Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

OK, I finally got off my ass and started studying this thing.  I've always been of the opinion that human activity is certainly impacting CO2 ratios and probably is making some contribution to global tempertures, but in scientific and engineering terms this is not a very meaningful thing.  Magnitudes are everything.  I've also long been of the opinion that the environmentalist side is leveraging things to achieve semi-non-related objectives (just as I have that there are special interests on the other side as well.)  But until I study things I won't know how much.
....

Not many people actually study it, and few of those succeed in understanding.  The deck is stacked, and not just for political reasons.  It's basically difficult for the human mind to take a random walk data pattern, separate the underlying trends, and then not fall prey to thinking he can essentially use linear projection to predict the future.    I think at that level it's a similar problem to predicting the stock market.  It is fundamentally chaotic behavior.

Don't forget basic meteorology, 101 style college level.  99% of the people talking like they know climate don't even know weather.

LOL...

Even before weather (which both sides seem to use unfairly sometimes) there is a simple framing of the actual problem.  Does water vapor act as a positive or negative feedback.

The fact that pretty much all of the models are proving quite wrong so far on the 'panic now' side indicates to me that the fraud on the 'warmist' side is significant.

Before I got to studying things I heard that 'oh, the heat is going into the ocean, but it will come bubbling back up so don't worry, it's still appropriate to panic.'...

Yeah, THAT argument.  The hidden mystery heat, lol....

I like the arguments the make me laugh.  Mystery heat is one of those.  Another one that you don't hear much anymore is the "clathrate gun" scheme.  I won't call it "hypothesis" or "theory".  Basically the idea here is that these compounds deep in the ocean absorb the CO2, then suddenly shoot it up in the air and everyone's fucked.

It's just that I get this image of giant cannons rising from the deep and shooting incalculatable amounts of CO2 into the air.  Because that's basically the image I'm supposed to get. And then I should be scared.  Really scared.  They think...

[1714989253]

1714989253

[1714989253]

1714989253

[Spendulus]

Here's a thought..

If we picture the earth as a huge living creature, would it's immune system not try to cure itself? For instance, a human, when becoming sick, body temperature will raise, and the immune system will do its best to fight any disease.

So is it unthinkable that earth is a self regulative system that will try to fix itself? From what we can see from natural disasters, man cannot combat these at all, the power of nature is beyond and above everything.

If the "immune system" of earth really fired up, and there was extreme weather and extreme natural disasters all over the planet, lots of humans would die, and if enough humans dies, there would not be that much of a need for all the things we produce, and not as many polluters.

Or perhaps a more likely scenario is that we skew everything, and just slowly die off, as we no longer can sustain ourselves.

The actual theory of the self regulating Gaia (by Lovelace) is quite interesting and has spawned a bunch of new age Gaia-loving nonsense.  Last I heard, Lovelace had gone to the dark side and is now something of a "climate denier."

[Wilikon]

Here's a thought..

If we picture the earth as a huge living creature, would it's immune system not try to cure itself? For instance, a human, when becoming sick, body temperature will raise, and the immune system will do its best to fight any disease.

So is it unthinkable that earth is a self regulative system that will try to fix itself? From what we can see from natural disasters, man cannot combat these at all, the power of nature is beyond and above everything.

If the "immune system" of earth really fired up, and there was extreme weather and extreme natural disasters all over the planet, lots of humans would die, and if enough humans dies, there would not be that much of a need for all the things we produce, and not as many polluters.

Or perhaps a more likely scenario is that we skew everything, and just slowly die off, as we no longer can sustain ourselves.

It would be kinda true if humans were extra terrestrials. As far as we know Gaia is our mom. If Gaia created us then we are most likely the anti body that defends her from destruction from outer space. Gaia was tired of having to reboot Evolution after so many asteroid impacts and decided to make us. We are curious about space, we like destroying stuff and we don't like to die too quickly. Maybe our purpose is to fight off killer asteroids and defend Gaia... 

[Spendulus]

Here's a thought..

If we picture the earth as a huge living creature, would it's immune system not try to cure itself? For instance, a human, when becoming sick, body temperature will raise, and the immune system will do its best to fight any disease.

So is it unthinkable that earth is a self regulative system that will try to fix itself? From what we can see from natural disasters, man cannot combat these at all, the power of nature is beyond and above everything.

