Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

What a marvelous discussion we have here xD

You're right, its a been a real roller coaster.  I have put together a montage of my reactions as I read the thread.
         

Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD

Don't lose faith in humanity. This thread will not be forbidden to you. Ever. You are free to express and share ideas anytime, 24/7.

 


By the way what happened since the Paris Global Hoax Climate change caviar party... Anyone knows?

[1714757110]

1714757110

[1714757110]

1714757110

[1714757110]

1714757110

[mOgliE]

Hmm...What I've done above is show you where one of the main perps admits they are lying.  I agree, you didn't QUOTE Trenberth.  You just used him as an authoritative source.  And he's basically said they were all lying.   There's a lot more like that.

As for 0.33 warming in the graph, please get real.  The question is "statistically significant warming."  In any series of measurements, there is error.  Statistics 101 shows how to look at the variance, and determine if it may be considered as different from zero.  This cannot be considered different from zero.

No what you've done before is writing a sentence stating he lied. Again no proof of any kind. If I write " Spendulus wrote a mail in which he stated that he loved bananas" it doesn"t mean that you love bananas.

I don't know how it is possible Oo
Do we have the same definition of "going up"? Can't you see that each and EVERY ONE of the graphs you showed are actually going up? Without stopping? And by all I really mean ALL!!!

I'm really astonished, it's like pointing to the sky saying "it's blue" and you answer me no it's dark green. I don't think we'll be able to go any further from here xD

Ok maybe let's define what "going up" means. You're talking about the last two decades ok? So the values concerned are those from 1994 to 2014 we're good on that? (I don't put 2015 as it's just finished) Now what do you say about the definition of "going up" as "the graph can be approximate by a linear curve with a positive growth"? Or define "going up" yourself!

[mOgliE]

What a marvelous discussion we have here xD

You're right, its a been a real roller coaster.  I have put together a montage of my reactions as I read the thread.
         

Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD

Don't lose faith in humanity. This thread will not be forbidden to you. Ever. You are free to express and share ideas anytime, 24/7.

 


By the way what happened since the Paris Global Hoax Climate change caviar party... Anyone knows?

I understand your very American need of free speech, and I respect that. But free speech by itself seems totally useless to me. It's great to be able to speak as you wish, but if it's to see a bunch of people talking total nonsense without any kind of proof and just persuading each other, I don't really see how it should reassure me 

And the Paris party has nothing to do with all that, it's just a political party. They're here to tell the people "see, we're taking care of you" and they will pollute even more... But that's exactly like the dozens of false promises of our politicians.

[Spendulus]

Hmm...What I've done above is show you where one of the main perps admits they are lying.  I agree, you didn't QUOTE Trenberth.  You just used him as an authoritative source.  And he's basically said they were all lying.   There's a lot more like that.

As for 0.33 warming in the graph, please get real.  The question is "statistically significant warming."  In any series of measurements, there is error.  Statistics 101 shows how to look at the variance, and determine if it may be considered as different from zero.  This cannot be considered different from zero.

No what you've done before is writing a sentence stating he lied. Again no proof of any kind. If I write " Spendulus wrote a mail in which he stated that he loved bananas" it doesn"t mean that you love bananas.
...

What do you want, a link to the Climategate email base, and them within that a link to Trenberth's emails?

And then what?  Are you denying the requirement for "statistically significance?"

Because if you are doing that, you have no place discussing science whatsoever.

[galdur]

What a marvelous discussion we have here xD

You're right, its a been a real roller coaster.  I have put together a montage of my reactions as I read the thread.
         

Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD

Don't lose faith in humanity. This thread will not be forbidden to you. Ever. You are free to express and share ideas anytime, 24/7.

 


By the way what happened since the Paris Global Hoax Climate change caviar party... Anyone knows?

I understand your very American need of free speech, and I respect that. But free speech by itself seems totally useless to me. It's great to be able to speak as you wish, but if it's to see a bunch of people talking total nonsense without any kind of proof and just persuading each other, I don't really see how it should reassure me 

And the Paris party has nothing to do with all that, it's just a political party. They're here to tell the people "see, we're taking care of you" and they will pollute even more... But that's exactly like the dozens of false promises of our politicians.

