Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[flagpara]

And about the USA part, I'm spitting on the USA for ideological reasons. It doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fact that USA have some incredible scientists and sometimes do things really awesome. But just sometimes, most of the time it's just crappy useless shit I'd be better without. Facebook and Apple being just one of them.

[1714992040]

1714992040

[Wilikon]

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...

CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".

They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.

I give you the links of governmental studies, European rapport, you send me a shady blog without any source, any figure, any proof

You want to prove climate alarmists might be wrong? No need, they might. Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already. If you try often enough you'll find counter examples. It's not a very precise science, it's more a question of huge trends.

Please, don't try to argue with a strange article which doesn't even give its sources...

I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 

[flagpara]

I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 

It's a free forum so you can do as you please! But don't try to sound more legitimate than you are

You have a beautiful graph that's totally right! But where does it come from? Howcan you be sure it's legit? I found very different numbers in the official "registre des températures" (sorry, Frenchsource, but it's graph so everyone understands ^^) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registre_de_temp%C3%A9rature#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

You're saying

You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"

No, I find some debates interesting! Like the one about possible new ice age! But please use right articles, real informations. Your article was just a post in a blog, there was not even one scientific source! Maybe it's legit but there is no way to check... And in we can't be really sure of anything. The European reports I posted talk about probabilities, most of the time they also try to figure what are the chances of them being wrong.

And again you ignored my propositions and the official reports and published articles I posted :/

Thanks for your last sentence, it seems I had some misplaced anger and maybe misunderstood some of your intonations.

But it doesn't change anything about the fact that I'm trying to confront you, but you keep ignoring my attacks, even though they're on a very solid scientific basis 

[Wilikon]

I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 

It's a free forum so you can do as you please! But don't try to sound more legitimate than you are

You have a beautiful graph that's totally right! But where does it come from? Howcan you be sure it's legit? I found very different numbers in the official "registre des températures" (sorry, Frenchsource, but it's graph so everyone understands ^^) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registre_de_temp%C3%A9rature#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

You're saying

You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"

No, I find some debates interesting! Like the one about possible new ice age! But please use right articles, real informations. Your article was just a post in a blog, there was not even one scientific source! Maybe it's legit but there is no way to check... And in we can't be really sure of anything. The European reports I posted talk about probabilities, most of the time they also try to figure what are the chances of them being wrong.

And again you ignored my propositions and the official reports and published articles I posted :/

Thanks for your last sentence, it seems I had some misplaced anger and maybe misunderstood some of your intonations.

But it doesn't change anything about the fact that I'm trying to confront you, but you keep ignoring my attacks, even though they're on a very solid scientific basis  

When you say you will never agree with any of the positions pushed forward in this thread, that it is a good thing a tyrant should be in charge to define and impose his will upon the global warming deniers, it is not an attack, but a statement.

I believe you think this is reddit and you will get some reddit gold. This is not the Battle of Marengo and I am not pretending to be some austrian general not seeing a surprised attack coming...

My position and my reaction toward your "very solid scientific basis" should reinforce your very solid scientific based opinion that the USA is not a civilized country. As a proud participant of this vibrant construct, The United State of America, it would then be very obvious to you by now why I do not believe crème brulée is the result of global warming...

[Spendulus]

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...

CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".....

I seem to recall you were in engineering.  Then you know that I certainly can refute all arguments on the non-satellite means of determining "average temperatures."

This is easy since ground based measurements are multiphase systems.  Apply the 3 laws of thermodynamics.

Any thing else to discuss about "average temperatures?"

[flagpara]

Just... Why are you answering me if you're not reading what I'm posting?

I never went on reddit so can't say anythig about it...

Never talked about a tyrant imposing everything, just saying that if more than half of the population (like in Europe) takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it...

You ask for scientific contents, i give you official European reports you don't even bother to read. I gave you the official record of satellit temperatures and THEY MATCH.

What you gave me was just a crappy graph I don't even know where you found it.

[flagpara]

I think I'll stop coming here. You don't even bother read or answer what I say or post.

And for the third thermonamic law... Are you kidding me? Not saying you're wrong but it's nothing near simple! And it doesn't matter, look for the official NASA reports of temperatures measures, they do match with the one on ground. The graph you were showing is something without any source, I don't know where the guy found it maybe he even did it himself. The one I gave you show ground and satellites temperatures measures match, and it's the official NASA one...

You never answered about one of the reports I gave you, neither did you answer my question about the fact that your "article" is nothing near scientific and has no source at all.

Does it seem normal to you to hold a blog article without source as a "proof"?

[Wilikon]

I think I'll stop coming here. You don't even bother read or answer what I say or post.

