Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

I'm familiar with the ice core studies.  I've read them.  Yes, Al Gore did a lot of lying, starting with his 1988 Senate hearings, where he and a friend vandalized the air conditioners so that it was very hot during those hearings on 'global warming'.  August, I think it was...

Here's one for you.   There is no "scientific hypothesis" of man made global warming.  There are a group of observations, predictions and premises.  There may be formulated dozens of area-specific scientific hypotheses, each of which can be tested.  But these are area, region or otherwise narrowly focused of necessity, otherwise they cannot be tested.

Here is a sample hypothesis.

Arctic ice melt is more influenced by soot accumulation from Asia than from increases in CO2.

Whatever you think about the matter, we could all likely agree that was a testable hypothesis....

Back up to the OP:  I really suspect that this post would not be allowed under the rules that Reddit now has, although to me it seems totally straightforward as a question...

Not good.

I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

[1714066916]

1714066916

[Snowfire]

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause.

Au contraire. Read this, for example. CO2 can be either a primary forcing or a feedback factor. In the former case, it will lead temperature; in the latter case, it will sometimes trail. I am surprised you do not know this.

Also, the comment stream you linked does not, IMHO, make the case you believe it does, as far as I can see.

[AnonyMint]

From a scientist in email.

I'm not sure it's worth my time either.  Wilikon is quite the mouthpiece and what's
with the consensus stats?  Group think makes a theory correct?  Tell that to
Copernicus and Galileo.  In medicine I see it all the time.  Perhaps the most
egregious example is the cholesterol and saturated fat theory of heart disease, a
never ending mantra that defied studies and logic - virtually zero correlation
between cholesterol levels and heart attacks.

Climate science looks at data on such a long time scale and with so many powerfully
interacting variables, it defies logic that a clear answer as to what percentage of
climate change, if any, is anthropogenic in nature.  The data necessarily take on a
stochastic nature, right?  Why else would climate scientists feel compelled to hide
or obfuscate data that doesn't conform to their theories (Climategate)?  That's an
unthinkable ethical violation in science, or at least it used to be.  Many
predictions have wildly missed their mark.  It is an evolving field and trying to
shoehorn groups into rabid human climate change vs. nonscientific deniers is a FALSE
DICHOTOMY, a favorite divide and conquer tool of the elites.

Personally, even IF humanity has some kind of effect on the climate, the
answer is not to let those who created the problem with their fiat economy and
dumbing down be the ones to dictate the solutions such as the surreptitious
geoengineering programs spraying us with aluminum, a known neurotoxin, contaminating
the soil changing its pH and all the ramifications from that.  Look at the
disastrous results of their mass scale GMO experiments.  They are the last ones to
trust with their opaque centralized "solutions".

For the record, I am dubious that normal human activity would have a significant
impact on the environment and thus the climate.

[AnonyMint]

Here's one for you.   There is no "scientific hypothesis" of man made global warming.  There are a group of observations, predictions and premises.  There may be formulated dozens of area-specific scientific hypotheses, each of which can be tested.  But these are area, region or otherwise narrowly focused of necessity, otherwise they cannot be tested.

So then STFU about man-made climate change. You have no science to support that question one way or the other. Impossible. You've agreed with me, can't you see that?

Here is a sample hypothesis.

Arctic ice melt is more influenced by soot accumulation from Asia than from increases in CO2.

Whatever you think about the matter, we could all likely agree that was a testable hypothesis....

Fuck no we can't agree. We can build a model and test the model, but we don't fucking know if the model is even capturing all the variables.

This ain't science. Science is where you can change a variable and it stops happening. It you do that enough times, you've proved something.

So we can go fucking the world with a carbon tax and then later find out there is no correlation. Fabulous. Fuck my world, just so you can get your grant money. What happened the Ice Age scare from front page of Time magazine in the 1970s? You bribed fucks.

Any way, I am tired of talking, I am going to defeat you with anonymity.

Back up to the OP:  I really suspect that this post would not be allowed under the rules that Reddit now has, although to me it seems totally straightforward as a question...

Not good.

It is a complete waste of time topic in the first place.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause.

