Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

....

I remember penguins flying south every year above my head. Now, because of global warming and stupid humans and exxon, I can hardly see any. Somebody should pass a tax law to bring them back.

You do know that meat production is a real problem right?  All those cows generate more carbon pollution than automobiles.  That's got to change, if the planet's going to live.  And we gotta save the planet, because it's the only one we got.

So these cows, they are a big problem.  And the pigs, goats and chickens, too.  In the long run, it'd be best to go vegan, but in the mean time, it's important for everyone to do their fair share to help.  This means eating a lot of meat.

I understand that but wouldn't that mean the total eradication of several species? which is a huge component of climate change.

YES!  You see, just like DENIERS should be all shot at high noon (words of James Cameron) or put in Nuremburg trials, and sent to prison for their WrongThink, similarly, some species are guilty.

Can we define high noon? If you look close enough at the Sun dial you'll see that high noon occurs at 12:45. Now the fact is that "high noon" has been re-enforced many times in my mind as "12:00" blinking on and off. How do I resolve this cognitive dissonance?

This YouTube video visualizes my line of thinking on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-id_Y6QZMg

What about on Flat Earth? 12:00 APM or 12:45 APM?

 

If the Earth is flat then are there snakes on the plane? Why is that news reporter blinking sideways?

Because Global Warming there snakes on plane!

Eat all the bad species!  The cattle!  Start with Wagu!  Invade Japan NOW and Eat All Kobi Beef!

[1714895916]

1714895916

[1714895916]

1714895916

[1714895916]

1714895916

[1714895916]

1714895916

[Wilikon]

Journalist feels the wrath of climate jihadists

‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for patricide, so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial’ – comment on Guardian website


The fundamentalists of Islamic State will not permit any deviation from the path of pure faith, no matter how small. They will even attack their own if they believe they are not sufficiently devout. Unless you accept every single tenet of their religion, you are a heretic, and deserve punishment or death.
So it is with the climate jihadists, who require adherents of the global warming faith to subscribe to all facets of the alarmist dogma without question. Failure to do so will result in charges of heresy, followed by threats and ad hominem attacks.
In this case, the target is Daily Mail journalist, David Rose, who has had threats and other unpleasantness aimed his way, thanks in part to the hatred whipped up by one of the Skeptical Science goons, Dana Nuccitelli (what a surprise – not):


I’ve never supported the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan. I’ve never belonged to the Paedophile Information Exchange, or denied the Holocaust, or made a penny from the banking crash.
But if you read The Guardian newspaper’s website, you might think otherwise. A commentator on it urged my own children to murder me.
He did so because of one of the many stories I’ve written for this newspaper about climate change. I first reported on the subject nearly six years ago: my article was about the ‘climategate’ scandal, where leaked emails showed university scientists were trying to cover up data that suggested their claim the world is hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years may be wrong.
Ever since then, I have been labelled a ‘climate change denier’ – a phrase which, since I happen to be Jewish, has particularly unfortunate connotations for me.
And this is despite the fact I believe the world IS warming, and that carbon dioxide produced by mankind IS a greenhouse gas, and IS partly responsible for higher temperatures – and have repeatedly said so.
On the other hand, I also think that the imminence of the threat posed by global warming has been exaggerated – chiefly because the grimmer computer projections haven’t been reflected by what’s been happening recently to temperatures in the real world.
I do believe we should invest in new ways of generating energy, and I hate belching smoke stacks and vast open-cast coal mines as much as anyone who cares about the environment.
But I also think current ‘renewable’ sources such as wind and ‘biomass’ are ruinously expensive and totally futile. They will never be able to achieve their stated goal of slowing the rate of warming and are not worth the billions being paid by UK consumers to subsidise them.
Some would say this makes me a ‘lukewarmer’ – the jargon for someone who is neither a ‘warmist’ or a ‘denier’. But true believers don’t recognise such distinctions: to them, anyone who disagrees with their version of the truth is a denier, pure and simple. The result: vitriol directed my way, the like of which I have never experienced in 34 years as a journalist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934540/What-happens-dare-doubt-Green-prophets-doom.html


