Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Anon136]

I think climate change was only a theory when it was first presented via the media, back in the late 1970's or early 1980's(i think it was around that time).


There are still people who do not think that man ever went into outer space.

There are people who do not believe that man went to the moon, and they think that was all a hollywood con job.

There are people who still think the world is flat and not round.

what no mention of the people who believe that there is a magical invisible man in the sky who demonstrated the epitome of virtue by murdering his son to save us from a fate that he chose to impose upon us to begin with?

thats wayyyyy crazier than a flat earth. atleast the earth looks flat.

[AnonyMint]

Now there can't be any doubt! 

[Wilikon]

  Should climate change deniers be eliminated?

[Spendulus]

Should climate change deniers be eliminated?

Think of the number of jobs, the budget, the new agency to accomplish this important task!

[Wilikon]

Should climate change deniers be eliminated?

Think of the number of jobs, the budget, the new agency to accomplish this important task!

The windmills could power the Soylent Green factories...

[Spendulus]

I think climate change was only a theory when it was first presented via the media, back in the late 1970's or early 1980's(i think it was around that time).


There are still people who do not think that man ever went into outer space.

There are people who do not believe that man went to the moon, and they think that was all a hollywood con job.

There are people who still think the world is flat and not round.

what no mention of the people who believe that there is a magical invisible man in the sky who demonstrated the epitome of virtue by murdering his son to save us from a fate that he chose to impose upon us to begin with?

thats wayyyyy crazier than a flat earth. atleast the earth looks flat.

And then there are the people who believed in hope and in change and in obamacare.

Well, looks like we all have to believe in something.

[Wilikon]

[...]
And the large values simply don't work very well. With a high value for solar influence, nearly three hundred of the 1,000 years of the comparison failed to line up—the model output failed to match the historical record. In contrast, with a low value of solar influence, the number of mismatched years was cut by more than half. There was also an extended period at the start of the last millennium where the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures were high (commonly called the Medieval Warm Period), yet the solar activity was relatively low.

Doing a fingerprint analysis, which identifies the climate influences that produce the climate changes we actually measure, researchers showed that volcanoes and greenhouse gasses were the largest influences on the climate over the last 1,000 years, with greenhouse gasses playing a role even before their recent rise due to industrialization. In addition, they find that volcanic eruptions have both a short-term impact on climate (which was known) as well as a longer-term cooling impact.

Clearly, this study is limited by being focused on the Northern Hemisphere, when what we generally care about is the global effect. If solar activity did have a strong global influence, however, there should be periods where at least some of that effect was apparent in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also limited by being focused on a single climate model. The authors confirmed that a second model produced similar results, and they note that the fingerprint analysis depends only on the timing of changes, and not their magnitude. As a result, they "conclude that large solar forcing is inconsistent with reconstructions of climate of the past millennium."

That doesn't mean that the Sun couldn't force changes if its activity shifted more significantly than it has over the last thousand years or so. But that period includes both the Maunder and Dalton minimums, which are periods of exceptionally low activity in the historical record. It also doesn't rule out solar activity driving regional changes that are swamped when averaging across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/solar-variability-has-a-small-effect-on-climate-change/

[Spendulus]

[...]...

Doing a fingerprint analysis,.....

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/solar-variability-has-a-small-effect-on-climate-change/

Never, ever believe these clowns when they try to use the phrase "fingerprint analysis".

It's been something of an ongoing argument as to why the Sun's effect seems more pronounced than just a simple counting of watts impacting land and air.  The changes in that watt count year to year or solar cycle to solar cycle are small. 

Recent studies by CERN have partly validated the argument that cloud cover is affected by the electromagnetic and particle output of the Sun.

In other words, 'solar variability' is not the right measure, as defined.  Rather one needs to ask along the lines of 'the full impact of the Sun on Earth's climate', which turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer.

In fact, AGW is full of very simple questions that we don't have anywhere near complete answers for.  What is the albedo of the earth?  What is the ocean heat content?  What is the effect of the Sun?  How do these factors change?

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

[Wilikon]

[...]...

Doing a fingerprint analysis,.....

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/solar-variability-has-a-small-effect-on-climate-change/

Never, ever believe these clowns when they try to use the phrase "fingerprint analysis".

It's been something of an ongoing argument as to why the Sun's effect seems more pronounced than just a simple counting of watts impacting land and air.  The changes in that watt count year to year or solar cycle to solar cycle are small. 

Recent studies by CERN have partly validated the argument that cloud cover is affected by the electromagnetic and particle output of the Sun.

In other words, 'solar variability' is not the right measure, as defined.  Rather one needs to ask along the lines of 'the full impact of the Sun on Earth's climate', which turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer.

In fact, AGW is full of very simple questions that we don't have anywhere near complete answers for.  What is the albedo of the earth?  What is the ocean heat content?  What is the effect of the Sun?  How do these factors change?

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

So... Are you saying the science is NOT settled??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

[Spendulus]

.....
So... Are you saying the science is NOT settled??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

LOL...

The human brain has a tendency to find organization and meaning where there is none, effectively there is no difference between reading chicken bones or tea leaves or tarot cards, and making simplified conclusions from selected sciency factoids.

That's a tendency we all have to cope with, you know.

That "science is settled" sort of talk needs to STFU.

Regarding my comments about the CERN experiments, here is one of the lead researchers being interviewed:

Let’s assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?

I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We don’t know.

[Spendulus]

The windmills could power the Soylent Green factories...

Next month's magazine headline:

Surprising Flavor in Taylor!

