Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 74. (Read 636455 times)
There was pretty heavy snowfall in Saudi Arabia last week and first ever recorded snow 180 miles south of Hanoi in Vietnam, that´s 18 degrees North, snow on banana trees.
Wasnt 1991 an El-nino year too?
Ignore that data, it doesn't fit today's narrative. But save it, we may have use for it later. And keep paying attention, you can go far if you assist in making up the scary stories.<
Wasnt 1991 an El-nino year too?
Dumb... and getting dumber..
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/records-will-be-broken-with-ontarios-double-digit-temps/63098
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/records-will-be-broken-with-ontarios-double-digit-temps/63098
Quote
Thursday, February 4, 2016, 6:30 AM - Weather Network meteorologists said it was a guarantee, and it sure didn't take long before records started to fall across parts of southern Ontario Wednesday morning.
‘Experts’ Warn ‘Global Warming’ Is Making Pet Dogs Depressed
A leading “dog behaviourist” and an “animal behaviour counselor” have warned that “global warming” is responsible for a supposedly massive rise in bored and depressed pet dogs.
The “experts” said that “extreme” weather and a spate of wet winters was responsible for the tragic trend, which the Independent newspaper attributed to “decades of global warming”.
“I’ve been working with dogs for more than 20 years and I can’t remember a time when they’ve been this bored. I tend to see boredom in bursts but I’m seeing it chronically this winter”, said Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015.
Ms. Mentheth said that cold crisp winters had given way to “constant wet dreariness”, with the Independent explaining that, “she – like many scientists and meteorologists – puts this down to climate change and expects to see more bored dogs in the future as global warming unleashes increasingly frequent and intense bouts of winter rainfall.”
She said the dogs “are just really, really, bored” because “People are quite happy to get their dogs out in frosty, hard weather but not when it’s muddy and horrible.” The problem, therefore, is that dogs are not being walked enough, regardless of whether or not this is due to global warming.
However, Sarah Fisher, an animal behaviour counsellor with around two decades experience, has also said she had noticed a level of canine unrest that is unprecedented in her career.
“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years. Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’,” she said.
“We’re turning them out of their stables and they’re saying ‘Get me back in straight away’.
“They can’t settle, they look bored, but actually it’s to do with physical stress and mental boredom, they can’t go off quietly and graze because they keep sliding around the field,” Ms. Fisher added.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/05/experts-warn-global-warming-is-making-pet-dogs-depressed/
Wtf are you posting man? I mean I'm ok with this thread and all but wtf is that? xD
"My horse is depressed, must be because of global warming" yeah no link with the fact that your horse is 20 years old so maybe a bit bored cause close to death!!!!
Stupidity of humans sometimes...
Anyway it was funny to read.
Stupid and yet... very powerful people are changing our lives based on sad dogs and sad horses.
That little doggy looks sooo embarrassed. What a torture to wear that, I would imagine.
‘Experts’ Warn ‘Global Warming’ Is Making Pet Dogs Depressed
A leading “dog behaviourist” and an “animal behaviour counselor” have warned that “global warming” is responsible for a supposedly massive rise in bored and depressed pet dogs.
The “experts” said that “extreme” weather and a spate of wet winters was responsible for the tragic trend, which the Independent newspaper attributed to “decades of global warming”.
“I’ve been working with dogs for more than 20 years and I can’t remember a time when they’ve been this bored. I tend to see boredom in bursts but I’m seeing it chronically this winter”, said Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015.
Ms. Mentheth said that cold crisp winters had given way to “constant wet dreariness”, with the Independent explaining that, “she – like many scientists and meteorologists – puts this down to climate change and expects to see more bored dogs in the future as global warming unleashes increasingly frequent and intense bouts of winter rainfall.”
She said the dogs “are just really, really, bored” because “People are quite happy to get their dogs out in frosty, hard weather but not when it’s muddy and horrible.” The problem, therefore, is that dogs are not being walked enough, regardless of whether or not this is due to global warming.
However, Sarah Fisher, an animal behaviour counsellor with around two decades experience, has also said she had noticed a level of canine unrest that is unprecedented in her career.
“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years. Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’,” she said.
“We’re turning them out of their stables and they’re saying ‘Get me back in straight away’.
“They can’t settle, they look bored, but actually it’s to do with physical stress and mental boredom, they can’t go off quietly and graze because they keep sliding around the field,” Ms. Fisher added.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/05/experts-warn-global-warming-is-making-pet-dogs-depressed/
Wtf are you posting man? I mean I'm ok with this thread and all but wtf is that? xD
"My horse is depressed, must be because of global warming" yeah no link with the fact that your horse is 20 years old so maybe a bit bored cause close to death!!!!
Stupidity of humans sometimes...
Anyway it was funny to read.
‘Experts’ Warn ‘Global Warming’ Is Making Pet Dogs Depressed
A leading “dog behaviourist” and an “animal behaviour counselor” have warned that “global warming” is responsible for a supposedly massive rise in bored and depressed pet dogs.
The “experts” said that “extreme” weather and a spate of wet winters was responsible for the tragic trend, which the Independent newspaper attributed to “decades of global warming”.
“I’ve been working with dogs for more than 20 years and I can’t remember a time when they’ve been this bored. I tend to see boredom in bursts but I’m seeing it chronically this winter”, said Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015.
Ms. Mentheth said that cold crisp winters had given way to “constant wet dreariness”, with the Independent explaining that, “she – like many scientists and meteorologists – puts this down to climate change and expects to see more bored dogs in the future as global warming unleashes increasingly frequent and intense bouts of winter rainfall.”
She said the dogs “are just really, really, bored” because “People are quite happy to get their dogs out in frosty, hard weather but not when it’s muddy and horrible.” The problem, therefore, is that dogs are not being walked enough, regardless of whether or not this is due to global warming.
However, Sarah Fisher, an animal behaviour counsellor with around two decades experience, has also said she had noticed a level of canine unrest that is unprecedented in her career.
“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years. Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’,” she said.
“We’re turning them out of their stables and they’re saying ‘Get me back in straight away’.
“They can’t settle, they look bored, but actually it’s to do with physical stress and mental boredom, they can’t go off quietly and graze because they keep sliding around the field,” Ms. Fisher added.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/05/experts-warn-global-warming-is-making-pet-dogs-depressed/
300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/
10 Years Ago Today=> Al Gore.... junk scientist Al Gore ..... Al Gore Predicted Global Warming Armageddon ....junk scientist Al Gore released his award-winning movie ....
gore ice....Gore warned the Sundance audience...... Al Gore posited “within the next 10 years.....Rush Limbaugh discussed Gore’s planetary deadline...... Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free.....Gore made the prediction to a German audience.....Gore, once again, is exposed as......
Wait, so who is this guy?
ManBearPig
I'M SUPER DUPER CEREAL!! EXCELCIOR!!!
10 Years Ago Today=> Al Gore.... junk scientist Al Gore ..... Al Gore Predicted Global Warming Armageddon ....junk scientist Al Gore released his award-winning movie ....
gore ice....Gore warned the Sundance audience...... Al Gore posited “within the next 10 years.....Rush Limbaugh discussed Gore’s planetary deadline...... Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free.....Gore made the prediction to a German audience.....Gore, once again, is exposed as......
Wait, so who is this guy?
10 Years Ago Today=> Al Gore Predicted Global Warming Armageddon in 10 Years
Ten years ago today junk scientist Al Gore released his award-winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth” at the Sundance Film Festival.
10 Years Ago Today=> Al Gore Predicted Global Warming Armageddon in 10 Years
Ten years ago today junk scientist Al Gore released his award-winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth” at the Sundance Film Festival.
gore ice
Gore warned the Sundance audience, “Global warming is about to toast our ecology and our way of life.”
In January 2006, Al Gore posited “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency” due to global warming.
Of course, this turned out to be nothing more than PR bullsh*t to push his movie.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh discussed Gore’s planetary deadline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7vclCG1MJQ
Seven years ago — Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. That didn’t happen either.
Today Gore, once again, is exposed as being nothing more than a modern day snake oil salesman. Will the liberal media hold him to account?
Not likely.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/10-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-global-warming-armageddon-in-10-years/
They're just looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Can't blame them for wanting to be stars. I mean even stupid stars are still stars, right?
...
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
It's not a matter of belief, but where the facts and logic leads one. Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
Yes and every facts I saw everywhere lead to the conclusion that CO2, sea level, warming and human activities are linked, including the documents you added on the table. But I never saw any scientific work establishing the contrary. And you didn't show me any.
...
And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
It's not necessary to "refute links."And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
What is required is to establish a relationship between a cause, and an effect. That hasn't been done. That's the different between asserting A could cause B, and A certainly causes B. The party making the claim is the one that must substantiate the claim. Here that is you, making the claim that CO2 increases increase extreme weather.
As an example, suppose Al Gore made a claim. You believed it. Then I suggest that the scientific literature does not support the claim. You say "But it doesn't REFUTE the claim!"
That's nonsense.
Do you know how to read? I said "they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link." don't just cut half of my sentence so it doesn't make any sense. Of course if you cut what I say in two it's less logical...
They're not 100% sure of the link. And I have no problem with you saying "we're not sure", I've a problem with you saying "we know it's false". But they do establish a correlation, they're just not totally sure it's right. If you're waiting for 100% sure results... Well you gonna wait long, cause it's impossible with something so complex such as weather.
Okay, fine. But if you go around claiming that "There's a link" you should expect to be criticized and asked to prove your claim.
Unless, of course, you were on Reddit Climate.
...
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
It's not a matter of belief, but where the facts and logic leads one. Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
Yes and every facts I saw everywhere lead to the conclusion that CO2, sea level, warming and human activities are linked, including the documents you added on the table. But I never saw any scientific work establishing the contrary. And you didn't show me any.
...
And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
It's not necessary to "refute links."And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
What is required is to establish a relationship between a cause, and an effect. That hasn't been done. That's the different between asserting A could cause B, and A certainly causes B. The party making the claim is the one that must substantiate the claim. Here that is you, making the claim that CO2 increases increase extreme weather.
As an example, suppose Al Gore made a claim. You believed it. Then I suggest that the scientific literature does not support the claim. You say "But it doesn't REFUTE the claim!"
That's nonsense.
Do you know how to read? I said "they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link." don't just cut half of my sentence so it doesn't make any sense. Of course if you cut what I say in two it's less logical...
They're not 100% sure of the link. And I have no problem with you saying "we're not sure", I've a problem with you saying "we know it's false". But they do establish a correlation, they're just not totally sure it's right. If you're waiting for 100% sure results... Well you gonna wait long, cause it's impossible with something so complex such as weather.
...
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
It's not a matter of belief, but where the facts and logic leads one. Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
...
And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
It's not necessary to "refute links."And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
What is required is to establish a relationship between a cause, and an effect. That hasn't been done. That's the different between asserting A could cause B, and A certainly causes B. The party making the claim is the one that must substantiate the claim. Here that is you, making the claim that CO2 increases increase extreme weather.
As an example, suppose Al Gore made a claim. You believed it. Then I suggest that the scientific literature does not support the claim. You say "But it doesn't REFUTE the claim!"
That's nonsense.
Well, let's examine this.
First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument. Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations. So then you got them. Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather."
Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document. Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS. And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that. You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."
I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it. Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible. But science is always evolving.
Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.
Here, your arguments have been refuted. Go deal with it. No reason to get mad at me.
First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument. Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations. So then you got them. Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather."
Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document. Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS. And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that. You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."
I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it. Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible. But science is always evolving.
Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.
Here, your arguments have been refuted. Go deal with it. No reason to get mad at me.
Sure xD
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather, they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link.
"Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted."
Of course you can! With pleasure! You can discuss all you want if you bring any kind of start of proof =)
No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions." It's not. The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.
A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right. I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong. See? You're wrong."
Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.
Dude... I gave you the link to the summary of the report, it's not 1000 pages but 33, with 3 presentation pages and 2 blanks so only 28 pages long, you can surely read 28 pages can't you? xD
Regardless, the important information are in orange at the end of each part.
And don't turn the tables!
You're the one who brought this report here! You're the one who claimed that it was here to prove that I was wrong! And now that I took the time to actually read it and show you that the report in fact tells exactly the contrary you suddenly say that "it's just a report made for politicians, it doesn't prove anything".
Now if that's not bad faith I don't know what it is xD
And you wouldn't ban me, fair enough. I provide only logical arguments backed with what I think are reliable sources. You on the contrary only deny my sources saying "they're lying" and when I turn your own sources against you you deny them too. So I think I would have banned you from reddit too, cause you don't bring anything good here.
First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument. Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations. So then you got them. Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather."
Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document. Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS. And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that. You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."
I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it. Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible. But science is always evolving.
Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.
Here, your arguments have been refuted. Go deal with it. No reason to get mad at me.
No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions." It's not. The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.
A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right. I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong. See? You're wrong."
Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.
Dude... I gave you the link to the summary of the report, it's not 1000 pages but 33, with 3 presentation pages and 2 blanks so only 28 pages long, you can surely read 28 pages can't you? xD
Regardless, the important information are in orange at the end of each part.
And don't turn the tables!
You're the one who brought this report here! You're the one who claimed that it was here to prove that I was wrong! And now that I took the time to actually read it and show you that the report in fact tells exactly the contrary you suddenly say that "it's just a report made for politicians, it doesn't prove anything".
Now if that's not bad faith I don't know what it is xD
And you wouldn't ban me, fair enough. I provide only logical arguments backed with what I think are reliable sources. You on the contrary only deny my sources saying "they're lying" and when I turn your own sources against you you deny them too. So I think I would have banned you from reddit too, cause you don't bring anything good here.
Dude I had a party last night and then I slept :p
I don't want to talk anymore. The report you showed me explains in detail:
-The incredible warming record of the last 19 years
-The rise of sea levels (linked to CO2)
-The impact of humans on CO2 levels
-The impact of CO2 on temperature
The report YOU showed me talk only about that. There is not a word on natural disaster (contrary to what the lying article is saying).
Just go and read the report. You gave me the proof on every point I made. You just don't want to admit it.
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on reddit simply because you're trolling. Discussing imits of measures, or influences made on scientists is interesting. Giving me a report proving all my points then saying "see you're wrong" is just trolling.
I don't want to go further because we can't go further. You proved my points yourself. You just don't want to admit it.
Read the summary of the report, it's 12 pages long and it explains perfectly everything I tried to proove you. It also completly reject your ideas like "there was no warming in last 2 decades" or "there is no proof between CO2 and any human impact".
Just assume what you proved.
I don't want to talk anymore. The report you showed me explains in detail:
-The incredible warming record of the last 19 years
-The rise of sea levels (linked to CO2)
-The impact of humans on CO2 levels
-The impact of CO2 on temperature
The report YOU showed me talk only about that. There is not a word on natural disaster (contrary to what the lying article is saying).
Just go and read the report. You gave me the proof on every point I made. You just don't want to admit it.
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on reddit simply because you're trolling. Discussing imits of measures, or influences made on scientists is interesting. Giving me a report proving all my points then saying "see you're wrong" is just trolling.
I don't want to go further because we can't go further. You proved my points yourself. You just don't want to admit it.
Read the summary of the report, it's 12 pages long and it explains perfectly everything I tried to proove you. It also completly reject your ideas like "there was no warming in last 2 decades" or "there is no proof between CO2 and any human impact".
Just assume what you proved.
No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions." It's not. The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.
A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right. I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong. See? You're wrong."
Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.
Jump to: