Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

I am happy for you that you have faith and beliefs.

[Wilikon]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

Show us a single climate model that has had a reasonable amount of time to be tested empirically against real world data which has made accurate predictions about the future. Go on. Produce it. You cant because nothing of the sort exists. But i mean who needs any of those things when you can just insult people and appeal to authority and appeal to population. We aren't propagandized by fox news. I would be extremely surprised to learn that any of the frequent contributors to this thread watch fox news even semi regularly. We just reject bullshit fallacious arguments. You cant come up to us and try to emotionally manipulate us by saying things like "The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists" because we know that's a logically fallacious argument. You on the other hand don't seem to be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies read it. familiarize yourself with it.

I used to love foxnews until I cut my cable 4 years ago. After having a blast with my raspberry pi and xbmc on it I moved to an amazon fire tv with kodi installed on it this year. Beautiful thing. So I obviously scan my favorite blogs but no more TV for me. The internet is so much faster. Real time. Foxnews is too slow...

I smile every time I see "foxnews" as if used as garlic against a vampire  . It translates to "I have no logical arguments against you so... Vade Retro Satana Foxnews!"

 

[Wilikon]

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

[hdbuck]

^ BRAVO!

[Wilikon]

^ BRAVO!

The author of this article, Walter E. Williams, gets 100% of the "clap clap clap clap!"

 

[Wilikon]

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…

Americans’ morning caffeine rush ultimately could be a casualty of climate change, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday.

In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. McCarthy said the changing climate — which she believes is largely caused by human activity — puts economies, global security and food supplies at risk.

Coffee lovers also will eventually feel the effects, the EPA chief said.

“Climate change puts the world’s coffee-growing regions at risk,” Ms. McCarthy said, adding that the world must begin to weave climate-change efforts into virtually every other policy.

“Growth depends on a safe environment and a stable climate.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/climate-change-puts-coffee-risk-epa-chief-warns/#.VQA8674QOTI.twitter

[hdbuck]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

Show us a single climate model that has had a reasonable amount of time to be tested empirically against real world data which has made accurate predictions about the future. Go on. Produce it. You cant because nothing of the sort exists. But i mean who needs any of those things when you can just insult people and appeal to authority and appeal to population. We aren't propagandized by fox news. I would be extremely surprised to learn that any of the frequent contributors to this thread watch fox news even semi regularly. We just reject bullshit fallacious arguments. You cant come up to us and try to emotionally manipulate us by saying things like "The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists" because we know that's a logically fallacious argument. You on the other hand don't seem to be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies read it. familiarize yourself with it.

I used to love foxnews until I cut my cable 4 years ago. After having a blast with my raspberry pi and xbmc on it I moved to an amazon fire tv with kodi installed on it this year. Beautiful thing. So I obviously scan my favorite blogs but no more TV for me. The internet is so much faster. Real time. Foxnews is too slow...

I smile every time I see "foxnews" as if used as garlic against a vampire  . It translates to "I have no logical arguments against you so... Vade Retro Satana Foxnews!"

 

Fox News is the most trusted national news channel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/

from my foreigner stand, fox is more about holywood movies

[galdur]

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…

Yeah, yeah it´s a good thing you can stock up at low prices. I guess the market didn´t get the global warming memo yet.

[DieJohnny]

Yes the world is getting warmer, there used to be glaciers all over North America.

The debate isn't about the world getting warmer, the debate is about the prophets that are saying we are passing the point of no return and heading towards Venus. That is what the debate is about.

Is the planet in such dire straights that governments must seize control of all the earth to prevent its destruction???

That is what this debate is about. Make no mistake you are either a believer in the modern Noah (Bill Nye and their ilk) or you are sick of their condescension and self serving budget worship and want them all to go to hell.

No middle ground.

[Wilikon]

Yes the world is getting warmer, there used to be glaciers all over North America.

The debate isn't about the world getting warmer, the debate is about the prophets that are saying we are passing the point of no return and heading towards Venus. That is what the debate is about.

Is the planet in such dire straights that governments must seize control of all the earth to prevent its destruction???

That is what this debate is about. Make no mistake you are either a believer in the modern Noah (Bill Nye and their ilk) or you are sick of their condescension and self serving budget worship and want them all to go to hell.

No middle ground.

Don't forget that bill nye, al gore and their ilk haven't changed their lifestyle a bit to save the planet. They need to travel all over the world, to sell their books made out of dead trees.

