Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 48. (Read 636446 times)

Global warming skeptics/deniers  claim...

I don't think you even know what "global warming skeptics/deniers claim."  Your ignorance is being revealed each time you type.

Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison.  This will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.

My refutation of the 2006 estimates of co2 sensitivity refute your ridiculous alarmist beliefs.

I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science ....I'm far too smart....yes I am ducking it ....
How about that.  You want to state truths about the science but duck and dodge learning or reading or thinking about the science.  


I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false.

Nobody's stopping you except the illusions in your own head.  Why not start with three Big Lies?

A.  There was no Medieval Warm Period.
B.  There was no Little Ice Age.
C.  Climate over the last one or two thousand years, graphed, has a hockey stick shape.

And then there's that RADIOSITY, man.  Oh YEAH.  Do you light up green in the dark?  The new greenie RADIOSITY?

Lets address this right here.

If you don't understand an argument that does not make it a strawman.  Whose fault is it for not understanding?  It could be either of us.

Let me try again.

Global warming skeptics/deniers  claim that it is all a big money driven ploy because the scientists need jobs.  Something like that.  I simply ask for one example of history where this has been true.  Where such an overwhelming ratio of actual scientists agree on something that is wrong, just because they need money/funding.  Coming up with the piltdown man or what have you is fine, but you seem to not understand the difference in magnitude and why those examples are laughable.  Eugenics??  ooook.

My problem with "deep ties to oil and gas" is that is shows an IMMEDIATE and DIRECT conflict of interest. Scientists have looked for the truth even when it isn't popular.  That is what Western science is built upon. Yes, you will be able to find countless counter-examples but NEVER an example of a conspiracy anywhere near the magnitude of what we see with the consensus on global warming.

It also isn't even strictly about money.  It is about wanting to not see themselves as the asshole thats fucking over the rest of the world. If one has a conscious and exists off an industry that fucks over the climate then they will always want to see themselves as not being a piece of shit. (Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison.  THis will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.) So there are other huge biases going on.  

It would be far more respectable if he was someone motivated by truth and not vested interests.

I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science or whatever you said.  (don't care to reread your nonsense too much).  That is a common claim. I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false. I'm far too smart to entertain the notion that I can do all the research myself.  So yes I am ducking it to some extent.

One last thing - Don't get so angry you break your keyboard showing everyone you are an "independent thinker".

oh, You Asked for a Global Conspiracy?  You mean that you presented a straw man argument. We've all seen that done before.  It gets you laughed at.  

See bolded above.  Answers itself.

Next.  Paragraph with key words Narcissist, history, marxist conspiracy, meta-critique, "deep ties to oil and gas."  Sounds like a bullshit paradigm.  

I notice you delicately tiptoe around any and all hard science.  That's quite revealing.

Having said the above, here's a bone for the lackey and running dog of confused greenthink.  Yes, it is possible to conceptualize of humans in groups, and apply logic to understanding group behavior. But it's not an easy task, and you are likely not going to like the results.

Here's another one for your twisted groupthink.   I said to people (2006-2009) to stay away from CFL, twisted noodle bulbs.  Said they were a poor design concept, that there were lies in their marketing, that they were not at all green, and that LEDs would overtake them shortly.  I was called a Denier.  LEDs have overtaken those lousy jokes of lightbulbs.

So far I am doing pretty good getting called a Denier.  In the two examples cited those using the term were wrong.  I'm certain they were well meaning.  So far I am doing pretty good using logic and math and science to reach solutions, then informing people of those decisions, and being called a Denier.  I notice you are one of the subset of people who refer to others who don't toe your party-line as "Deniers."  Oh, by the way.  Nobody needs your assurances that they can "trust scientists."  People can figure out who to trust quite well, thank you.

Now, let's have a moment of truthiness.  What's your problem exactly with "Deep ties to oil and gas?"  While you are at it, kindly correct whatever you are struggling to express while incorrectly using the term "radiosity."

