public mind' relative to climate is that CO2 has a relationship to how humans use energy and a relatively small group of people have recognized that controlling energy means controlling human populations.  These people are the same ones who fund academia, own the corporations who publishing journals, own the actual fossil fuel reserves which contain energy who's value will explode when supply is artificially constrained, etc, etc.

Im afraid hes right guys, i watched the video. Venus was heated with greenhouse gas (according to MR Neil)

Your entitled to think that but I disagree, Neil Tyson is a renowned astrophysicist who got to where his through being loved by all his students and alumni alike. He is very well educated and there are many other scholars in his field. that's the thing about science its a consensus of peoples interpretations of Data. Its not flawless, it makes mistakes but its really hard to just blatantly make shit up because...
"The truth remains true weather or not you believe it" - Neil Degrasse Tyson


The consensus of the entire scientific community is that Venus is actually in the life giving zone of our star system where it could have hypothetically contained water at some point, and it did not in fact reach that temperature due to its proximity to our sun. It was a run away green house gas effect caused naturally from gas releasing deep with in the planets core thus trapping the suns heat and not letting it escape.

Post the link.  If you want to get fancy, highlight it and use the little globe looking tool.  It's always interesting to see the pseudo-science and psychological methods used by the scare-mongers.  Nye, Gore, etc are true bottom feeders.  Tyson is at least one notch above them in the little bit that I've seen of his work.

am i allowed to post videos on here? ill gladly send it to you

Edit* if you search youtube for Neil tyson Venus is the second video and its 2.49 seconds long he says at 2.09 seconds exactly what i just said, I trust him more than you

no bullshit being spewed here the reason that Co2 is there is because its got trapped and couldn't get out, hense the term "runaway greenhouse gas effect". Maybe you should look up that term and then check out the video im reffering too before you criticize it,

But, my dear Spendy, we could have 20 km of sulfuric acid here on earth also if we don't give the oligarchs at the UN $315 TRILLION dollars to save us and let them design and operate a new global economic system.  Don't you know this?

Lol, Venus has 20 km of sufuric acid and co2 before you hit the planet.  That co2 is under so much pressure it is basically liquid at the surface.

There's no comparison between that mix and it's dynamics and what we have on Earth.  Don't just blah stuff you read or heard, use your brain.

Venus is the way it is because of a runaway greenhouse gas effect caused by a volcano that spewed methane. I'm indirectly quoting Neil Degrasse Tyson here.
(Youtube search  Neil Tyson - Venus)

and no fuck them, because i study in scientific fields and I understand how science comes to be and the kind of conspiracy they are inferring is rediculous and soemhow alluring to other idiots and it has to be stopped!

independent people who do their own research compare findings from all over the world that show results and even if the analyses of those results is wrong its not up to idiots in forums to decide. do proper research or at least research the system of getting the answers you hear before you question them

Wow, now we're talking Venus.  There's no relation between atmospheric dynamics on Venus and Earth.

I got some news for you.  It's the religious Warmers that are the science deniers. 

But there's no need to call them fucking retards.  Just call them Climate Tards.

Good, these fucking retards wont be happy untill our planet looks like venus from greenhouse gasses. Im all for free speach but if its my message boards that i own and i see idiots speading bullshit that hurts humanity im allowed to strop it if i want too. reddit is not a government organization they dont owe you anything they are allowed to have opinions. I share this opinion with them, science denyers are whats wrong wit hthe world right now. idiots with a voice

It is completely unknown what percent of "recent warming" is due to human activities.  For purposes of discussion let's pick some numbers.  Say 10-40%. 

The writer states unambiguously "Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity."

He's a bald faced liar.

Any part of that not make sense?

Yes, although with the observation that the most recent warming trend seems to have leveled off over the past 15 years or so.


The chances of a flatline in the concentration of this particular trace gas in the atmosphere are nearly nill.  The alternate is a binary.  It would be either increasing or decreasing in the absence of humans and our activities.  By no means is this an 'incredible coincidence.'

The pseudo-science 'consensus' as communicate by our friend Dr. (I assume) Frank is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is attibutable to our burning of fossil fuel.  One of the many troubles with this, as described in Dr. Salby's lecture, is that while the rate of release of anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels took an abrupt jump around 2000, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not.  This very simple observation alone blows the current theory of 'global warming' as presented to the plebs out of the water.

---

I actually do not doubt that humans and our activities have had a noticable impact on the atmosphere, but I suggest that the bulk of it occured many thousands of years ago when we mixed fire into our toolkit.  It initially seemed plausible to me that fossil fuels could be a problem until I knuckled down and studdied the subject a bit.  The more I do, the more ridiculous the suggestions about fossil fuels and CO2 become.  As for blaming a particular organsim for changing the atmosphic composition, humans are far behind such creatures as blue/green algea and shell forming molusks.  It is probably true that our impacts have been more abrupt than those of other species...but this is not to me a good excuse to kill most of us off as will be the effect of the policies that the Fabian death cult and associated weirdos are peddling with their 'green energy' bullshit.

Well i guess  that at least agree on the first conclusion.

For the second conclusion... Well let's say that the corelation between human activity increase and CO2 increase is not a proof, but it would be an incredible coincidence no?

Sadly, the blog writer linked to thinks nothing of lying in the pursuit of his cause.  I quote-

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity

Quite obviously, although any number of scientific articles can be dredged up to support it, if the planet is warming it would be only a fraction caused by human activity.  (See IPPC reports).

But then this "Adam Frank" does describe himself as a "science evangelist."

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.