Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 42. (Read 636455 times)

Trump Vows To “Stop All Payments Of U.S. Tax Dollars To UN Global Warming Programs”…

What is 'unfair' is that the U.S. dropped tons of agent orange on Vietnam in a project driven primarily by the desire to make a bunch of defense contractors wealthy and never made any reparations that I know of and the people and environment suffered greatly for it.  If we have extra money kicking around to apply toward projects outside of our borders, near the top of my list would be to try to partially make up for this crime against both Vietnam and against humanity.  Instead it seems like most of our 'excess' money is used to creates waves of similar destruction and grief currently focused on the people of the Middle East.

‘It’s Not Fair’ Obama Apologizes For Western Civilization’s Contributions To Climate Change






President Barack Obama blames Western civilization for its enormous contribution to climate change, saying it’s no fair that rapidly developing countries in the East may have to suffer the consequences of the industrial revolution.

“To some degree this is not fair, I think it’s important to note,” Obama said. “Because if you think about Western industrial development before we knew anything about climate change, they used enormous amounts of carbon energy.”

Obama made his remarks during a town hall in Vietnam, with Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative students.

He cited the “enormous carbon footprint” of the United States and said it’s warming the planet, warning students that the world would be “under water” if developing nations followed the same path.

“It’s not entirely fair then to say then to countries that are developing now, you have to stop because of climate change,” he said. “The problem is that if a country like Vietnam or China or India took the same development path that the west did, we’re all going to be under water.”

He cited the responsibility that countries like the United States and China had to help developing countries find cleaner alternative sources of energy.

“The good news is, I think that can happen,” he said.



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/25/not-fair-obama-apologizes-western-civilizations-contributions-climate-change/

So what's really causing some of the negative environmental changes if Global Warming is bullshit? One of the answers surprised me, sand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu6zLNpGUG0

Climate Feedback site allows scientists to correct media errors




Miami (AFP) - In one case, a writer claimed a mini Ice Age would befall Earth in 15 years. In another, an op-ed touted global warming as saving countless people from freezing to death.

A new project called Climate Feedback, run by a French scientist living in California, took these and other stories to task, and in the past year has critiqued climate change stories in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, the Telegraph, Forbes magazine, the Wall Street Journal and more.

Interested readers can visit the website ClimateFeedback.org to see what climate scientists thought of the original article.

The site uses web annotation software to enable line-by-line critiques from more than 100 volunteer scientists, pointing out what they see as errors, falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Founder Emmanuel Vincent, 31, said the project is about communication, not activism.

"We see it as a scientific endeavor," said Vincent, who is from the southern French village of Lignan sur Orb, near Montpellier, and works as a project scientist at the University of California, Merced.

"We try to be neutral and explain the science and why some people get it wrong in the media."

Vincent said the site is aimed at the general public, but particularly journalists, editors, and those who influence public opinion.

He is currently raising money to do even more by launching a "Scientific Trust Tracker" that would grade various media on reliability when it comes to climate change stories.

The US space agency, on its NASA Climate Twitter handle, called the project "a win for science and a win for climate reporting."

- Mixed response -

In some cases, the critiques have resulted in corrections, including the Telegraph article that claimed a mini Ice Age was imminent.

But others have not, such as a pair of Forbes articles -- one that featured a listicle of alleged global warming "lies" and another that claimed NASA denied any retreat of polar ice.

They garnered hundreds of thousands of views online but were never corrected, despite being described as "deeply inaccurate and misleading by the more than 20 scientists who reviewed them," according to ClimateFeedback.org.

Another popular target is Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of the 2001 best-seller, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who frequently writes about the politics and economics of climate change.

Lomborg's opinion articles have been graded "very low" in terms of scientific credibility, and Climate Feedback scientists accuse him of "cherry-picking" data to back up his arguments, mainly that global warming has some benefits -- including the bit about saving people who might have frozen -- and that climate alarmism doesn't lead to effective solutions.

In an interview with AFP, Lomborg said he was "quite shocked" by the site's critiques, and disagreed with their tactics.

"They are having people pretend to talk science but they are really talking politics," he said.

"Because they are saying unless you say something that shows global warming is bad, you are wrong," he added.

Lomborg said he believes he is writing for a sophisticated audience that understands -- as he does -- that climate change is happening and is dangerous.

"The current way we are tackling it is incredibly ineffective," he said.

"Making it about only the negatives -- if you are only allowed to talk about that -- actually makes this a very, very poor way to be informed."

