Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Ron~Popeil]

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose?

Nothing!  It's a wonderful idea!  Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state.  Total povery,disease and death continue as before.  What have we lost?  Nothing, because we don't live there.  What have we gained?  The continuance of a third world economy.

<<sarcasm>>

You kinda hit the nail right on the head there. Every pet project by the climate true believers has devastating consequences for western economies and by extension are even more dire for developing economies. People on the margins in the third world die when gas prices jump just a bit. I like to think the true believers are simply ignorant about the real human suffering they are proposing, if it isn't simple ignorance it is something much darker.   

[1714953772]

1714953772

[1714953772]

1714953772

[1714953772]

1714953772

[1714953772]

1714953772

[Wilikon]

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose?

Nothing!  It's a wonderful idea!  Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state.  Total povery,disease and death continue as before.  What have we lost?  Nothing, because we don't live there.  What have we gained?  The continuance of a third world economy.

<<sarcasm>>

You kinda hit the nail right on the head there. Every pet project by the climate true believers has devastating consequences for western economies and by extension are even more dire for developing economies. People on the margins in the third world die when gas prices jump just a bit. I like to think the true believers are simply ignorant about the real human suffering they are proposing, if it isn't simple ignorance it is something much darker.   

My vote is for 'darker...'

[Schleicher]

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose?

Nothing!  It's a wonderful idea!  Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state.  Total povery,disease and death continue as before.  What have we lost?  Nothing, because we don't live there.  What have we gained?  The continuance of a third world economy.
<<sarcasm>>

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

[Spendulus]

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose?

Nothing!  It's a wonderful idea!  Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state.  Total povery,disease and death continue as before.  What have we lost?  Nothing, because we don't live there.  What have we gained?  The continuance of a third world economy.

<<sarcasm>>

You kinda hit the nail right on the head there. Every pet project by the climate true believers has devastating consequences for western economies and by extension are even more dire for developing economies. People on the margins in the third world die when gas prices jump just a bit. I like to think the true believers are simply ignorant about the real human suffering they are proposing, if it isn't simple ignorance it is something much darker.   

My vote is for 'darker...'

Well, let's here from their side on this take on the matter.  And I must mention, that silence...is an answer...

[Wilikon]

Global Warmist, Heal Thyself



The global warming fear mongers are at it again.

But twice recently they’ve been caught in the act. Not only are they lying, they’re so desperate that they’re starting to look ridiculous.

“Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year—twice as much as when it was last surveyed,” reports the U.K.’s University of Leeds. “A team of scientists from the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, led by researchers at the University of Leeds, have produced the first complete assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change.”

Like you, I’m suspicious of any group of scientists that live in a “kingdom” that can’t even practice general dentistry correctly.

Or health care.
Or, apparently, math.
The press release goes on to say that the ice melt could contribute to an increase in “global sea levels by 0.45 millimetres each year alone.”

That figure is really not that impressive, especially when you understand that it means about a 2 inch rise over 100 years.

But what’s really impressive about the figure is that it’s just not true.

From climate website Watts Up With That?:

 Sanity Check:
From Climatesanity: Conversion factors for ice and water mass and volume

If one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) is spread evenly over the entire 361 million square kilometers, the thickness of the new layer of water will be given by:

1km3 /361x106km2 =2.78x10-6 meters = 2.78 microns.

Or, in terms of gigatonnes:

1Gt x (1km3/Gt) /361x106km2 = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns / Gt

That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!

From the press release, we are seeing about 159 billion tons/year of ice convert- ed to meltwater (unless it sublimates), so the effect on sea level would be 159/1000 or 0.159 x 3 millionths of a meter, or 0.477 millionths of meter of sea level rise per year from this.

I’ll leave it to the highly trained scientist at the University of Leeds to convert the millionths of a meter into inches for you. But it’s my strong recommendation you not allow them to do your taxes.

But hold on there, pardners, we’re not done yet.