....and they will pollute even more.... I hope you´re not referring to CO2 as pollution. Plants rely on it and they are the basis of all life on this planet.

[mOgliE]

Hmm...What I've done above is show you where one of the main perps admits they are lying.  I agree, you didn't QUOTE Trenberth.  You just used him as an authoritative source.  And he's basically said they were all lying.   There's a lot more like that.

As for 0.33 warming in the graph, please get real.  The question is "statistically significant warming."  In any series of measurements, there is error.  Statistics 101 shows how to look at the variance, and determine if it may be considered as different from zero.  This cannot be considered different from zero.

No what you've done before is writing a sentence stating he lied. Again no proof of any kind. If I write " Spendulus wrote a mail in which he stated that he loved bananas" it doesn"t mean that you love bananas.
...

What do you want, a link to the Climategate email base, and them within that a link to Trenberth's emails?

And then what?  Are you denying the requirement for "statistically significance?"

Because if you are doing that, you have no place discussing science whatsoever.

Seems like we don't have the same definition because as far as I saw there IS a fucking statistically significant rise! That's why I was trying to agree with you on a defenition of going up... A mathematical one.

And I don't care about how you prove what you're saying, but just writing a sentence in which you say he's lying is not a proof. Otherwise I could do the same here:

"Didn't you here about Total which managed to lobby so strong that they made people believe CO2 is good for the planet? Here is what theyr wrote in a mail:
Dude, it's incredible how CO2 is going to fuck everything up, but the good point is that as we control the media we'll be able to make America actually believe it's good for the planet, as it's what the plants need to survive LOL!"

Just putting it in italics is not exactly a proof you know...

[mOgliE]

What a marvelous discussion we have here xD

You're right, its a been a real roller coaster.  I have put together a montage of my reactions as I read the thread.
         

Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD

Don't lose faith in humanity. This thread will not be forbidden to you. Ever. You are free to express and share ideas anytime, 24/7.

 


By the way what happened since the Paris Global Hoax Climate change caviar party... Anyone knows?

I understand your very American need of free speech, and I respect that. But free speech by itself seems totally useless to me. It's great to be able to speak as you wish, but if it's to see a bunch of people talking total nonsense without any kind of proof and just persuading each other, I don't really see how it should reassure me 

And the Paris party has nothing to do with all that, it's just a political party. They're here to tell the people "see, we're taking care of you" and they will pollute even more... But that's exactly like the dozens of false promises of our politicians.

....and they will pollute even more.... I hope you´re not referring to CO2 as pollution. Plants rely on it and they are the basis of all life on this planet.

Do you want to get ignored too? Cause that's how you get ignored!

I'll give you a clue! Humans need oxygene in the exact same way plants need CO2 ok? And you know what happens if I double the rate of oxygene in the air you breath? YOU DIE!

It's exactly the same thing for each and every element, and too much CO2 leads to plants literaly dying of suffocation. Though it's not the main problem of CO2 pollution, but you're maybe in the same guideline as the others idiots explaining that "NASA is lying that's all"...

[strayanbit]

I really think Galdur, bitnow and baddecker could be great friends 

[Wilikon]

I really think Galdur, bitnow and baddecker could be great friends 

You are a great friend.

[Spendulus]

...

It's exactly the same thing for each and every element, and too much CO2 leads to plants literaly dying of suffocation. Though it's not the main problem of CO2 pollution, but you're maybe in the same guideline as the others idiots explaining that "NASA is lying that's all"...

So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?  

Lol, try operating a greenhouse some time.  

Doubling or tripling CO2 certainly does increase plant growth considerably.  

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.

Regarding O2.  Numerous spacecraft have operated with pure oxygen - 100% oxygen.  The danger from this is obviously fire.

If total pressure exceeds 1.6 atmosphere, that is bad.  

***********************

Trenberth -

Here is the email I mentioned.

https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming....
....

    Kevin

Oh, and the Stephen Schneider in his email list?  Let's take a look at one of his little opinions.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Could it be that you simple fell for some of those "Scary Stories?"

LOL...

[hdbuck]

What a marvelous discussion we have here xD

You're right, its a been a real roller coaster.  I have put together a montage of my reactions as I read the thread.
         

Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD

Don't lose faith in humanity. This thread will not be forbidden to you. Ever. You are free to express and share ideas anytime, 24/7.

 


By the way what happened since the Paris Global Hoax Climate change caviar party... Anyone knows?

I understand your very American need of free speech, and I respect that. But free speech by itself seems totally useless to me. It's great to be able to speak as you wish, but if it's to see a bunch of people talking total nonsense without any kind of proof and just persuading each other, I don't really see how it should reassure me 

And the Paris party has nothing to do with all that, it's just a political party. They're here to tell the people "see, we're taking care of you" and they will pollute even more... But that's exactly like the dozens of false promises of our politicians.

....and they will pollute even more.... I hope you´re not referring to CO2 as pollution. Plants rely on it and they are the basis of all life on this planet.

Do you want to get ignored too? Cause that's how you get ignored!

I'll give you a clue! Humans need oxygene in the exact same way plants need CO2 ok? And you know what happens if I double the rate of oxygene in the air you breath? YOU DIE!

It's exactly the same thing for each and every element, and too much CO2 leads to plants literaly dying of suffocation. Though it's not the main problem of CO2 pollution, but you're maybe in the same guideline as the others idiots explaining that "NASA is lying that's all"...

yeay humans activities double the CO2 on earth!

[mOgliE]

So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?  

Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Considering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

And for Trenberth.. You're just being stupid. I'm not refusing to admit that he might have lied, I'm refusing to admit that with just a sentence from you. Is it really being ignorant to refuse one's assumption without ANY KIND of proof?

Trenberth -

Here is the email I mentioned.

https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming....
....

    Kevin

Oh, and the Stephen Schneider in his email list?  Let's take a look at one of his little opinions.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Much better than just you writing something. Here you have a link, that's called giving sources, it's the base of any written article. And it's the first time you did this so congrats.

Not sure I understand everything here. English is not my native language but seems like something fishy is under that for sure.

Could it be that you simple fell for some of those "Scary Stories?"

LOL...

Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying".

[Spendulus]

So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?  

Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Considering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html....

Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying".

Bull.  Think greenhouses.  Standard industrial practice is elevated CO2.  Is it true only for some crops?  Well, your article isn't a scientific reference.  You've linked to nothing authoritative, and you've used a propaganda website, skepticalscience, to do so.  From the comments,

"This article makes a lot of predictions as if they were proven fact. That is not the case. I am amazed that any number of catastrophic scenarios can be attributed to "excess" CO2 and not one single positive benefit has been presented."

This rather follows the advice of Stephen Schneider, doesn't it?  "Present scary stories."  Think about that for a moment.  Go ahead, present your scary stories.  Farmers are going to go ahead and elevate their CO2 levels in their greenhouses and just laugh at such silliness.

As for "your proofs?"  You have introduced no "proofs."  I assume that you use the word incorrectly because English is not your first language.  But then I don't know what you are trying to say.

[galdur]

I really think Galdur, bitnow and baddecker could be great friends 

You are a great friend.

I guess these people haven´t noticed that there are record grain crop yields these days. The plants certainly aren´t complaining about CO2 "pollution". 

[mOgliE]

So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?  

Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Considering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html....

Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying".

Bull.  Think greenhouses.  Standard industrial practice is elevated CO2.  Is it true only for some crops?  Well, your article isn't a scientific reference.  You've linked to nothing authoritative, and you've used a propaganda website, skepticalscience, to do so.  From the comments,

"This article makes a lot of predictions as if they were proven fact. That is not the case. I am amazed that any number of catastrophic scenarios can be attributed to "excess" CO2 and not one single positive benefit has been presented."

This rather follows the advice of Stephen Schneider, doesn't it?  "Present scary stories."  Think about that for a moment.  Go ahead, present your scary stories.  Farmers are going to go ahead and elevate their CO2 levels in their greenhouses and just laugh at such silliness.

As for "your proofs?"  You have introduced no "proofs."  I assume that you use the word incorrectly because English is not your first language.  But then I don't know what you are trying to say.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

But I guess it's a propaganda website too no? :/

And I was using the plural proofs cause you didn't answer to any older reports neither. Like this one http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Scientific enough?

