Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dissident]

I don't like to promote other forums but these two forums have high levels of free speech although admittedly there is a republican bias you have to pick through.

http://godlikeproductions.com

http://lunaticoutpost.com/

I would say that the rise in CO2 levels is an obvious, man induced change. I'm not going to panic about it and pretend we can do anything about it, since some of the same liberals who whine about it are the ones that drive gas guzzling SUVs anyways, and we have china and other developing nations that pollute like crazy. Hopefully it won't lead to a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, but warming the northern climates could be a good thing.. there's a lot of landmass on this planet located in cold, inhospitable environments.

[Wilikon]

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.

Communism was responsible for the deaths of about 94 million people in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century. China alone was responsible for 65 million of those deaths under communist rule.

Environmentalists often hail China as a model for fighting global warming, since they are a “leader” in renewable energy. The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, China got 9 percent of its power from renewables — the U.S. by contrast got 11 percent in 2012.

However, the country still gets 90 percent of its power from fossil fuels, mostly from coal. In fact, Chinese coal demand is expected to explode as the country continues to develop. China has approved 100 million metric tons of new coal production capacity in 2013 as part of the government’s plan to bring 860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015.

China has publicly made big efforts to clean up its environment. The country’s booming industrial apparatus has caused so much pollution that the skies have been darkened over major cities and the air quality has heavily deteriorated.

The Wall Street Journal notes that China’s air quality was so bad that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a result of air pollution” and Chinese government figures show that “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”

The Soviet bloc’s environmental track record was similarly dismal.

The Communist Party’s National Action Plan spent $275 billion to combat rampant pollution through 2017, including reducing particulate matter 2.5 levels in the Beijing region by 25 percent.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2013/08/12/all-wet-and-nasty-beijings-polluted-waterways

[Anon136]

So the result of saying someone is wrong, mistaken or outright lying is certain to get you called a denier.

hence my argument for why denier (atleast how its used colloquially) certainly must mean more than strict adherence to the dogma that would be "man kind is having no impact on the climate what so ever". I doubt you would be called a denier if you stated that countermeasures should be taken just ones that are not quite so costly as what your opponent proposes. And i certainly do think that you would be called a denier for stating that man is effecting the climate, but that its not so severe, or the costs of countermeasures would be so great, that nothing ought to be done about it. So yea i stick by my original assessment. Believing that no action ought to be taken in response to mans effect on the climate is probably right about where that line, which upon crossing, would cause you to be labeled a denier.

I would like to agree with you, but I talk from personal experience.

What gets you labeled as a denier, no matter how good your math or researched your position, is when you DISAGREE with the alarmist pushing a political controller type solution.  In fact, if you look at the prominent "Deniers" you will see that actually they all have quite reasonable positions such as in italics above of yours.

Interesting. So in your experience, if a climate alarmist says that the government ought to spend 1 trillion dollars on combating global warming over the next 5 years, and i argue that the government ought to spend 500 billion instead, you expect that i would be labeled a denier for this?

[Wilikon]

A new proposal on climate change focuses on public health, energy, transportation and basic infrastructure.

Under the plan unveiled Tuesday, $40 million will go to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and keep the lights on.

Ten million will be earmarked for the coast, to protect it from rising sea levels.

But will it work?

While Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to us, others are more skeptical.

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

[Wilikon]

In a hearing today on climate regulation, Senator Sessions pressed EPA administrator Gina McCarthy to support the President's statements on warming which are used to justify massive proposed administrative actions which would hurt millions of workers. McCarthy proved unable and unwilling to support the President's claims despite being the central figure crafting and implementing EPA regulations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKZj-PR2Egg

[Spendulus]

http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2013/08/12/all-wet-and-nasty-beijings-polluted-waterways

i bet that don't smell like perfume

[Wilikon]

http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2013/08/12/all-wet-and-nasty-beijings-polluted-waterways

i bet that don't smell like perfume

Just call the perfume "PouBelle De Jour"...

[Wilikon]

Actor turned politician Arnold Schwarzenegger says the public won't listen to what scientists have to say about global warming.
Celebrities, the Terminator star says, are another matter.
Schwarzenegger told a press gathering today that actors must address issues like global warming in order to make an impact on the public at large.
Only actors really will get the ultimate attention,” the former governor said. “Scientists will never get the kind of attention that someone in show business gets.
Schwarzenegger, along with Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon and director James Cameron, are part of the upcoming Showtime miniseries Years of Living Dangerously which address fears over climate change. The muscle-bound actor once drove gas-guzzling cars like The Hummer, but now urges everyone to use more earth-friendly modes of transportation.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/16/schwarzenegger-actors-not-scientists-global-warming

[Wilikon]

Three arguments about climate change that should never be used
Please, can we try to make sure that these stop appearing in our discussions?