We can at least agree, as we’ve been told for years, that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man, right? I mean, that’s indisputable.

Then why are the scientists so eager to hide their data?

“The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming,” reports the Daily Caller.

It seems a blogger has gotten ahold of the primary data used in the research, and the data suggests that far from having a consensus that global warming is entirely manmade, scientists are still skeptical.

This is not the first time that critics have questioned the results of that study. A catalog of studies in a report pub- lished by Science & Education shows that a little more than one quarter of 1 percent of all studies conclude that glob- al warming is entirely man-made, says the Daily Caller.

“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed,” says statistician Dr. William Briggs in a press release accompanying the report. “That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

And here’s what I know about people who lie: they are liars.

Some people lie for profit, some people lie for power, and some people just lie for the fun of it. I suspect in the global warming crowd there’s a small group of people who are liars, with the large admixture of people who are just believers.

But among believers in history, even Thomas had doubts.

It is up to the faithful, the believers, the ideologues, to cast out the liars.

The people who should be offended by these ploys, stratagems, and sophistications are those who believe deeply in the science of global warming.

But until they cast out the liars, their faith counts for nothing.

After all, it is just another lie.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/07/10/global-warmist-heal-thyself-n1857410?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

[scryptasicminer]

Lots of facts and fictions and I am not sure a common folk will understand them.

What I do know is this, even if global warming is true, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

[Wilikon]

Everyone Will Get Kidney Stones Because of Global Warming…


The hotter it gets, the more people seek treatment for kidney stones, according to a new study that also predicts climate change may make this painful condition even more prevalent in the future.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found a relationship between the number of hot days in a year and the risk of kidney stones in patients of several U.S. cities. As daily temperatures rose above 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), the risk of kidney stones increased in some residents of Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Philadelphia, but not in Los Angeles, which was also included in the study.

“We found that as daily temperatures rise, there is a rapid increase in the probability of patients presenting over the next 20 days with kidney stones,” study author Dr. Gregory E. Tasian, a pediatric urologist and epidemiologist at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a statement.

“These findings point to potential public health effects associated with global climate change,” Tasian said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hot-weather-and-climate-change-raise-risk-of-kidney-stones-study/

[hdbuck]

Lots of facts and fictions and I am not sure a common folk will understand them.
What I do know is this, even if MAN-MADE-global warming is true, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

Hum earth might be warming. But the critical point resides whether it's caused by human. *sigh *caugh *caugh

[Spendulus]

.....

The people who should be offended by these ploys, stratagems, and sophistications are those who believe deeply in the science of global warming.

But until they cast out the liars, their faith counts for nothing.

After all, it is just another lie.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/07/10/global-warmist-heal-thyself-n1857410?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

You illustrate not the solution, but the problem.

Science is not a paradigm of human activity which operates by "belief", lies, ploys or stratagems.

[Wilikon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html

[Spendulus]

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose?

Nothing!  It's a wonderful idea!  Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state.  Total povery,disease and death continue as before.  What have we lost?  Nothing, because we don't live there.  What have we gained?  The continuance of a third world economy.
<<sarcasm>>

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing.  The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization.  Based on power, yes.

The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'.

It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside.

[Schleicher]

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing.  The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization.  Based on power, yes.
The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'.
It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Africa is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.
The good thing about 'green' energy is that you don't need to transport lots of stuff around. Like coal.
This means you can produce energy just about anywhere. Even when there are no proper streets.

[Ron~Popeil]

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing.  The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization.  Based on power, yes.
The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'.
It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Africa is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.
The good thing about 'green' energy is that you don't need to transport lots of stuff around. Like coal.
This means you can produce energy just about anywhere. Even when there are no proper streets.

So should we expect an entire continent of economically disenfranchised people to wait for "green" energy to become economically feasible? How many will die between now and then of entirely preventable causes? How many lives are destroyed every single day that could be saved by a modernized infrastructure or modern food production methods? Do you think that might be just a small part of why it is easy to recruit people willing to die if they can take just a few of us with them? 