Au contraire. Read this, for example. CO2 can be either a primary forcing or a feedback factor. In the former case, it will lead temperature; in the latter case, it will sometimes trail. I am surprised you do not know this.

Also, the comment stream you linked does not, IMHO, make the case you believe it does, as far as I can see.

Broken link and yeah I've seen the propaganda. More nonsense for fools like you to fuck our world with.

Why am I pissed off? Because you are declaring war on humanity by aiding and abetting the globalists and their carbon tax fraud. YOU are an existential threat to mankind. Cancers should be extricated and destroyed.

I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

Politeness was double-speak in 1984.

[Spendulus]

So then STFU about man-made climate change. You have no science to support that question one way or the other. Impossible. You've agreed with me, can't you see that?

No.  I've tried to describe actual working of a scientific hypothesis. 

That has zero to do with whether I agree with you or there is science one way or the other.

My point was that the investigation of properly formulated hypotheses should be something that people of divergent views can agree is a good thing.

The fact there is not a single hypothesis underlying the global warming (myth, concept, religion, whatever you want to call it) does not mean that the key assertions made are false.  This leads into a logical fallacy known as being challenged to refute an irrefutable hypothesis.  EG, "prove there isn't a God".

Good luck with that.  Consider the mountain, Kilimanjaro that Gore used in his sick movie - he showed it's loss of snow cover, and attributed it to CO2 increases.  Well, he was dead wrong - research later showed it conclusively to be caused by land use changes.

A reasonable hypothesis here would have been "loss of snow can be attributed to regional or local land use changes."   If that could not be shown in whole or part, then the actual air itself or incoming solar would be possible causes. 

My issue is that banning speech whether on private or public, whether by subtle forces or overt rule, would destroy the ability of science to operate as above described.  And it has done that.

[Spendulus]

....
I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

Yeah.  But what happens with theories, or pseudo theories or whatever AGW is, is that if false, they get burdened with more and more rationalizations and explanations until eventually they simply collapse of their own weight.

Politically the problem seems that there's big money in ascribing to airborne CO2 the attribute of evil, and thus instilling guilt in people from producing evil gaseous outputs, and then assessing punitive fines and taxes for this 'justifiable and urgent' crisis.

Basically it's an attempt of governments to assert ownership of the air envelope of the entire world.

[compro01]

In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME


Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html

In other news, the Daily Junk Mail's headlines continue to misrepresent data and the actual experts are correct.

See here.  Linked as it seems SMF doesn't like animated images.

[AnonyMint]

So then STFU about man-made climate change. You have no science to support that question one way or the other. Impossible. You've agreed with me, can't you see that?

No.  I've tried to describe actual working of a scientific hypothesis.  

That has zero to do with whether I agree with you or there is science one way or the other.

My point was that the investigation of properly formulated hypotheses should be something that people of divergent views can agree is a good thing.

The fact there is not a single hypothesis underlying the global warming (myth, concept, religion, whatever you want to call it) does not mean that the key assertions made are false.  This leads into a logical fallacy known as being challenged to refute an irrefutable hypothesis.  EG, "prove there isn't a God".

Good luck with that.  Consider the mountain, Kilimanjaro that Gore used in his sick movie - he showed it's loss of snow cover, and attributed it to CO2 increases.  Well, he was dead wrong - research later showed it conclusively to be caused by land use changes.

A reasonable hypothesis here would have been "loss of snow can be attributed to regional or local land use changes."   If that could not be shown in whole or part, then the actual air itself or incoming solar would be possible causes.  

My issue is that banning speech whether on private or public, whether by subtle forces or overt rule, would destroy the ability of science to operate as above described.  And it has done that.

What I am saying to you is that these are not science precisely because they can't be falsified.

It is no different in that respect than religion. Is denying religion because it can't be falsified irrational? That is why we call it faith and not science. Please learn the distinction.

It is modeling masturbation.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein.

Meaning we can make models that say exactly the opposite by making different assumptions. That is why it isn't science. Science is something real that can be tested and falsified. How can we falsify that soot from some place is causing ice to increase or decrease some place else? It is only a model and can never be tested. Statistical correlation does not warrant cause and effect. That is a basic tenet of statistical theory.