If the "immune system" of earth really fired up, and there was extreme weather and extreme natural disasters all over the planet, lots of humans would die, and if enough humans dies, there would not be that much of a need for all the things we produce, and not as many polluters.

Or perhaps a more likely scenario is that we skew everything, and just slowly die off, as we no longer can sustain ourselves.

It would be kinda true if humans were extra terrestrials. As far as we know Gaia is our mom. If Gaia created us then we are most likely the anti body that defends her from destruction from outer space. Gaia was tired of having to reboot Evolution after so many asteroid impacts and decided to make us. We are curious about space, we like destroying stuff and we don't like to die too quickly. Maybe our purpose is to fight off killer asteroids and defend Gaia... 

That's actually a bit profound.  We are the protectors of the planet, not the destroyers.

[cutesakura]

this time there has been a climate change caused by human behavior which causes global warming, global warming caused by the multitude of men wearing aerosols that cause global warming, iklimpun changes occur because of the melting ice in the north and south poles, and the sea water level rise and lowlands sink ...

[Wilikon]

Here's a thought..

If we picture the earth as a huge living creature, would it's immune system not try to cure itself? For instance, a human, when becoming sick, body temperature will raise, and the immune system will do its best to fight any disease.

So is it unthinkable that earth is a self regulative system that will try to fix itself? From what we can see from natural disasters, man cannot combat these at all, the power of nature is beyond and above everything.

If the "immune system" of earth really fired up, and there was extreme weather and extreme natural disasters all over the planet, lots of humans would die, and if enough humans dies, there would not be that much of a need for all the things we produce, and not as many polluters.

Or perhaps a more likely scenario is that we skew everything, and just slowly die off, as we no longer can sustain ourselves.

It would be kinda true if humans were extra terrestrials. As far as we know Gaia is our mom. If Gaia created us then we are most likely the anti body that defends her from destruction from outer space. Gaia was tired of having to reboot Evolution after so many asteroid impacts and decided to make us. We are curious about space, we like destroying stuff and we don't like to die too quickly. Maybe our purpose is to fight off killer asteroids and defend Gaia... 

That's actually a bit profound.  We are the protectors of the planet, not the destroyers.

Yes. On a Gaia scale we are. The warmists are the real cancer as they are anti humans (population reductions proposals, etc). The only organism that can save the whole ecosystem from ultimate doom forever is mankind, created by Gaia...

[SgtMoth]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C

CBC News Posted: Nov 14, 2014 7:07 AM CT Last Updated: Nov 14, 2014 7:16 AM CT

      

   


A number of new record low temperatures were recorded across Saskatchewan Friday morning, including Val Marie in the far southwest.

Cold weather records were falling like frost-covered dominoes across Saskatchewan on Friday morning.

Fifteen new records for Nov. 14 were set as Saskatchewan's big chill continues, thanks to a so-called polar vortex.

    What the heck is a polar vortex?

The cold spot was Val Marie, which set a new low for Nov. 14 when the mercury dipped to -29.7 C.

Meanwhile, it was mighty cold, but no records were set in Regina (-21.1) and Saskatoon (-20.6).

More to come


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/friday-off-to-frosty-start-as-15-cold-weather-records-drop-1.2834958

[tvbcof]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C
...

Weather says relatively little of substance about climate.  Usually nothing.  Both the 'deniers' and the 'warmists' fall into this trap.  The sad part is that when the weather doesn't cooperate with their desires they suddenly get a little more scientifically rigorous (albeit temporarily) and call out the other side.

I read somewhere that on a surface area the size of the U.S., chances are that there will be six 100-year record readings per year just by the nature of statistics.  I've not done the math or studied the problem set-up, but actually that does not seem far off of my observations from what I've seen reported over the years.

[Wilikon]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C

CBC News Posted: Nov 14, 2014 7:07 AM CT Last Updated: Nov 14, 2014 7:16 AM CT

      

   


A number of new record low temperatures were recorded across Saskatchewan Friday morning, including Val Marie in the far southwest.

Cold weather records were falling like frost-covered dominoes across Saskatchewan on Friday morning.

Fifteen new records for Nov. 14 were set as Saskatchewan's big chill continues, thanks to a so-called polar vortex.

    What the heck is a polar vortex?

