Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87raPj9m0A

I am sorry, but this is no different than the way you hear "It's global warming that caused it!!!!"

after tornados, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, rain, snow, cold spells, fish kills, jet stream natural wobbles, polar ice increase, polar ice decrease, polar bear population increases, on and on and on...

This meme has jumped the shark.

People that want to talk about Global Warming need to just Shut the Fuck Up.

If in fact one day we actually figure that there is a bit too much co2 in the air, the job will then be to simply embed it in a slightly larger biomass.  And no I'm not talking the stupidity of 'planting trees', but engineered stuff.

With the amount of money invested in green energy worldwide everyday based on global warming fear, no way this meme has jumped the shark yet.

[Spendulus]

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87raPj9m0A

I am sorry, but this is no different than the way you hear "It's global warming that caused it!!!!"

after tornados, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, rain, snow, cold spells, fish kills, jet stream natural wobbles, polar ice increase, polar ice decrease, polar bear population increases, on and on and on...

This meme has jumped the shark.

People that want to talk about Global Warming need to just Shut the Fuck Up.

If in fact one day we actually figure that there is a bit too much co2 in the air, the job will then be to simply embed it in a slightly larger biomass.  And no I'm not talking the stupidity of 'planting trees', but engineered stuff.

With the amount of money invested in green energy worldwide everyday based on global warming fear, no way this meme has jumped the shark yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZGKI8vpcg

from the comments...

The term Jumping the Shark was coined from this yes, but it is supposed to be the instance when a TV show has peaked, and is now beginning it's decline. Family guy actually jumped the Shark a long time ago, around the time Cleveland left...

"Beginning it's decline" ring a bell?  

But, Warmies wouldn't want people to know...so the'd .... the'd hide ... hide...hide...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

"ignoring the cold and the snow and the downward line...
Hide THE DECLINE!"

again from the comments "just because you're right doesn't mean you don't suck!"

[Wilikon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDER6GP30c

Perfect.

[Wilikon]

A controversial proposal to cool the planet artificially by injecting tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere which block out sunlight would cause droughts and climate chaos in the poorest countries of the world, a study has found.

One of the more serious plans to “geoengineer” the global climate would in effect create another climate catastrophe that would result in misery for millions of people, according to a computer model of the plan.

Some climate researchers have suggested that mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions with massive injections of sulphate particles into the atmosphere may be necessary in an emergency if global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise unabated.

It is known that the sulphate particles produced by volcanoes, which are relatively quickly washed out of the atmosphere, can reduce incoming solar radiation significantly, and so cause average global temperatures to dip.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/plan-to-avert-global-warming-by-cooling-planet-artificially-could-cause-climate-chaos-9043962.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madness.

[Spendulus]

A controversial proposal to cool the planet artificially by injecting tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere which block out sunlight would cause droughts and climate chaos in the poorest countries of the world, a study has found.

One of the more serious plans to “geoengineer” the global climate would in effect create another climate catastrophe that would result in misery for millions of people, according to a computer model of the plan.

Some climate researchers have suggested that mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions with massive injections of sulphate particles into the atmosphere may be necessary in an emergency if global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise unabated.

It is known that the sulphate particles produced by volcanoes, which are relatively quickly washed out of the atmosphere, can reduce incoming solar radiation significantly, and so cause average global temperatures to dip.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/plan-to-avert-global-warming-by-cooling-planet-artificially-could-cause-climate-chaos-9043962.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madness.

FYI

The 5th "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC report is available, draft form, here.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

This is an interesting document.

Some of were labeled 'deniers' because we claimed there was a Medieval Warming Period. 

Now the IPCC admits so.

Some were labeled 'deniers' because we said there has been no statistically significant warming during the last 15 years.

Now the IPCC admits so.

Some were labeled 'deniers' because we said that climate sensitivity was lower than hystericl warmies alleged. 

Now the IPCC admits so.



And who would argue with settled science?