Stop me if you've heard any of these before:

"The warming is just part of a natural cycle."
"We've been warming up since the last ice age."
"To think humanity can influence the climate is pure arrogance."

If you haven't heard these arguments before, it's clearly because you've never read any of the discussions attached to our climate articles. One or more of these statements appear in just about every single climate article we run, which is made even more disappointing by the fact that these arguments are ludicrously, laughably wrong. People should be embarrassed to be making them (although I'd imagine most are oblivious to that fact). In an attempt to forestall further public humiliation, I'm going to explain why, exactly, they're such terrible arguments.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/three-arguments-about-climate-change-that-should-never-be-used/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEVER.BE.USED.EVER.OR.BANNED? (...these arguments are ludicrously, laughably wrong)

[Lethn]

What about: It is extremely arrogant to claim you know anything about the planet with only a few thousand years worth of data when our planet is in fact billions of years old and you won't even go into fucking space and find out about other planets that have atmosphere and climates like ours to compare them and see if what you say is true?

Oh wait I forgot! There's apparently nothing in space despite people knowing nothing about it! I guess we'll just have to assume people who rant on about climate change are completely right  

[Wilikon]

What about: It is extremely arrogant to claim you know anything about the planet with only a few thousand years worth of data when our planet is in fact billions of years old and you won't even go into fucking space and find out about other planets that have atmosphere and climates like ours to compare them and see if what you say is true?

Oh wait I forgot! There's apparently nothing in space despite people knowing nothing about it! I guess we'll just have to assume people who rant on about climate change are completely right  

This thread was about observing the pushing of banning beyond reddit. I am not a scientist but can anyone who is one remember the last time, any time, a theory was so much pushed as pure fact the partisans of that theory needed to shut the speech of those would not agree with?

[Spendulus]

So the result of saying someone is wrong, mistaken or outright lying is certain to get you called a denier.

hence my argument for why denier (atleast how its used colloquially) certainly must mean more than strict adherence to the dogma that would be "man kind is having no impact on the climate what so ever". I doubt you would be called a denier if you stated that countermeasures should be taken just ones that are not quite so costly as what your opponent proposes. And i certainly do think that you would be called a denier for stating that man is effecting the climate, but that its not so severe, or the costs of countermeasures would be so great, that nothing ought to be done about it. So yea i stick by my original assessment. Believing that no action ought to be taken in response to mans effect on the climate is probably right about where that line, which upon crossing, would cause you to be labeled a denier.

I would like to agree with you, but I talk from personal experience.

What gets you labeled as a denier, no matter how good your math or researched your position, is when you DISAGREE with the alarmist pushing a political controller type solution.  In fact, if you look at the prominent "Deniers" you will see that actually they all have quite reasonable positions such as in italics above of yours.

Interesting. So in your experience, if a climate alarmist says that the government ought to spend 1 trillion dollars on combating global warming over the next 5 years, and i argue that the government ought to spend 500 billion instead, you expect that i would be labeled a denier for this?

'fraid so in many circles.  You try to argue with a true believer, you are obviously a denier.  Basically an alarmist believes that the earth is being destroyed by man, and usually adheres to the "Urgent action NOW!" line of reasoning.

What, you don't believe in urgent action now?  You believe in half ass action now?  And you dared to say I was wrong?   You must be a denier.

[Spendulus]

Three arguments about climate change that should never be used
Please, can we try to make sure that these stop appearing in our discussions?


Stop me if you've heard any of these before:

"The warming is just part of a natural cycle."
"We've been warming up since the last ice age."
"To think humanity can influence the climate is pure arrogance."

If you haven't heard these arguments before, it's clearly because you've never read any of the discussions attached to our climate articles. One or more of these statements appear in just about every single climate article we run, which is made even more disappointing by the fact that these arguments are ludicrously, laughably wrong. People should be embarrassed to be making them (although I'd imagine most are oblivious to that fact). In an attempt to forestall further public humiliation, I'm going to explain why, exactly, they're such terrible arguments.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/three-arguments-about-climate-change-that-should-never-be-used/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEVER.BE.USED.EVER.OR.BANNED? (...these arguments are ludicrously, laughably wrong)

This is a tactic in debate where one takes the far extreme of an argument, then knocks it down.  By making a 'strawman' of these arguments, he attempts to invalidate them.