The cold spot was Val Marie, which set a new low for Nov. 14 when the mercury dipped to -29.7 C.

Meanwhile, it was mighty cold, but no records were set in Regina (-21.1) and Saskatoon (-20.6).

More to come


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/friday-off-to-frosty-start-as-15-cold-weather-records-drop-1.2834958

Global warming is the cause of it! Get with the program damn it! 

[tvbcof]

Global warming is the cause of it! Get with the program damn it! 

Being a jackass on the 'climate skeptic' side does not offset jackass-ishness on the 'warmist' side.  At least not to some (probably small) fraction of observers.

[Wilikon]

Global warming is the cause of it! Get with the program damn it! 

Being a jackass on the 'climate skeptic' side does not offset jackass-ishness on the 'warmist' side.  At least not to some (probably small) fraction of observers.

Jackass-ishness is caused by global warming too.

[Spendulus]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C
...

Weather says relatively little of substance about climate.  Usually nothing.  Both the 'deniers' and the 'warmists' fall into this trap.  The sad part is that when the weather doesn't cooperate with their desires they suddenly get a little more scientifically rigorous (albeit temporarily) and call out the other side.

I read somewhere that on a surface area the size of the U.S., chances are that there will be six 100-year record readings per year just by the nature of statistics.  I've not done the math or studied the problem set-up, but actually that does not seem far off of my observations from what I've seen reported over the years.

For you to say this, you must misunderstand what is meant by weather.  I assume that you mean it as "today's weather".

I mean the science of meteorology.  This is the actual backbone of climate, and is the medium through which the instantaneous expression of chaotic impressions of climate occur. 

Further, what I have seen is that deniers and warmers are not falling into any trap on the subject of weather.  Rather, warmers shriek hysterically about extreme weather as proof of their creeds, and "deniers" tongue in cheek or outright joking, call out interesting facts like record snow blizzards occur anywhere Al Gore goes.

Makes total sense to me considering the dynamics of the two groups...

[Wilikon]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C
...

Weather says relatively little of substance about climate.  Usually nothing.  Both the 'deniers' and the 'warmists' fall into this trap.  The sad part is that when the weather doesn't cooperate with their desires they suddenly get a little more scientifically rigorous (albeit temporarily) and call out the other side.

I read somewhere that on a surface area the size of the U.S., chances are that there will be six 100-year record readings per year just by the nature of statistics.  I've not done the math or studied the problem set-up, but actually that does not seem far off of my observations from what I've seen reported over the years.

For you to say this, you must misunderstand what is meant by weather.  I assume that you mean it as "today's weather".

I mean the science of meteorology.  This is the actual backbone of climate, and is the medium through which the instantaneous expression of chaotic impressions of climate occur. 

Further, what I have seen is that deniers and warmers are not falling into any trap on the subject of weather.  Rather, warmers shriek hysterically about extreme weather as proof of their creeds, and "deniers" tongue in cheek or outright joking, call out interesting facts like record snow blizzards occur anywhere Al Gore goes.

Makes total sense to me considering the dynamics of the two groups...

"Warmists" cannot have a sense of humor as they know something we do not...

 

[El Emperador]

But who benefits of this global warming terrorism?

[Wilikon]

But who benefits of this global warming terrorism?

Everyone who tells you YOU should stop having babies and heat yourself...

[tvbcof]

But who benefits of this global warming terrorism?

Many many people.  Do you remember Hank Paulson?  GW Bush's treasury secretary?  The guy who threatened lawmakers with marshal law if they didn't cough up the bailout money that the banks wanted?  He's one.

CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is one facet of the 'sustainability' movement, and the number of people lining their pockets off aspects of it are incalculable.  Folks like Paulson who have plenty of money are more interested in the 'inventory and control' utility of the movement.

[BitMos]

Banfanatiks are more common that CO2!

[tvbcof]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C
...

Weather says relatively little of substance about climate.  Usually nothing.  Both the 'deniers' and the 'warmists' fall into this trap.  The sad part is that when the weather doesn't cooperate with their desires they suddenly get a little more scientifically rigorous (albeit temporarily) and call out the other side.

I read somewhere that on a surface area the size of the U.S., chances are that there will be six 100-year record readings per year just by the nature of statistics.  I've not done the math or studied the problem set-up, but actually that does not seem far off of my observations from what I've seen reported over the years.