And for the third thermonamic law... Are you kidding me? Not saying you're wrong but it's nothing near simple! And it doesn't matter, look for the official NASA reports of temperatures measures, they do match with the one on ground. The graph you were showing is something without any source, I don't know where the guy found it maybe he even did it himself. The one I gave you show ground and satellites temperatures measures match, and it's the official NASA one...

You never answered about one of the reports I gave you, neither did you answer my question about the fact that your "article" is nothing near scientific and has no source at all.

Does it seem normal to you to hold a blog article without source as a "proof"?

You are free to stay or leave, comment as long as you want, and believe everything I tell you is made up or made by my very skilled artistic vision. I post more about the believers of the faith of global warming than I do about the deniers of that fraudulent scheme. This is an old thread, go back in time. I am sure you'll find what you seek from me already. The bitcointalk search engine is pretty cool.

I did read your links but as you already know I am not civilized enough to understand why a survey by artificially scared people counts as proof... Polar bears are not in any danger and polar ice are as thick and beautiful as ever. CO2 is not a pollutant, no matter how hard you want to believe it. None of your links can be used as proof of any kind.

I am glad I pointed out to you your lack of participation with links, etc in the past. You did an amazing effort to rectify this and, thanks to you, this thread is getting richer with counter arguments, none of which will be silenced, ever.



Let me show something funny, something you believing in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

Comedy gold

 

[Spendulus]

Just... Why are you answering me if you're not reading what I'm posting?

I never went on reddit so can't say anythig about it...

Never talked about a tyrant imposing everything, just saying that if more than half of the population (like in Europe) takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it...

You ask for scientific contents, i give you official European reports you don't even bother to read. I gave you the official record of satellit temperatures and THEY MATCH.

What you gave me was just a crappy graph I don't even know where you found it.

Well, I would disagree that if half the population takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it.  The reasons are that largely they have been told what to thing, but scientificly, their opinion is worthless.  If, for example, I argue that science is not the product of consensus, but of careful and rigorous analysis, and that is within the scientific community, then certainly you can see that we can't take the "opinions" of the public into consideration in establishing what is real, and what is not.

The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

That's an amazing portable tube TV from yesteryear.

[Schleicher]

The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...

So what is your favourite satellite data set?
I think there's more than one.

I have to agree that ground based measurements have room for improvements.
Look at the white spots here:

[Spendulus]

The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...

So what is your favourite satellite data set?
I think there's more than one.

I have to agree that ground based measurements have room for improvements.
Look at the white spots here:

Yes, that's rather odd.  Have to check the Met website and see for what reasons they don't put data in segments.  I can think of several reasons one should do so, but don't know their reasons.

You know, it occurs to me that although I've mentioned the unscientific nature of a "global temperature," a very interesting graph would be a world view such as what you have presented, but with temperature anomalies figured say every point compared to the average of 100 km radius around it, with NO DATA PRESENTED were there were significant multiphase problems.  Such as ice and land, or land and water.

I don't have a clue what such a data set would show.

[notbatman]

Get the kids involved with global warming; it's never too early to get them started with "science" and down the path to untold riches in taxpayer dollars.

[strayanbit]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed! 

[notbatman]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed! 

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.

[hdbuck]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed! 

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.

noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al.

[strayanbit]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed!  

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.

noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al.

Oh yeah, lets all be skeptical of what all the non-crackpot scientists have concluded.  The opposition to climate science is lead by people like Hannity et all... Who do you believe? Mr bias and his right-wing media mates or the vast majority of scientists everywhere?

That being said, i'm not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here, all these denials we have heard before and none have stood up.  Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this now.

[notbatman]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed!  

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.

noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al.

Oh yeah, lets all be skeptical of what all the non-crackpot scientists have concluded.  The opposition to climate science is lead by people like Hannity et all... Who do you believe? Mr bias and his right-wing media mates or the vast majority of scientists everywhere?

That being said, i'm not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here, all these denials we have heard before and none have stood up.  Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this now.

"Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good." -- 1_thessalonians/5-21

[strayanbit]

Ahhhhh... You're quoting the bible now,  and you call me a blind follower hahaha.

[Spendulus]

Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed!  

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.

noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al.

Oh yeah, lets all be skeptical of what all the non-crackpot scientists have concluded.  The opposition to climate science is lead by people like Hannity et all... Who do you believe? Mr bias and his right-wing media mates or the vast majority of scientists everywhere?

That being said, i'm not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here, all these denials we have heard before and none have stood up.  Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this now.

I'm just not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here.

Just deny the decline.  Just deny the 19 years of no warming.  Just deny it.

Because that's what deniers do.

Hello, Denier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6Lyg3GC94