[Raize]

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

That's what I'm hoping for. Right now I'm having a hard time discerning between the typical climatology whitepaper and pseudo-science. I keep coming back to the demarcation problem of science every time I read a report saying CO2, Methane, etc. levels have X impact and they don't even account one iota of solar radiation. I can't help but immediately think of the whole correlation != causation mantra, yet these alarming cries are still rampant in every corner of global warming research. I want to see SCIENCE, not hear Chicken Little.

[Spendulus]

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

That's what I'm hoping for. Right now I'm having a hard time discerning between the typical climatology whitepaper and pseudo-science.....

Probably because there are not the likes of Einstein in the so called 'climate science' field.  In fact somewhere I read that there was a striking difference between the intellectual status of physics phd candidates and those in the earth sciences, which roughly means 'climate science'.

I mean, what kind of person would decide to spend his life researching polar bears, anyway.

[Wilikon]

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

That's what I'm hoping for. Right now I'm having a hard time discerning between the typical climatology whitepaper and pseudo-science.....

Probably because there are not the likes of Einstein in the so called 'climate science' field.  In fact somewhere I read that there was a striking difference between the intellectual status of physics phd candidates and those in the earth sciences, which roughly means 'climate science'.

I mean, what kind of person would decide to spend his life researching polar bears, anyway.

Someone who loves to get paid to do "research"?

An Iowa State University professor resigned after admitting he falsely claimed rabbit blood could be turned into a vaccine for the AIDS virus.

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han spiked a clinical test sample with healthy human blood to make it appear that the rabbit serum produced disease-fighting antibodies, officials said.

The bogus findings helped Han’s team obtain $19 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health, said James Bradac, who oversees the institutes’ AIDS research.

The remarkable findings were reported in scientific journals but raised suspicions when other researchers could not duplicate Han’s results.

The NIH uncovered the scam when it checked the rabbit serum at a lab and found the human antibodies.

Han resigned from his university post as an assistant professor of biomedical studies in October. His case came to light this week when it was reported in the Federal Register.

Han agreed last month not to seek government contracts for three years, the register said.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/professor-admits-faking-aids-vaccine-to-get-19m-in-grants/

[Spendulus]

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

That's what I'm hoping for. Right now I'm having a hard time discerning between the typical climatology whitepaper and pseudo-science.....

Probably because there are not the likes of Einstein in the so called 'climate science' field.  In fact somewhere I read that there was a striking difference between the intellectual status of physics phd candidates and those in the earth sciences, which roughly means 'climate science'.

I mean, what kind of person would decide to spend his life researching polar bears, anyway.

Someone who loves to get paid to do "research"?

An Iowa State University professor resigned after admitting he falsely claimed rabbit blood could be turned into a vaccine for the AIDS virus......

But now if you were in fact a polar bear researcher, and you did in fact falsify data on bears drowning, saying it was likely to increase and it was a dire consequence of the Big Warming Coming....you'd get away with it, and then you'd retire, and you'd get paid off Big.

Note, this is a complicated story and there may be several sides to it.  But I think we're cool on saying this guy helped develop the Polar Bears Dying myth, and the Believers Protect Their Own.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-data-on-drowned-polar-bears-retires.html

[Snowfire]

But now if you were in fact a polar bear researcher, and you did in fact falsify data on bears drowning....

Accusations do not constitute proof of malfeasance. In fact, the link you provided contains the following sentence:

Following the investigation, BOEM ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct.

Sometimes one must read past the headlines.

[Spendulus]

But now if you were in fact a polar bear researcher, and you did in fact falsify data on bears drowning....

Accusations do not constitute proof of malfeasance. In fact, the link you provided contains the following sentence:

Following the investigation, BOEM ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct.

Sometimes one must read past the headlines.

I agree, and I qualified my comment previously made to account for the issues in this case.  (From my prior post:  Note, this is a complicated story and there may be several sides to it.  But I think we're cool on saying this guy helped develop the Polar Bears Dying myth, and the Believers Protect Their Own.)

From the source:

....They said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They said their findings suggested drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the regression of pack ice or periods of longer open water continues. The observations helped make the polar bear a symbol for the climate change movement.

Following the investigation, BOEM ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But Monnett was reprimanded for improper release of emails that were later used by an appeals court to strike down an Arctic oil and gas exploration plan approved by BOEM.

But what we are looking at here is the purposeful creation and propagation of a myth - the polar bears/global warming myth - and we're looking at the original source of that myth.

Granted, big money interests took it up and ran with it.  And everyone who protested was just told to STFU.

Because the science was settled, right?

Wrong.

And relating this back to the OP....Someone that had argued against the Polar Bear Myth would have been branded a Denier, and banned from Reddit.  Right?

Right.

[Phrenico]

There are two things being postulated:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Climate change is caused by humans

People who question B. but accept A. still get brushed as "climate change deniers".

I would add

C. Climate change is going to have more bad consequences than good ones

D. The best method for solving the problem is "power to the state!"

It is simply not enough to be confident about A, relatively confident about B, then assume that anybody who questions C and D are "anti-science". I work in science and know many in various fields who take C and D for granted.

[Spendulus]

There are two things being postulated:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Climate change is caused by humans

People who question B. but accept A. still get brushed as "climate change deniers".

I would add

C. Climate change is going to have more bad consequences than good ones

D. The best method for solving the problem is "power to the state!"

It is simply not enough to be confident about A, relatively confident about B, then assume that anybody who questions C and D are "anti-science". I work in science and know many in various fields who take C and D for granted.

I am curious, those who you refer to as 'taking C and D for granted'.

Are those people who are basically predisposed to 'big government solutions' pretty much no matter what the issue or problem was?

It would be more indicative of sound scientific thinking, if for example, you had libertarian scientists asserting C and D, than liberal progressives.

[Wilikon]

Is any research looking into the PROOF of global warming made by humans pushed by politic/faith and not Science?