[Wilikon]

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing.  The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization.  Based on power, yes.
The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'.
It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Africa is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.
The good thing about 'green' energy is that you don't need to transport lots of stuff around. Like coal.
This means you can produce energy just about anywhere. Even when there are no proper streets.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Europe is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Asia is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
South America is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.

Spoken like a true green energy believer, sipping wine from his private jet while flying 41 000 ft above the African continent...

[Spendulus]

So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas?
I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more.
I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt.

I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing.  The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization.  Based on power, yes.
The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'.
It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside.

I don't think that more centralization is good.
Africa is BIG. There's lots of space. Everything is far away.
The good thing about 'green' energy is that you don't need to transport lots of stuff around. Like coal.
This means you can produce energy just about anywhere. Even when there are no proper streets.

Well, first of all, let me say I have been to subsaharan Africa and know a little bit about it.  Enough to make the comment I did make to you.  I felt it was important to clarify, not the abstract "fossil fuel versus renewable" issue but the specific, "bring Africa out of the third world".  

It's fairly clear that there is a sentiment among environmentalists that Africa can be left in the third world, maybe they can get notebooks and internet in their bush villages, maybe some medical help from the wealthy nations, but basic infrastructure such as power plants....NYET!

The existence of this sentiment is IMHO quite interesting.  It essentially says "Let some there die for the greater good of mankind, as the threat to the planet of burning fossil fuels outweighs their self-interest."

Clarify any of the above if I have made errors, if you like.  By the way I like more decentalization, also.  

But power is essential to industry, and industry by it's nature is centralized.  For example, an aluminum plant might do well to locate itself next to a powerplant.  So the general idea of a powerplant, yes, ran on coal, next to a city, which includes both civilian and industrial uses of power, can be supported as a necessary feature of moving an area from third world to first world.

Otherwise it would seem that we make an experiment of the third world.  But green power has not, anywhere, shown itself capable of running serious industrial scale operations, nor cities.  Therefore, we would make that experiment with a near certainty of failure, which would impact them, not us.

[Wilikon]

Climate Expert Refuses To Shake Hands With Professor Because He’s A Global Warming Skeptic…

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama here, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0

[Ron~Popeil]

Climate Expert Refuses To Shake Hands With Professor Because He’s A Global Warming Skeptic…

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama here, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0

It is really telling that the climate kook aid sippers ostracize people that simply disagree with them. Sound science demands debate and disagreement. The goal is to disprove your hypothesis. These people have become evangelicals.

[NewLiberty]

Bears repeating:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman

[Spendulus]

Climate Expert Refuses To Shake Hands With Professor Because He’s A Global Warming Skeptic…

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama here, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0

It is really telling that the climate kook aid sippers ostracize people that simply disagree with them. Sound science demands debate and disagreement. The goal is to disprove your hypothesis. These people have become evangelicals.

Of course, it could well be the case that the man wouldn't shake Christy's hand not because he was one of the kooks or KoolAid sippers, but was afraid of them and what they could do to him.

This is actually a more alarming probability.

[Schleicher]

So should we expect an entire continent of economically disenfranchised people to wait for "green" energy to become economically feasible? How many will die between now and then of entirely preventable causes? How many lives are destroyed every single day that could be saved by a modernized infrastructure or modern food production methods?

Yeah, let's just concentrate on the big cities. Ignore the rural areas. Good plan. </irony>
It's already economically feasible for rural areas.
Of course if you want aluminum production or other energy intensive things you need big power plants.
I wouldn't choose coal if there are other options.
But maybe we should ask the people first about what they really want, instead of making assumptions.

Do you think that might be just a small part of why it is easy to recruit people willing to die if they can take just a few of us with them? 

I can't remember any suicide bombers from Africa.