I asked for a global conspiracy.  Yes, one can go through and find instances where scientists have been wrong.  You still didn't find one example of a global conspiracy amongst all scientists that is anywhere like we see with the agreement on global warming. No one ever attacks the basic science dealing with the radiosity of CO2 and other gasses.  Never.  If you guys had a legitimate point, you would.

I was getting into it with some narcissist who went to Columbia with a history degree.  His thing was it some was some marxist conspiracy.  At first he appealed to science, but then I asked for 1 decent meta-critique of what the issues with global warming science are.  He then started googling with some random webpage.  It was beyond lol. Turned out he has deep ties to oil and gas.

You can trust the scientific community far more than any other community except perhaps those with MDs.  There are reasons for this which I don't need to go into for anyone because most have functional brains.  You pointing out a few counter-examples does not really mean anything.

You did far more ad hominem attacking than I did, but your dysfunctional brain with all of its horrible biases fails in making this apparent to you. 

Perfectly true! The only 12 men who walked the moon were Americans!

All of them Made in USA

 

Us referring to humanity, if you want to be precise, only a very tiny part of the population were sent to the moon

Here is the link to the satellite data Spendulus is talking about:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

Us? Only Americans...


 

Thing change and [d]evolve... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7V8foMd3SE

Hmm... Because confusing blog article willingly misinterpreting scientific articles is a better source than the NASA? You know the guys that actually sent us on the moon...

Lel behold teh climate nasa gov!

Here are a few facts: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I never saw any of you give out a work showing the absence of temperature rise.

Please all feel free to give out an interpretation of temperature data showing there is no temperature increase!

As you said yourself Spendulus "stop avoiding direct questions" ^^

Of course I refute this xD
I can't give you my work as I never had the rax data. What you gave me (a few hundreds of posts earlier) were plots of raw data not the numerical data.
But I can give you a work the worldwide wommunity consideres as rather reliable:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Some Facts.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/

Key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 217 months from September 1996 to September 2014. That is more than half the 429-month satellite record.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø From August 2001 to August 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 1 month.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

There's no need to install any special software to do linear regression.  The functions are built in in Excel.

One more time,

The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.

Do you refute this?  If so, please show your work.  Otherwise, please stop trying to slide around direct questions.  It does not advance the discussion.

Also please try to think carefully before you post so that things you post actually make sense.

Thanks.

Ahah! You know that repeating something doesn't make it true?
Wanna prove you're right? Easy enough, install Regressi and simply derivate the raw data of temperature increase. If derivate is positive, temperature goes up. If derivate is negative, it goes down. That's what NASA did and they found a positive one. If you want to prove them wrong it's fucking easy to do it.

Well, let's see.  I have my handy textbook from the early 1900s with a complete chapter on Piltdown man.  I guess we can trust that, right?

And we can certainly trust all the progressive ideas from the 1920s and 1930s about Eugenics.

How about Lysenko?  Oh, you probably never heard of him.

Now go back to your condescending lecturing.  No, wait a minute.  

It just happens that ten years ago I was telling similar people with rocks for brains that the evidence seemed to indicate climate sensitivity was considerably lower than they thought science said it was.  They called me a Denier.  But I was right, and they were wrong.  So maybe you should STFU?

My experience is that people that make glossy, broad brush statements, particularly about "groups" as you do with your keen vision, in fact know very little, which is the reason they stick with broad statements.  If you would like to defend estimates of climate sensitivity from objective sources from 2006, be my guest.  However, I rather think you don't even know what the term means, how it is derived and used, or what relevance it has for the subject at hand.

Mild, diffuse forms of ad hominem are still ad hominem, and are still a way to lose the argument.

Anyone that wants can look up co2 enhancement of plant growth, because it is a standard subject for anyone using greenhouses - either commercial farming or as a hobby.  Beyond a doubt the absolute DUMBEST people talking on a subject like this are Warmistas, because they have to try to make the facts fit their theories, that CO2 is bad. 

The simple facts are that the effects of increased Co2 on plant growth is well understood and is a commercial reality.

The attempt by Warmistas to talk to the contrary is a denial of science.

^ globalist propaganda.