Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles.
From a right-wing tabloid.
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 4. (Read 636443 times)
From a right-wing tabloid.
The biggest threat to the Earth?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news
It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news
It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.
You post news articles.
Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.
You're barely on topic.
If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?
The biggest threat to the Earth?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news
It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news
It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.
...
But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.
Yeah. The sun has an effect on the climate, and so do humans.So as a (somewhat humorous lol) illustration of this, I sometimes post serious science showing we may be headed for global cooling.
This drives Warmers nuts, of course. It's laughable to me, but it engages the True Believers, so of course it would never be allowed in the reddit.
But strictly from the scientific point of view, of course there could be a strong solar cooling trend, a component of human warming, a couple volcanoes with a cooling effect, blah blah blah ad nauseam. Of course the resulting climate is the summation of the various causes, inflow and outflows.
Right there is the proof that climate alarmists don't care about the truth of the matter, and that they are pushing lies largely for political purposes.
As frank1 has pointed out several times, the most important thing is water vapor, and the outbound radiative flux (both IR and visible light ranges).
The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. I don't know. No reason to assert or speculate. Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming
The Journal it refers to in the title the nature.com article, Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.
Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming is an article (with a headline that breaks a few rules) about a scientist criticizing a journal. That's a third hand account of the study.
Do you think it followed the rules?
But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.
Yeah. The sun has an effect on the climate, and so do humans. Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.
Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
I didn't 'scrape' it. You deleted it while I was responding. Then, when I saw you deleted it, I went back and merged it with my previous post.Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. I don't know. No reason to assert or speculate.
And as I mentioned, I'm not arguing or discussing that particular issue. It goes into some very deep orbital mechanics and solar physics. Nothing against your response at all.
But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.
Reddit can and will censor these scientists and their work, because it is not on the simpleton's level of the promulgated climate change dogma.
EG, they categorize such work "Deniers!"
That's idiotic. Further, they give free reign to climate alarmists, who are often as not totally insane.
Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.
Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
I didn't 'scrape' it. You deleted it while I was responding. Then, when I saw you deleted it, I went back and merged it with my previous post.Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.
^^^ [r/science] doesn't accept "peer-reviewed evidence" if you question the official narrative, reddit is mostly a propaganda tool.
That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.
That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.
There are plenty of places you guys can post about this stuff on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/
^^^ [r/science] doesn't accept "peer-reviewed evidence" if you question the official narrative, reddit is mostly a propaganda tool.
That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.
That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Really?
REALLY?
What reddit thread are you looking at?
Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.
r/science it's a sub that contains millions of threads and 20 million + subscribers.
In which discussion of this article -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6
in this thread -
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cehgy2/journal_criticised_for_study_claiming_sun_is/
Was shut down.
Now why would anyone want to shut down discussion about an article in Nature that discusses ......
I'd recommend reading all of the submission and headline rules before jumping to any conclusion about why something was locked.
Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.
Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
From the rules -
4. Comments dismissing established science must provide evidence
Comments that dispute well-established scientific concepts (e.g. gravity, vaccination, anthropogenic climate change, etc.) must be supported with appropriate peer-reviewed evidence. Links to personal blogs or 'skeptic' websites are not valid forms of evidence. Comments that are overtly fringe and/or unsubstantiated will be removed.
By the above criteria, a comment showing a serious math error in a climate change article would be banned, as it is not supported with "peer reviewed evidence."
"Climate Deniers" are explicitly called out in the paragraph, and were thus banned.
"I do not know about global climate change..."
Well I tell you, we're not on a globe."...all people are good inside..."
You can't fix ugly on the inside, you can't fix stupid either."...some problems that do not exist at all."
We live in a crooked world full of artificial scarcity.
I do not know about global climate change due to human actions. Most likely, there are changes, but they are not as strong as they are promoting us. This propaganda is carried out in order to distract us from real problems.
There are many problems, but the first place I put is that people live indulging their minds, not their souls. I mean, our mind deceives us, pushes us against each other, although, in fact, everyone’s soul is the same, all people are good inside. And we all strive for good and light. But the mind distracts and catches us for some problems that do not exist at all.