This illustrates the fundamentalist nature of climate alarmism perfectly – Rose acknowledges the existence of global warming, and humanity’s part in causing it [like the ACM author – Ed] but because he dares question issues such as the economic sense of hopeless renewables or the imposition of energy taxes, that would incidentally hit the poorest on our planet the hardest, he is therefore a ‘denier’.
Whilst acknowledging the suffering that Rose must have endured for simply voicing an opinion, this kind of behaviour by the fundamentalists may, however, have a positive side in the fight against both climate alarmism and the global jihad. Attacking their own side will (hopefully) act as a wake up call to others who have for too long acted as the passive enablers for these dangerous ideologies.
As with all quasi-religions such as climate alarmism, the obvious giveaway is the emotionally charged hatred for those who dare disagree. If this were just a simple scientific argument, there would be no need for such threats, but, like the jihadists of Islamic State, the alarmists are in thrall to a belief system which will bring them both wealth and power, and which cannot and must not be questioned.



http://australianclimatemadness.com/2015/02/02/journalist-feels-the-wrath-of-climate-jihadists/

[Wilikon]

At the mercy of the climate jihadists


Years ago, I heard the Jewish comedian Jackie Mason performing in Beverly Hills, riffing on the primary motivation of wealthy liberals. They do things, he suggested, not because they actually accomplished anything, but because “I have to look at myself in the mirror.”

Mason was prophetic, particularly regarding here in California, where progressive politics – outside of promoting race and gender grievances – has boiled down to a single-minded attachment to slowing climate change.

To satisfy the gentry’s urgent need to feel noble and better than others, we are embarked on an ever-more extreme jihad to battle global warming, with the state, pursuant to an executive order from Gov. Jerry Brown, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 – versus the previous mandate of reaching 1990 levels by 2020. It seems clear that we are about to wage a war of increasing intensity on climate change, surely not at the expense of depriving Google executives and other oligarchs their private jets, but certainly down to the last affordable single-family house or decent factory job.

Symbolic Gestures, Little Impact

Of course, environmental problems need to be addressed, but one has to wonder if current policy will actually impact global climate change. Indeed, as explained in a new report by the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, our current green jihad is likely to do little to nothing toward cutting global emissions – unless nations with far greater emissions adopt similar measures. The report suggests that an extreme goal of an 80 percent reduction could, ultimately, make things worse.

The report, authored by attorneys David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez, carefully analyzes the projected impact of California’s Draconian climate change legislation. Simply put, in the most basic measurement, our greenhouse gas emissions simply don’t matter much. In 2011, California accounted for less than 1 percent of global CO2-equivalent emissions, and less than 0.065 percent of the worldwide annual CO2e emissions increase during 1990-2011. Given that California is already a low-emitting state, in large part due to its mild climate, even if California cut back to zero greenhouse-gas emissions, it would have almost no measurable affect on climate change risks.

The increase in GHG emissions comes mostly from elsewhere, even within the United States. But most emissions growth is linked to increases in developing countries, such as China and India. From 2000-11, global CO2e emissions increased by more than 40 percent. Over the same period, California’s CO2e emissions rose by 2 percent and declined by approximately 10.7 percent from 2007-11. Despite population increases and economic growth, California’s total emissions rose by roughly 8 million metric tons while global emissions increased by almost 13 billion metric tons.

Unintended Consequences

Ever the realist, at least when it comes to politics, Gov. Jerry Brown recognizes that California’s efforts are, almost by definition, largely symbolic. “We can do things in California” to fight climate change, Brown recently observed, “but if others don’t follow, it will be futile.”

The problem is that not many of our competitor states are following California’s lead, except, notably, Oregon, where the governor has been embroiled in a seamy scandal over green energy. Meanwhile, our biggest competitors – Nevada, Texas, Utah, North Carolina – do not seem anxious to join the party. They regard California’s regulatory regime as a perfect spur to lead both companies and residents out of the Golden State.

Since 1990, 3.8 million former California residents, or about equal to the populations of Oregon or Oklahoma, have moved to other parts of the country where per capita GHG levels are 50 percent higher than in California. Each job or resident that moves from California boosts net GHG levels. The cumulative net CO2e emission increases generated by the unprecedented migration of the state’s former residents has already nearly offset the GHG reduction achieved by California’s emission-reduction mandates.

Why continue?

Like any major policy initiative, the state’s climate change offensive will producers winners, although, in the short run, at least, many more losers. For one thing, the fixation on carbon-free energy has led to much higher electricity prices, 43.5 percent above the national average in December 2014 according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. This is bad news for industries that need electricity, and is one reason why many manufacturers go elsewhere.

It’s not too great for commuters, either. As of May 12, California’s average cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.73, the highest in the country – including even Hawaii and Alaska – and more than a dollar higher than the national average, $2.66. Gas prices on average are still about 21 percent lower than a year ago in the U.S., but 11 percent lower in California.

The state’s climate policy, particularly in its new, more militant form, also is likely to reduce California’s job creation. Although enjoying a brief resurgence, California employment has consistently underperformed other states over the longer term.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-661936-climate-emissions.html

[notbatman]

Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?

[Wilikon]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1063137.0





http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/08/22222323-trapped-research-ship-rescue-vessel-break-free-of-antarctic-ice





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533415/Er-wait-come-Hours-passengers-aboard-stranded-Antarctic-ship-airlifted-safety-Chinese-ice-breaker-sent-rescue-gets-stuck-well.html

[Wilikon]

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Most recently, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett with the Heartland Institute detailed how the Swiss Meteorological Service adjusted its climate data “to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments.”

In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”

“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to Sterling.

The Swiss affair, however, is not the first instance of data “homogenization” catalogued by scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming. In January, skeptic blogger Paul Homewood documented how NASA has “homogenized” temperature data across Paraguay to create a warming trend that doesn’t exist in the raw data.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/more-countries-caught-manipulating-their-climate-data/

[Spendulus]

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Most recently, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett with the Heartland Institute detailed how the Swiss Meteorological Service adjusted its climate data “to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments.”

In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”

“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to Sterling.

The Swiss affair, however, is not the first instance of data “homogenization” catalogued by scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming. In January, skeptic blogger Paul Homewood documented how NASA has “homogenized” temperature data across Paraguay to create a warming trend that doesn’t exist in the raw data.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/more-countries-caught-manipulating-their-climate-data/

The adjusting of the numers is right!  The adjusting must be done to correct the wrongness of the numbers! They are wrong!  Some numbers are wronger than wrong!  Just think - you go outside and read the thermometer and write down what it says.  Is that right?

NO!  OF COURSE NOT!  You number must be reviewed by real experts, those climatologists.  They will weight all factors and determine if your number is a good number or if it needs some up or down added to it.  Do not worry about this the experts will take care of it for you.

[Schleicher]

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data
“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to Sterling.

Oh really?
Winter temperatures in germany (degree Celsius):

[galdur]

Obama Readies The Troops For The War On Global Warming


President Barack Obama is heading up to New London, Connecticut Wednesday to deliver the commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, but the president also plans to give an impassioned speech on how graduating guardsmen will be on the front lines of the war on global warming. ..... zzzzzzzzzz

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/obama-readies-the-troops-for-the-war-on-global-warming/

[Wilikon]

Obama Readies The Troops For The War On Global Warming


President Barack Obama is heading up to New London, Connecticut Wednesday to deliver the commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, but the president also plans to give an impassioned speech on how graduating guardsmen will be on the front lines of the war on global warming. ..... zzzzzzzzzz

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/obama-readies-the-troops-for-the-war-on-global-warming/

Obama Blames Climate Change For Islamic State And Boko Haram…



President Obama on Wednesday used his commencement address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to lecture graduates on climate change, and said climate change has already contributed to several armed conflicts around the world that have led to involvement by the U.S. military.

“I understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world, yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram,” Obama said in his speech.

“It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East,” he added.

Obama spoke broadly to graduates for about 10 minutes, and drew applause at several points as he recounted some of the history of the Coast Guard and highlighted some of the graduates.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2564772?utm_content=buffer03459&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[galdur]

Pentagon, The Biggest Polluter on Earth, Declares War on Climate Change? Yeah, but suffering areas of interest to U.S. corporations will probably have precedence as always. Good luck, g

[Wilikon]

NASA Updates Its Satellite Data, Now Shows Polar Ice Caps Have Not Receded Since 1979…

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

[Schleicher]

Do aliens cause global warming? The data say ‘yes!’

[Spendulus]

NASA Updates Its Satellite Data, Now Shows Polar Ice Caps Have Not Receded Since 1979…

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

NO! 

No No NO!

the North Pole will be clear sailing! 

Cruise ships will go through there! 

Eskimos will lounge around in the sun in wifebeater T shirts!

Girls in bikinis will bask on shore of the Aleutian Islands! 

This is so true it's Truey!

[Wilikon]

NASA Updates Its Satellite Data, Now Shows Polar Ice Caps Have Not Receded Since 1979…

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

NO! 

No No NO!

the North Pole will be clear sailing! 

Cruise ships will go through there! 

Eskimos will lounge around in the sun in wifebeater T shirts!

Girls in bikinis will bask on shore of the Aleutian Islands! 

This is so true it's Truey!

NASA will say their satellite data was hacked and to keep trusting their computer model with the fool proof AlGorerithm...

[galdur]

Illegal aliens cause global warming, study says
 
Lynchburg, VA - Illegal aliens coming into the US may significantly affect global warming, warns a new study out this week in the journal Scientific Republican.
“We started looking at all of the current models of Carbon flux in the ecosphere and global change, and realized that all of these models had neglected something important.” says John Guerrero, senior scientist in geology department at Liberty University. “We asked: what is the impact of illegal immigration on global climate change?” .............

http://tracysfeldman.com/IllegalAliensCauseGlobalWarming.htm

[tvbcof]

NASA will say their satellite data was hacked and to keep trusting their computer model with the fool proof AlGorerithm...

My mind seems to be good at generating conspiracy hypotheses for some reason.  I did wonder of the unusual failure of the OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite in 2009 was a complete accident of fate or whether there was something undesirable about what the satellite was likely to find.

Along this train of thought, I notice that the Japanese launched a satellite (Ibuki) which did the same thing (measured CO2 levels around the globe) at about the same time.  That one did not fail.

It does seem to me that one of the main drivers of the catastrophic global climate change program is to induce transfers of wealth from wealthy developed nations to their less wealthy counterparts.  Some say this is an attempt to 'synchronize' the nations of the earth in order to foster a less cumbersome shift to global govt in more or less the same way one double-clutches a non-synchro transmission in order to execute a gear change.  (I don't know about that but do find the hypothesis viable.)  At any rate Japan is a wealthy nation, and due to it's demographics one which should have plenty of money they are not using to cough up in order to 'save the earth.'

I do wonder if an incentive for Japanese to incur the expense of developing and launching their own carbon observatory was to make sure they did not get rolled by whatever data NASA choose to put out.  And with a monopoly on data they could produce whatever results were politically expedient.  I'd not put it past them, and especially not now after seeing how they (and NOAA and various other entities around the world) are 'homogenizing' old time mercury readings in order to produce a politically desirable temperature trend.

[galdur]

Hmm, I just read that about 18% of world methane emissions is caused by Indian cattle. A very very few of which are actually used for anything except mobile traffic hazards. Weird, huh?

[tvbcof]

Hmm, I just read that about 18% of world methane emissions is caused by Indian cattle. A very very few of which are actually used for anything except mobile traffic hazards. Weird, huh?

Doubtful number unless it is as a percentage of bovids.

Some theories say that the Indian culture evolved to dis-favor beef because cow manure is helpful for agriculture.  I kind of doubt that because they burn the stuff without inducing the wrath of whatever-gods-they-have.  OTOH, when people are starved for energy they will burn fuckin' near anything which will burn.  This rather obvious observation undercut's the idea that somehow cutting fossil fuel consumption rates to 1800's levels (per-capita) is going to have some sort of a positive impact on the environment.  On the contrary it is an almost sure-fire (no pun intended) way to ensure nearly complete denudation of most plant life.  Killing most humans makes a lot more sense but most greenies not willing and/or able to think for themselves.  Their leaderships OTOH...

As for methane, my understanding is that at least a significant fraction of it comes from termites which are comparable in biomass and similar in that the host microorganisms which are actually responsible for converting cellulose into methane.

Let's also not forget that methane, although a 'potent greenhouse gas', is not a big cause for concern in the atmosphere because water vapor will absorb electromagnetic radiation on it's spectrum of interest anyway.  This is kind of like the principle that if one is already behind an armor plate, putting up some bullet-proof glass in front of it has little effect.  See:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/

[galdur]

Yes, instead on this incessant "we must do less of x to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" we should focus on decreasing the number of human sapiens doing all those supposedly bad things. Makes sense to me.