For you to say this, you must misunderstand what is meant by weather.  I assume that you mean it as "today's weather".

Fair assumption...considering what I commented on.

I mean the science of meteorology.  This is the actual backbone of climate, and is the medium through which the instantaneous expression of chaotic impressions of climate occur. 

Scientific rigor applied to observations of weather --> climate.  By my definition at any rate.

Further, what I have seen is that deniers and warmers are not falling into any trap on the subject of weather.  Rather, warmers shriek hysterically about extreme weather as proof of their creeds, and "deniers" tongue in cheek or outright joking, call out interesting facts like record snow blizzards occur anywhere Al Gore goes.

Makes total sense to me considering the dynamics of the two groups...

I see relatively little humor in some of the Fox News commentary claiming that a weather event implies something about climate.  Although I don't tend to follow mainstream media of any flavor, I've seen it more than once from them.

It is true that the 'skeptic' side tends to be a good deal more mirthful in going about their business than the 'warmist' side.  This makes research more enjoyable to me.

[Spendulus]

Friday off to frosty start as 15 cold weather records drop
Val Marie's the cold spot at -29.7 C
...

Weather says relatively little of substance about climate.  Usually nothing.  Both the 'deniers' and the 'warmists' fall into this trap.  The sad part is that when the weather doesn't cooperate with their desires they suddenly get a little more scientifically rigorous (albeit temporarily) and call out the other side.

I read somewhere that on a surface area the size of the U.S., chances are that there will be six 100-year record readings per year just by the nature of statistics.  I've not done the math or studied the problem set-up, but actually that does not seem far off of my observations from what I've seen reported over the years.

For you to say this, you must misunderstand what is meant by weather.  I assume that you mean it as "today's weather".

Fair assumption...considering what I commented on.

I mean the science of meteorology.  This is the actual backbone of climate, and is the medium through which the instantaneous expression of chaotic impressions of climate occur. 

Scientific rigor applied to observations of weather --> climate.  By my definition at any rate.

Further, what I have seen is that deniers and warmers are not falling into any trap on the subject of weather.  Rather, warmers shriek hysterically about extreme weather as proof of their creeds, and "deniers" tongue in cheek or outright joking, call out interesting facts like record snow blizzards occur anywhere Al Gore goes.

Makes total sense to me considering the dynamics of the two groups...

I see relatively little humor in some of the Fox News commentary claiming that a weather event implies something about climate.  Although I don't tend to follow mainstream media of any flavor, I've seen it more than once from them.

It is true that the 'skeptic' side tends to be a good deal more mirthful in going about their business than the 'warmist' side.  This makes research more enjoyable to me.

I have to note that it is possible, because this has been a sort of "running joke" for years, that some of us would see the joke and some would not.


Also you noted...

Scientific rigor applied to observations of weather --> climate.  By my definition at any rate.

IIRC climate is defined as weather aggregated and measured over periods of 30 years.  So for example, climate for 1980, 1981 and 1982 would be based on

1965-1994
1966-1995
1967-1996

It is considered that these types of lengths of time eliminate the variability seen due to the fundamental mathematical chaotic nature of the system.

You see that this eliminates almost any ability to talk about "severe weather events" such as tornados, hurricanes, flooding except as a joke. 

RE Fox News, sorry I really do not know much about it's content.  I am too impatient to learn things quickly to stand the television format.

[Wilikon]

Socialist French President Hollande: Global Warming May Lead To War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcT7Rz-_Pc

French President Francois Hollande said failure to address global warming could lead to war, and called on G20 countries to act ahead of a climate change conference in Paris next year.

“We will meet again in Paris to sign a global agreement that will prevent the planet from experiencing global warming of as much as three or four degrees (Celsius), which could lead to catastrophe, if not war,” Hollande said at the G20 summit in Brisbane.

“One way to prevent conflicts and catastrophe is by taking decisions.”

Hollande hopes countries will sign binding agreements to limit global warming to two degrees at the conference, which will run from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, 2015.

At the G20 summit, other nations overrode host Australia’s attempts to keep climate change off the agenda and agreed to call for strong action with the aim of adopting a binding protocol at the Paris conference.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hollande-raises-specter-war-over-climate-change-133133544.html