[Spendulus]

So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?  

Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Considering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html....

Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying".

Bull.  Think greenhouses.  Standard industrial practice is elevated CO2.  Is it true only for some crops?  Well, your article isn't a scientific reference.  You've linked to nothing authoritative, and you've used a propaganda website, skepticalscience, to do so.  From the comments,

"This article makes a lot of predictions as if they were proven fact. That is not the case. I am amazed that any number of catastrophic scenarios can be attributed to "excess" CO2 and not one single positive benefit has been presented."

This rather follows the advice of Stephen Schneider, doesn't it?  "Present scary stories."  Think about that for a moment.  Go ahead, present your scary stories.  Farmers are going to go ahead and elevate their CO2 levels in their greenhouses and just laugh at such silliness.

As for "your proofs?"  You have introduced no "proofs."  I assume that you use the word incorrectly because English is not your first language.  But then I don't know what you are trying to say.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

But I guess it's a propaganda website too no? :/

And I was using the plural proofs cause you didn't answer to any older reports neither. Like this one http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Scientific enough?

Scientific?

Are you kidding?

You are referencing a summary report FOR POLITICIANS by a firm which avowed purpose is making money off the "scary stories," and which is about the amounts of money to various such stories.

However, if you took the time to actually read the report, you would find that it provides no "plural proofs," whatever that means.  For example, consider this statement from the report.

With or without climate change, physical damage from extreme weather is increasing in Europe as populations encroach on at-risk areas and economic growth raises the value of assets (EEA, 2005). With climate change having made certain extreme weather events more likely, and the high likelihood that it will be even worse in the future, it is prudent fashion an adequate response.


Now, who would argue with that?  If civilian population center near the coastlines grow, and move closer to the coastlines, aren't the cost of tropical hurricanes hitting the coast going to go up?   They are only using "climate change" to support arguments for increased funding.

[mOgliE]

Scientific?

Are you kidding?

You are referencing a summary report FOR POLITICIANS by a firm which avowed purpose is making money off the "scary stories," and which is about the amounts of money to various such stories.

However, if you took the time to actually read the report, you would find that it provides no "plural proofs," whatever that means.  For example, consider this statement from the report.

With or without climate change, physical damage from extreme weather is increasing in Europe as populations encroach on at-risk areas and economic growth raises the value of assets (EEA, 2005). With climate change having made certain extreme weather events more likely, and the high likelihood that it will be even worse in the future, it is prudent fashion an adequate response.


Now, who would argue with that?  If civilian population center near the coastlines grow, and move closer to the coastlines, aren't the cost of tropical hurricanes hitting the coast going to go up?   They are only using "climate change" to support arguments for increased funding.

No they're trying to be critics with their own work explaining it's also an element to take into account which makes difficult to know to which extent CO2 can be related to disasters. But they still deduce that "climate change having made certain extreme weather events more likely".

Dude if you go like this there is just no science, of course it's made for politicians and they're paid for this!

Is there any source you qualify as reliable??? I gave you a NASA and a EU source! Where the heck am I supposed to find data you acknowledge if this is not "scientific enough" for you?

[galdur]

If you get stuck in this idea that carbon dioxide is some kind of pollution, I guess you´ll soon be having problems with humans and other animals exhaling the stuff and you´d probably be interested in exterminating them en masse to counter the problem.

[galdur]

I mean; you´ve been hearing this song forever about everything running out in in a finite world and then you look around you in the year 2016 and the world is totally drowning in stuff and resources. Most commodities are at multi-decade lows. Where do you think all this propaganda has come from? From those who were trying to protect their interests? Those who own the garbage media where this has emanated from? Yes, that´s right, it has come from monopolists interested in keeping up prices over the years.

[mOgliE]

If you get stuck in this idea that carbon dioxide is some kind of pollution, I guess you´ll soon be having problems with humans and other animals exhaling the stuff and you´d probably be interested in exterminating them en masse to counter the problem.

Dude, nature is about finding a balance. CO2 is produced by animals and humans but it all depends on the rate of production. If it's not too high, then the ecosystem absorbs it via plants... It's a too high rate that we should fear.