....
I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

Yeah.  But what happens with theories, or pseudo theories or whatever AGW is, is that if false, they get burdened with more and more rationalizations and explanations until eventually they simply collapse of their own weight.

Politically the problem seems that there's big money in ascribing to airborne CO2 the attribute of evil, and thus instilling guilt in people from producing evil gaseous outputs, and then assessing punitive fines and taxes for this 'justifiable and urgent' crisis.

Basically it's an attempt of governments to assert ownership of the air envelope of the entire world.

Spain even taxes sunlight now. This is an actual law.

The socialism is going to tax everything that moves, until it doesn't move then they will regulate it, then they will spend money to make it move in the most inefficient way.

What is happening to world, it is insane.

Actually this is what happens when socialism (big government) peaks. It always ends horrifically. Look at the chart of the population of Rome, fell from 1.3 million to 30,000 and stayed that low for 600 years.

The socialism is trying to find something else to blame the peak and crash on. Westerners don't want to give up their $150 trillion debt bubble, so they blame it on resource scarcity.

It is so easy for me to see. Because I don't depend on that socialism. I generate my own wealth from my own ingenuity and hard work.

In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME


Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html

In other news, the Daily Junk Mail's headlines continue to misrepresent data and the actual experts are correct.

See here.  Linked as it seems SMF doesn't like animated images.

Unfalsifiable modeling masturbation. Religion. Irrationality. Insanity. Three Little Pigs.

Please grow up.

[Wilikon]

....
I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

Yeah.  But what happens with theories, or pseudo theories or whatever AGW is, is that if false, they get burdened with more and more rationalizations and explanations until eventually they simply collapse of their own weight.

Politically the problem seems that there's big money in ascribing to airborne CO2 the attribute of evil, and thus instilling guilt in people from producing evil gaseous outputs, and then assessing punitive fines and taxes for this 'justifiable and urgent' crisis.

Basically it's an attempt of governments to assert ownership of the air envelope of the entire world.

10000% Agree. Everything you write is well known from the defenders of globalists wanting to force a universal tax while maintaining the poorest nation from developing their own resources. But this thread is a way to shine a light on how the first piece of the puzzle is placed. The article message was, again: "Look what we did! We should do the same everywhere beyond our website". That is what I am focusing on.

BUT for those who believes in Bitcoin & carbon taxing for the good of the planet, let me remind you of this:



http://www.carbonresource.com/news2.html
Carbon Resource Management has successfully registered the first carbon credits originating from a windfarm project in China at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and executed on the CCX trading platform.

https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml
Chicago Climate Exchange is North America's largest and longest running greenhouse gas emission reduction program. From 2003 through 2010 CCX operated as a comprehensive cap and trade program with an offsets component. In 2011 CCX launched the Chicago Climate Exchange Offsets Registry Program to register verified emission reductions based on a comprehensive set of established protocols

Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa

(I hate media matter) but I like the first comment.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/03/debunking-glenn-becks-cap-and-trade-conspiracy/164147

The thing is CCX was closed in 2010, but was projected to make trillions for all the people in charge. Obama was pushing hard for green energy because he was involved with the same people he said he was against, goldman, sach, etc, in Chicago.
Ask yourself this: if I am already ultra mega rich or a president, who will be hurt more from a new tax you cannot escape from no matter where you are? If this is a tax for the good of the planet how come you can still buy carbon taxes from other non polluters while you keep polluting?

The answer is: "Ban! Ban! Ban!"

[Wilikon]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/reddit-bans-comments-from-global-warming-skeptics/

great video

[Spendulus]

.....
Unfalsifiable modeling masturbation. Religion. Irrationality. Insanity. Three Little Pigs.

Please grow up.

Nope.  What my personal beliefs are are not relevant to scientific investigation.  I'll still advocate for clear, testable hypotheses.

If the result of beliefs and opinions and politics interfered with that, I'd be opposed regardless of whether it was pro or against my personal opinions.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/reddit-bans-comments-from-global-warming-skeptics/

great video

No video found there.

But I'll challenge Nathan Allen, the 'self proclaimed PhD chemist who is the moderator', to come to this thread and debate his beliefs either with you or I.  Don't think he'd do very well.

I mean, what is he going to say?  The planet just isn't cooperating with his Great Schemes of Warming.  Darn.  Dam that planet.  Ban it!

[Wilikon]

.....
Unfalsifiable modeling masturbation. Religion. Irrationality. Insanity. Three Little Pigs.

Please grow up.

Nope.  What my personal beliefs are are not relevant to scientific investigation.  I'll still advocate for clear, testable hypotheses.

If the result of beliefs and opinions and politics interfered with that, I'd be opposed regardless of whether it was pro or against my personal opinions.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/reddit-bans-comments-from-global-warming-skeptics/

great video

No video found there.

But I'll challenge Nathan Allen, the 'self proclaimed PhD chemist who is the moderator', to come to this thread and debate his beliefs either with you or I.  Don't think he'd do very well.

I mean, what is he going to say?  The planet just isn't cooperating with his Great Schemes of Warming.  Darn.  Dam that planet.  Ban it!

Video in Flash. It will not show up from an iOS device. Check it out later if you think about it.

[compro01]

Unfalsifiable modeling masturbation.

Modelling?  Those are the observations over the past 30 years, not some computer model.

The ice goes down, does a dead cat bounce, and goes down some more.

BUT for those who believes in Bitcoin & carbon taxing for the good of the planet, let me remind you of this:

"Cap and trade" schemes and "carbon taxation" are not the same thing.

[Snowfire]

Apologies for the faulty link posted earlier. The correct link is http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html.

[Spendulus]

Apologies for the faulty link posted earlier. The correct link is http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html.

First of all, you point to a True Believer's efforts to 'explain a technical article' to lay people.  You do not point to Skakun's article or his conclusions.  I am just commenting on this as wrong, and unnecessary, and clearly biased.  You've pointed to an article that asserts "Co2 is the principal control knob governing the Earth's temperature" - not Skakun, dude.

Neither you or Anonymint has an arguable point.  He would argue that the Religious Warmer's co2/lag argument is "this time it's different", which is not impossible but a recognized logical problem.  You'd argue that "no it's been different before, too".  Neither of you has a sound basis for predictive capability based on presented or available arguments and knowledge of historical CO2 and temperature lag or lead.

Now go prove it with tree rings.  Or whale bones.  Or tree lines at altitude.  Oxygen isotope.  Sediment.  Venus.   

Yada Yada Yada...

[Wilikon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

[Wilikon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

If you click back on my main link, just browse all the way down for the comments. Looks like they loved that move.

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

If you click back on my main link, just browse all the way down for the comments. Looks like they loved that move.

But Grist always has selectively deleted posts to drive away people who didn't like their attitude and worldview.  Grist, as I recall, the editor there is the guy that invented the phrase "Denier" as applied to climate skeptics.  Bunch of nutjobs.

Example from their postings...no, it isn't the Onion.

The only genocide here, active as well as passive, is that caused by the increased floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, storms, social chaos and other effects of global climate catastrophe. Those few rich people causing the vast majority of it are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Earth, and all you denying delayalists are guilty of conspiracy and aiding and abetting felons. In some places the felony murder charge is applicable. That's 150,000 to 300,000 counts a year; a lot of prison time for you folks. I'd like to help you avoid that but you have to cooperate. Stop spreading delayalist lies, go through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee process when you get the chance and help solve the problem, starting now.

Solar, wind, efficiency, reforestation, local organic low-meat permaculture are the answers. Pick one or more and learn about it so you help.

[tinus42]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

If you click back on my main link, just browse all the way down for the comments. Looks like they loved that move.

But Grist always has selectively deleted posts to drive away people who didn't like their attitude and worldview.  Grist, as I recall, the editor there is the guy that invented the phrase "Denier" as applied to climate skeptics.  Bunch of nutjobs.

"Denier" is a loaded phrase as it links climate change skeptics to Holocaust denial, which is a felony in most countries in the world and can get one decades long jail terms in countries such as Germany and Israel.

There have been calls to make climate change denial a crime too, some people even suggested that climate change skeptics should be executed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html