But YOU, you should. So are all the poor countries, being evil for burning coal and creating industries to lift up their own economy...

[Spendulus]

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…

Americans’ morning caffeine rush ultimately could be a casualty of climate change, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday.......

I would like to know what this lady has been drinking.  Because it ain't coffee that put that look on her face.

Now maybe she just sat down at the hearing and then woke up.

"OH NO!  They're going to call me out on all my LIES!  And I was having so much fun!"

Maybe that chair she sat down in is rigged with heating coils and everytime she lies they crank it up to about 300F?

[Wilikon]

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…

Americans’ morning caffeine rush ultimately could be a casualty of climate change, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday.......

I would like to know what this lady has been drinking.  Because it ain't coffee that put that look on her face.

Now maybe she just sat down at the hearing and then woke up.

"OH NO!  They're going to call me out on all my LIES!  And I was having so much fun!"

Maybe that chair she sat down in is rigged with heating coils and everytime she lies they crank it up to about 300F?

I have many more theories... But none are safe for work.

[Wilikon]

[hdbuck]

hehe following @junkscience uh? ^^

[Wilikon]

hehe following @junkscience uh? ^^

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[tvbcof]

http://www.wwntradio.com/news/news.php/displayType/article/17435/2015/03/backyard-burger-and-wiener-roasts-targeted-by-epa

I had to double-check to see if this was satire.  Wasn't.  Every time the I think the EPA has finally jumped the shark something new comes along.

"We expect to limit the overall air pollution PM [particulate matter] emissions from barbecuing and to alleviate some of the acute health hazards that a barbecue pit master can experience from inhalation. The particulate matter present during cooking ...

[Spendulus]

http://www.wwntradio.com/news/news.php/displayType/article/17435/2015/03/backyard-burger-and-wiener-roasts-targeted-by-epa

I had to double-check to see if this was satire.  Wasn't.  Every time the I think the EPA has finally jumped the shark something new comes along.

"We expect to limit the overall air pollution PM [particulate matter] emissions from barbecuing and to alleviate some of the acute health hazards that a barbecue pit master can experience from inhalation. The particulate matter present during cooking ...

There'd be nothing wrong with people learning about the Argentinian parilla style grill and using it, as long as they were not forced to.

But these guys don't know their stuff.  There is no such thing as a "barbecue pit master" that is using propane.

It's all wood or get laughed at.

[galdur]

Well, it´s actually small potatoes, so far at least

Quote

EPA Grant Number: SU835698
Title: Technology for the Reduction of Particulate Matter Emissions for Residential Propane BBQs
Investigators: Mende, Elizabeth , Cocker, David , Mejia, Alonso , Tam, Kawai
Institution: University of California - Riverside
EPA Project Officer: Lank, Gregory
Project Period: August 15, 2014 through August 14, 2015
Project Amount: $15,000
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014)
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Challenge Area - Built Environment

Description:

Objective:

To perform research and develop preventative technology that will reduce fine particulate emissions (PM2.5) from residential barbecues. This technology is intended to reduce air pollution as well as health hazards in Southern California, with potential for global application.

[KonstantinosM]

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.


California is experiencing extreme droughts right now and you can't deny the flooding caused by disasters in the very recent past.

Climate getting warmer was always in the vast majority of scientific opinion, quoting someone in the minority who got it wrong proves nothing.

Claiming that Science is tethered to a political agenda is utter bullshit as the two are very easily separable. There is no freedom to burn down forests and kill the environment. These things are and should be crimes.




This thread seems to have boiled down to a big circle jerk.

[galdur]

Blizzards hitting the Big Island as seen from space

MEDIA RELEASE
On March 12, 2015, a blizzard warning was in effect on the Big Island of Hawaii. That’s not a misprint; it has been snowing in Hawaii. Snow is not unprecedented on tropical peaks, but it is uncommon.
In the past week, the National Weather Service has issued several snowstorm and blizzard warnings for summits higher than 3,400 meters (11,000 feet) on the Big Island. The latest forecast called for freezing fog, strong winds, and blowing snow with possible accumulation of 5–10 centimeters (2–4 inches).
This storm could add to the total snowfall on Mauna Kea, which already had some accumulation from storms in the first week of March. The Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8 captured a view of the snow-capped summit on March 10, 2015 (top); it was nearly bare on February 22 (bottom). Use the image comparison tool to see the changes.

http://www.hawaii247.com/2015/03/12/blizzards-hitting-the-big-island-as-seen-from-space/