From the comments....

Three more arguments about climate change that should never be used:

1. The science regarding climate change is settled.
2. All of the warming observed has been tied definitively to solely human causes.
3. We can take action to reverse climate change.

Note the omnipotence assumed in #3.

[Spendulus]

Actor turned politician Arnold Schwarzenegger says the public won't listen to what scientists have to say about global warming.
Celebrities, the Terminator star says, are another matter.
Schwarzenegger told a press gathering today that actors must address issues like global warming in order to make an impact on the public at large.
Only actors really will get the ultimate attention,” the former governor said. “Scientists will never get the kind of attention that someone in show business gets.
Schwarzenegger, along with Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon and director James Cameron, are part of the upcoming Showtime miniseries Years of Living Dangerously which address fears over climate change. The muscle-bound actor once drove gas-guzzling cars like The Hummer, but now urges everyone to use more earth-friendly modes of transportation.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/16/schwarzenegger-actors-not-scientists-global-warming

Oh?  Last time I saw him bragging about his Hummer it was about how wonderful the Hydrogen Economy was going to be and how it was going to Power His Hummer.

Guess that fairy tale didn't work out too well.  But he fell for it hook line and sinker.

Now he's proud of his H1, which is out of production but a cult classic diesel.  And not exactly a gas guzzler, IIRC it averaged 18mpg.

And anytime since the diesel engine was invented, it could be ran on biodiesel. 

So what's Arnold actually got to say, exactly?

[Wipeout2097]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

[u9y42]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

Well, at least a vocal minority do seem to believe so... or that it's just another government conspiracy to tax you to death.

[Wilikon]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

I believe the "facts" pushed by the "warmists" to prove their point should always be scientific. Shutting down the speech of the people pointing out the flaws in their methodology is a political move. Exactly what reddit did 

[Wilikon]

The Sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned.

They say the conditions are eerily similar to those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London’s River Thames.

Researcher believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to ‘major changes’ in temperatures.

‘Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,’ Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.

‘I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.’

He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum.

‘There were cold winters, almost a mini ice age.

‘You had a period when the River Thames froze.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html

[Wipeout2097]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

You don't know what my points really are itt...

One is: why do people even try to come with apparently "high-minded" arguments to mask and hide their basic self-interest, in what often is a zero-sum game?  In my view, neither camp has much credibility, due to the conflict of interest involved. 2ºC hotter or 2ºC colder, means loss for some people and gains for others. So is reducing the dependency of oil. In the U.S., this drama  has to do with keeping the domestic oil industry and the petrodollar. In other regions, like Russia it's gas, oil, more arable land and access to Artic. In Europe, there's North winter/South summer divide, i.e. nobody wants colder winters and paralysis at North, while Southerners can't stand hotter summer and droughts. Global warming for already hot regions like Africa and Middle East is terrible, etc...

[Wilikon]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

You don't know what my points really are itt...

One is: why do people even try to come with apparently "high-minded" arguments to mask and hide their basic self-interest, in what often is a zero-sum game?  In my view, neither camp has much credibility, due to the conflict of interest involved. 2ºC hotter or 2ºC colder, means loss for some people and gains for others. So is reducing the dependency of oil. In the U.S., this drama  has to do with keeping the domestic oil industry and the petrodollar. In other regions, like Russia it's gas, oil, more arable land and access to Artic. In Europe, there's North winter/South summer divide, i.e. nobody wants colder winters and paralysis at North, while Southerners can't stand hotter summer and droughts. Global warming for already hot regions like Africa and Middle East is terrible, etc...

But it is not a zero-sum game. Billions are "invested" everyday in the fight for global warming and climate change. Crony capitalism and politicians who love taxing LOVE global warming. So it does matter to them to make sure by imposing a carbon tax they will reduce the temperature by 2ºC in 200 years, if you pay now to help for their reelection, for the funding of his friends' research for the next 20 years, etc, etc.

Of course the flip side is "Yes but you forget Exxon is paying for EVERY single denier's research. The dogma is settled and those poor souls can't seem to find the light, blinded by the factory smokestacks of their evil masters..."

Sorry if i did not know what your point was. I reply to an idea, not really to individuals.