- Under the microscope -

So what is the best way to communicate about climate change?

Denial and skepticism about climate change remain a problem in the United States, where a recent Gallup poll found that one in three people do not blame human activity for global warming, and 57 percent do not see climate change as a serious threat.

Some say the media is to blame for these beliefs.

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus wanted to find a way to cut through the scientific jargon for readers of Rolling Stone in a piece titled "Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares are Already Here."

During the editing process, a climate scientist Holthaus respected said he liked the piece but feared Holthaus may have been to straightforward, too direct, too certain in assertions.

So Holthaus volunteered to have his story put under the microscope by Climate Feedback scientists.

Their review was mixed. They found no errors, but some commented on research he'd failed to mention, or found fault with the lack of links to original science articles.

"Maybe the scientists were reading it as if they were reading a formal journal article, and not necessarily a piece that is written to the same audience that reads music reviews," Holthaus told AFP.

He described the process as a "learning opportunity" that nevertheless raised many questions.

"If they are trying to fact check all of climate journalism, that seems to be a big task and then even you have to ask the question, what is the point of that?"

He also said relying on readers to go to ClimateFeedback.org to check an article that they may have read elsewhere, and expecting it would change their views "seems a little bit idealistic."



https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-feedback-allows-scientists-correct-media-errors-031549253.html

At any time new measurements, new methods, etc, could disprove the measurements made in the past, and the conclusions drawn from them would change accordingly.  It's a double bladed sword.  I'm surprised this isn't obvious to you. 

However, an argument based on the laws of thermodynamics, such as I made suggesting that ground temperatures cannot be "averaged" and scientifically accurate results produced due to non equilibrium conditions, will not change with new data.  Not unless the laws of thermo are invalidated, and nobody would suggest that is going to happen.

Well, at least you have thrown off the pretense of being scientific, and have came out of the closet. 

Please revel and frolic as a True Believer, in all your holy Warmerness.

It is the "believers" herd siding with the govs and "scientists" back then that persecuted "skeptics" of the earth being flat sham. Not the other way around.

Also, what has done govs against cancer exactly? Get moar tobacco industry bribes?

Yea the brainwashing.  These people have also been saying smoking causes cancer and the world is not flat!!  What is next !??!

RIGHT!?!?

RIGHT!!

LOL !

It is not a difficult concept. If you have no faith in someone's results/evidence then you should not give them any credibility.

Faith is not limited to a subset of religion or the likes.  Perhaps I should have said in the 'scientific results' or what have you and not testing.

Don't care enough to think about it too much with spendulus the buffoon.

It might not be the optimal word, but it works just fine. If you guys have no faith in empirical measurements being based on reality, then you should have no faith in anything else.

I'm sure someone at some point in your lives made the point that scientific reasoning does not rely on faith, but it does on some level. A lot of what you're taught might be somewhat incorrect to make a point and you poor fellas are now all confused.

Spendulus has no faith in his precious cherry picked satellite measurements?  Rubbish !

yap yap yap.  Go google definition faith. If you don't believe in the results of your science, then you have no faith in them.  This is simply nothing more than a man with a significantly lower IQ arguing semantics and getting his ass handed to him time and time again.

Lmao, the brainwash is deep in there.




Moar Gov FTW!

I find the statement hilarious. I had to frame it.

Of course not.  All such testing can possibly be disproved by a newer, better designed test.  There is no place for "faith" in scientific testing. 

I agree that there is man-made global climate change, as this has been proven scientifically, most posters in this forum may not believe in global warming, but it's not relavant to those on this forum who are accustomed to the scientific method. global warming is real and it requires a lot of government inervention to stop. 

Nope, that is in fact opposed to the scientific method.  From Wikipedia -

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief

You may not LIKE that satellite measurements show certain values, and they may not be in accordance with your BELIEFS, but that's all not relevant to the scientific method.

Additional tests may be devised, and exhaustively, they are put against the hypotheses, in efforts to beat the null hypotheses.   Singular or plural.  

It may be of interest to you that it's a very strong argument that "global warming" is not even a scientific hypothesis.  Also, "warmers" have a number of curious arguments that are blatantly unscientific and which should always be objected to.

"the science is settled."

"The consensus is..."

Then there's the "Precautionary principle."

You don't have faith in your testing? 

I do.  You don't?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis..

You have no faith in your scientific beliefs ? Seriously?  It is just complete random mental illness?  Interesting... Very very interesting.  Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny.

Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence.

One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit.  Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you.