[cryptasm]

Well cuckold me sideways!  Pat Robertson has 100% undeniable proof global warming is a hoax:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/07/pat-robertson-global-warming-is-a-scam-because-there-are-no-suvs-on-jupiter/

"Televangelist Pat Robertson pointed to the cold U.S. weather on Tuesday — and the fact that there were no “SUVs driving around in Jupiter” — to assert that global warming was a scam created by scientists".

"“It’s getting warmer in Jupiter, and they don’t have any SUVs driving around in Jupiter,” Robertson explained. “I mean, it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. It has to do with the axis of the Sun.”


Case closed as far as I'm concerned, this dude can even cure your toothache through the TV:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/08/christian-broadcasting-network-pat-robertson-can-pray-viewers-toothaches-away-over-the-tv/

[Raize]

Well cuckold me sideways!  Pat Robertson has 100% undeniable proof global warming is a hoax

That's a pretty lame strawman. Falsify AGW, please.

[Spendulus]

Well cuckold me sideways!  Pat Robertson has 100% undeniable proof global warming is a hoax

That's a pretty lame strawman. Falsify AGW, please.

Has it occurred to you that "Falsify AGW" is the strawman?

Look at my post 2x above.  None of those issues mentioned are "AGW".  "AGW" is an unscientific hodgepodge of phenomena.

Falsify "Denier" while you are at it.

[cryptasm]

That's a pretty lame strawman. Falsify AGW, please.

My post was extreme sarcasm, just trolling the deniers

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/5eDTzV6a9F4

An Obama Science Advisor.... Listen up little people and learn!

[Spendulus]

http://youtu.be/5eDTzV6a9F4

An Obama Science Advisor.... Listen up little people and learn!

Yes.  They are people.  They are five or six feet tall.

We are little people.  Inches if lucky.  Millimeters.

That's a story I heard before.

[Raize]

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that none of you know about the demarcation problem of science, and really have no business debating this from either angle. Falsification is what separates science from pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is rampant in this thread.

[Spendulus]

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that none of you know about the demarcation problem of science, and really have no business debating this from either angle. Falsification is what separates science from pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is rampant in this thread.

I actually thought something exactly like that when you said:

"Falsify AGW"

To which I replied:

Has it occurred to you that "Falsify AGW" is the strawman?
Look at my post 2x above.  None of those issues mentioned are "AGW".  "AGW" is an unscientific hodgepodge of phenomena.
Falsify "Denier" while you are at it.

[Raize]

Spendulus, I think you're mistaking what the word falsify means with regard to the demarcation problem of science.

If you bothered to look it up, you'd see I'm stating that AGW claims are nothing more than psuedoscience and they need to make falsifiable statements in order for us to demarcate their claims as real science or cargo cult science. That's what falsify AGW means. It doesn't mean "disprove it" it means "make a statement that you can soundly claim with NEVER happen to support your theory".

Here's one from evolution: "We will never find modern day rabbit fossils embedded in pre-Cambrian rock."

AGW alarmists have yet to come up with one single falsifiable statement regarding man's impact on carbon. I don't doubt there is science to be had here, but it is not in making alarmist calls surrounding claims of few or several degrees temperature differences over periods of time. Instead, science is making bold claims, like "If X then Y" or "If X then not Z". Alarmists are unable to make such claims, so the only thing the rest of the scientific world can do is scratch their heads and shrug because there's not a damn thing to test or verify. This is the crux of the issue. You can't refute something that's not making scientific claims, which is why AGW alarmism has perpetuated itself for so damn long. Sure, they have a consensus in their little journals, but FFS the Vatican has a consensus on the virgin Mary! That a few individuals who choose to take the title "climatologist" decide to also be alarmist doesn't tell us anything. There weren't even degree programs for climatology as a standalone degree till 2001. It seems the required credentials for being a climatologist is that you have a degree in one of the following: physics, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, geology, entomology, microbiology, oceanography, astronomy, math, computer science, or statistics. I can assure anyone there is far from a consensus among those degrees on AGW, though their might be a consensus among those in those degrees that also choose to call themselves climatologists. We might agree there's been warming, we might agree that man's had some sort of an impact, but we don't all agree it's universally bad, and we certainly disagree on the level of impact. There's anything but a consensus on a single statement or claim related to AGW.