There are many problems, but the first place I put is that people live indulging their minds, not their souls. I mean, our mind deceives us, pushes us against each other, although, in fact, everyone’s soul is the same, all people are good inside. And we all strive for good and light. But the mind distracts and catches us for some problems that do not exist at all.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Really?
REALLY?
What reddit thread are you looking at?
Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.
r/science it's a sub that contains millions of threads and 20 million + subscribers.
In which discussion of this article -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6
in this thread -
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cehgy2/journal_criticised_for_study_claiming_sun_is/
Was shut down.
Now why would anyone want to shut down discussion about an article in Nature that discusses ...
... The resulting summary curve, which is linked to the solar activity curve defined by the averaged sunspot numbers5, restored backward for 3000 years shows about 9 grand cycles of 350–400 years, with the times of their grand minima having remarkable resemblance to those reported from the sunspot and terrestrial activity in the past millennia17: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf grand minimum (1200), Oort grand minimum (1010–1050), Homer grand minimum (800–900 BC), combined with the warming periods: medieval (900–1200), Roman (400–10 BC) and other ones occurred between the grand minima. This approach allowed us to predict the modern grand solar minimum (GSM) approaching the Sun in 2020–20556. This grand minimum offers a unique opportunity for the space scientists and all people of the planet to witness in many details the modern grand minimum and to understand better the nature of solar activity.
Oh, wait ... it's not in line with the required narrative?
This is what was submitted:
Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming
The Journal it refers to in the title the nature.com article, Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.
Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming is an article (with a headline that breaks a few rules) about a scientist criticizing a journal. That's a third hand account of the study.
Here are the three basic rules for submissions:
I'd recommend reading all of the submission and headline rules before jumping to any conclusion about why something was locked.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Really?
REALLY?
What reddit thread are you looking at?
Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Here's the actual data:
You can find the data here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change denialists.
And also both of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are accurate.
On average the earth is warming, globally and the climate is changing (to the extent that it's an issue).
The gotcha-ism on the term Global Warming is just embarrassingly retarded.
Here's the actual data:
You can find the data here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change denialists.
And also both of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are accurate.
On average the earth is warming, globally and the climate is changing (to the extent that it's an issue).
The gotcha-ism on the term Global Warming is just embarrassingly retarded.
I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change alarmists.
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Here's the actual data:
You can find the data here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change denialists.
And also both of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are accurate.
On average the earth is warming, globally and the climate is changing (to the extent that it's an issue).
The gotcha-ism on the term Global Warming is just embarrassingly retarded.
Here's the actual data:
You can find the data here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change denialists.
And also both of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are accurate.
On average the earth is warming, globally and the climate is changing (to the extent that it's an issue).
The gotcha-ism on the term Global Warming is just embarrassingly retarded.
There's dumping toxic crap that chokes plants and animals to death and makes people sick, you know like roundup and chemtrail aerosols, then there's this substance plants breathe called carbon dioxide.
According to Greta (her handlers were just exposed by some social media platform bug) every breath you exhale is killing the planet and only carbon credits can save us all from certain economic doom, the financial cost ofgassing you bastards to death geoengineering the climate is overwhelming and needs to be offset.
According to Greta (her handlers were just exposed by some social media platform bug) every breath you exhale is killing the planet and only carbon credits can save us all from certain economic doom, the financial cost of
It's the exhaust from those coal fired power plants working 24/7 to hold that firmament up in the sky that's the real problem.
I don't know why everyone is so hyped about climate change in last 20 years. Isn't it obvious that elon musk is going to make going to mars available soon? Just send the trash, and by trash I mean humans! Ahahaha.
Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
They dont need to remove them in Slovenia. Since glaciers are mainly gone. 50 years ago you could ski on them in Spring.
...
That is much better than if the entire land of Slovenia was covered with the ice.
Definitely. If that would happen we would need to adapt a lot and that would cost us a lot of money. No one want to spend money for adoption to changes. That is why there is plan to reduce carbon emissions so changes will be as little as possible.
I do not think people will mind spending money for bikinis.
Spending money for heavy Arctic coats, though...
Jump to: