Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 84. (Read 636443 times)

So is this all you do, when you are challenged on an assertion, is change the subject?

meanwhile, unlimited cow farts methane leak much in cali?

I'm sweating just thinking about it. xD



Do I really need to spell out the meaning of the term, "disinfo campaign" ?

Whatever the (amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun) number is.. it should be considered a historical constant. Nothing that is natural will cause a billion sources of 400F heat to just trek the globe like that.

Btw... what do your sources/disinfo agents have to say about the EMF fields generated by every one of your fatmobiles ?

If you doubt what I said, let's just take total energy from the sun, total energy used by man in a recent year, and compare them.

These sorts of numbers are available.

 

Rio, which popped out 'Agenda 21', was a 20 year follow-on to a conference in Stockholm.  This shindig produced a delightful propaganda film called 'The Survival of Spaceship Earth' (and written by our current 'science czar' Holdren interestingly.)

One of the more interesting things about this film was that the concept of anthropogenic global warming was there but in a crude form which, as you point out, makes no sense from a basic thermodynamics point of view.  That deficiency was polished up to involve carbon dioxide by the time 1992 rolled around.  Now, 20 years on, it is pretty clear that this new and improved story-line also is bunk.

Aaron's condensation of the original 'spaceship earth' film happens to include a clip of the dude promising to study 'heat pollution'...with Rockefeller money no doubt...

http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/05/30/survival-of-spaceship-earth-the-ultimate-rockefeller-depopulation-propaganda-film/



The only time I've been impressed by the phenomenon was when I was waiting at a red light directly behind an M1A1 Abrams.  And more precisely, when the light turned green.

I forgot to include that in there.. lol

And besides, the smogheads almost never feel it because they almost always have their windows rolled up..

The same can be/should be said about EVERY movement and cause ... including this false hope of a cryptofiat movement..

Use a bike. Fossil fuel is evil.

Those controlled opposition folks are almost as creative as I am.. haha

I guess you have never had the pleasure of experiencing what it is like to feel the 400-600F heat exhaust of a car/truck/bus as it washes over you while stuck at a red light EDIT - ON YOUR BIKE.

This user has a pseudo thank you and I'm not taking your quote out of context... Or at least I don't think I did. Maybe I didn't understand perfectly as a non native English speaker (better stay humble).

And sig spamming has nothing to do with that thank you. I came on this thread much before I entered Yobit campaign. And I don't think posts in off topic or Politics & Society count. And I don't really care, I just wanted to put again the right translation of Newton's law that's all.

So thanks for the beautiful translation from latin to english notbatman  


But but but but... I'm a human  
Perhaps not a very smart one but I still have soul! (╯°□°)╯

Now that you point that out I'd say the grammar and sentence structure does indicate an AI spam bot. I was thinking it was just an ESL user but a sig spamming AI bot makes more sense. Make money and disrupt the thread; very clever, too clever. Perhaps it's the works of a team of overpaid psychopathic bureaucrats with unlimited resources pushing a massive scam on an unsuspecting and gullible public they see as nothing more than farm animals and doing it in such a way that it provides plausible deniability.

Meanwhile, this assertion of yours...

What do you think happens to all of that heat being generated by the billions of motors, engines, exhaust manifolds ect. ?

Why isn't this so called environmental movement talking about it ?

Is ridiculous, the aggregate heat output of man does not and will not increase the temperature of the planet.  Although in certain areaas we see effects, and it is talked about - the so called "urban heat island" effect.  That's been well studied.

So that must explain why my ignore list is filled with sig spammers.

That user is purposely taking my quote out of context because he/she needed the easy post and/or is a climate denier and/or a controlled opposition shill.

The exact translation of Newton's 3^rd Law is actually: "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

Original text: "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi."

This can be simplified to: "All forces come in pairs". The "equal and directed to contrary parts" bit is more of a general rule than a law as there are cases where force pairs are concurrent.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

The whole debate is really American so I won't take position, but I wanted to tell you that the correct enunciation of Newton's law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

With love.

xxx

Obomba needs to include grade "A" morons and his own peace prize buying ass because they must have failed science class. xD

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction CONTROLLED OPPOSTION."

What do you think happens to all of that heat being generated by the billions of motors, engines, exhaust manifolds ect. ?

Why isn't this so called environmental movement talking about it ?

Are Climate Skeptics Too ‘Mentally Ill’ to Buy Guns Under Obama’s New Rules?



Today, Pres. Obama announced new executive orders on gun control designed to keep “mentally ill” people from buying guns – but, will they be used to prevent climate skeptics from buying firearms?

Under Obama’s new rules, doctors can now report people deemed “mentally ill” to the FBI so they can be denied gun licenses.

As the official White House fact sheet on the new gun control regulations states (emphasis added):

    “Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.”

If, as Pres. Obama has repeatedly claimed, climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, then aren’t people who deny the climate threat “a danger to themselves or others” and unfit to own guns?

The idea that climate skeptics are mentally ill is nothing new:

Oregon-based professor of "sociology and environmental studies" Kari Norgaard has declared climate skepticism a mental illness that must be “treated.”

Psychology Today published an article listing three warning signs that you are in “climate change denial”:

    “You think climate change is bad, but not that bad.”
    “You don’t have an emotional reaction to climate change.”
    “You aren’t getting political.”

Thus, if you don’t think the climate threat is great enough, or you’re not furious about it, or you’re not politically active in the climate fight, then you’ve got mental issues.

The Telegraph’s “Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder” explains how so-call “eco-psychologists” convened at the University of the West of England in Bristol to explore classifying “climate change denial” as a “mental disorder.”

Nature.com published an article warning about high-carbon “addiction” (using central heating, etc.)

And remember when Obama's EPA Chief Gina McCarthy declared that climate skeptics aren’t “normal” people?

So, you might want to think twice before discussing the nearly two-decade pause in global warming with your doctor the next time you go in for your annual check-up.

Editor's Add-On: ClimateDepot.com reports that one NYU professor even wants to genetically alter humans to make them more eco-friendly.


http://www.mrctv.org/blog/are-climate-skeptics-too-mentally-ill-buy-guns-under-obama-s-new-rules

Or, such as in my case, I said 10 years ago that climate sensitivity was likely 1/3 of what the Faithful Believers said, what the climate alarmists shrilly proclaimed.  This was based on math and statistics - analysis.

So they gleefully called me a denier.

But they were wrong, and I was right.

Now, many of them still have not accepted evidence today of lower climate sensitivity.

Who is the denier?

Well, a mistake in itself.
Denier is a strong word, used essentially to talk about the Shoah deniers, people believing nazis never killed all those people and that extermination camps don't exist.

So denier is not a good word for what we're talking about. Cause there is not such a huge and solid proof for climate change.

But I still think, from what I know, that most people being "deniers" are still a bit mindlessly obstinate ^^
They are people saying the impact of mankind on environment is not that big because "you don't know maybe it would have happened anyway!" 

(and most of them are American! xD )