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

[Schleicher]

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

Well, they make falsifyable claims all the time.
"Burning of fossile fuel  --> more CO2 in the air"
"More CO2 --> more heat absorption"
"Higher temperatures --> increased melting of ice"
"Higher temperatures --> more water evaporation"
and so on

[Wilikon]

Not a fake.

[Spendulus]

Spendulus, I think you're mistaking what the word falsify means with regard to the demarcation problem of science.

If you bothered to look it up, you'd see I'm stating that AGW claims are nothing more than psuedoscience and they need to make falsifiable statements in order for us to demarcate their claims as real science or cargo cult science. That's what falsify AGW means. It doesn't mean "disprove it" it means "make a statement that you can soundly claim with NEVER happen to support your theory".

Here's one from evolution: "We will never find modern day rabbit fossils embedded in pre-Cambrian rock."

AGW alarmists have yet to come up with one single falsifiable statement regarding man's impact on carbon. I don't doubt there is science to be had here, but it is not in making alarmist calls surrounding claims of few or several degrees temperature differences over periods of time. Instead, science is making bold claims, like "If X then Y" or "If X then not Z". Alarmists are unable to make such claims, so the only thing the rest of the scientific world can do is scratch their heads and shrug because there's not a damn thing to test or verify. This is the crux of the issue. You can't refute something that's not making scientific claims, which is why AGW alarmism has perpetuated itself for so damn long. Sure, they have a consensus in their little journals, but FFS the Vatican has a consensus on the virgin Mary! That a few individuals who choose to take the title "climatologist" decide to also be alarmist doesn't tell us anything. There weren't even degree programs for climatology as a standalone degree till 2001. It seems the required credentials for being a climatologist is that you have a degree in one of the following: physics, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, geology, entomology, microbiology, oceanography, astronomy, math, computer science, or statistics. I can assure anyone there is far from a consensus among those degrees on AGW, though their might be a consensus among those in those degrees that also choose to call themselves climatologists. We might agree there's been warming, we might agree that man's had some sort of an impact, but we don't all agree it's universally bad, and we certainly disagree on the level of impact. There's anything but a consensus on a single statement or claim related to AGW.

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

Yes, I did misunderstand your use of the phrase.

I took it as a challenge to falsify AGW, imply AGW was truth, when in fact, it is .... truthy....

Is it possible that the reason for the paucity of testable hypotheses is the known inability to publish negative results?  EG, those that do not support "AGW"?

[Spendulus]

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

Well, they make falsifyable claims all the time.
"Burning of fossile fuel  --> more CO2 in the air"
"More CO2 --> more heat absorption"
"Higher temperatures --> increased melting of ice"
"Higher temperatures --> more water evaporation"
and so on

But is there even such a thing as a 'global average temperature'?

In reflecting on it, I see serious problems with that basic construction, on which many of these premises and arguments are based.  Hence, I would reject 'science' which attempted to draw conclusions from such premises with demonstrable errors.

Let me put it this way:  Anyone who does not understand what I mean in the above paragraph should definitely not be debating this subject.

[Wilikon]

A group of Bay Area environmentalists has proposed labels that will warn drivers of their contribution to global warming every time they pull up to the pump.

Similar to the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes, the proposed stickers would remind motorists of the State of California’s position that fossil fuels are leading to potentially hazardous climate change.

The labels are needed because, “There’s no immediate signal to a consumer of gasoline to show their effects on climate,” Jamie Brooks told the San Francisco Chronicle. Brooks represents 350BayArea.org, the group behind the proposal.

The Chronicle reports that the proposal is being proposed to individual city governments, and that San Francisco and Berkeley officials have already been approached about the idea. There was no timeline on when the labels could appear. If approved they would likely face legal challenges from the oil industry.



http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/09/warnings-labels-proposed-as-global-warming-reminder-at-california-gas-pumps/

[Snowfire]

But is there even such a thing as a 'global average temperature'?

Are you asserting that

1) No such thing can be defined, even in principle (implying that it is meaningless to state that the sun is warmer than Pluto,) or that

2) You have in mind some better definition of GAT than those measures currently in use  (please share with us, if so..)