Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[mOgliE]

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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, you're trying to convince me that it's ok we got far more ressources that we need?

[1714752564]

1714752564

[1714752564]

1714752564

[1714752564]

1714752564

[1714752564]

1714752564

[1714752564]

1714752564

[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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, you're trying to convince me that it's ok we got far more ressources that we need?

Well, mine is to post for others is to understand. If something fails in that process that´s just too bad. I try to assume a pretty low level of ability of comprehension that´s all.

[mOgliE]

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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, you're trying to convince me that it's ok we got far more ressources that we need?

Well, mine is to post for others is to understand. If something fails in that process that´s just too bad. I try to assume a pretty low level of ability of comprehension that´s all.

Ok I'm sorry I absolutely don't understand what you're writing. Maybe it's my English capacities that are at stake here and that others understand easily what you're saying but I don't.

You don't have to explain further if you don't want. Just don't think I ignore you. It's just that I don't understand your point at all. If it's to say that we have far enough resources to continue this way...

Well if that's your point you'll just go on my ignore list 

[tvbcof]

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.

A very small fraction of the CO2 released and absorbed yearly by/on the planet has anything to do with humans' use of fossil fuel.  There is a lot of unknowns about the annual release of CO2, and much less known of it's uptake.  These are things which need study, and bending/breaking science for political purposes is distinctly unhelpful.  The potential for a problem was at one time something which the precautionary principle could rationally be applied to, but I (at least) feel that enough is not known that it can and should be relaxes and that it almost certainly would be if global warming would not have been seized upon to achieve unrelated political goals.

[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.

A very small fraction of the CO2 released and absorbed yearly by/on the planet has anything to do with humans' use of fossil fuel.  There is a lot of unknowns about the annual release of CO2, and much less known of it's uptake.  These are things which need study, and bending/breaking science for political purposes is distinctly unhelpful.  The potential for a problem was at one time something which the precautionary principle could rationally be applied to, but I (at least) feel that enough is not known that it can and should be relaxes and that it almost certainly would be if global warming would not have been seized upon to achieve unrelated political goals.

I understand the concerns about ethics, objectivity and lack of data. But for the ethic part... Well scientists have to be paid by someone! If you don't want them to be paid by governments (because in your opinion they become influenced by politicians) then who will pay them? General Motors? 

Regarding the rate of CO2... No it's not possible to be 100% sure about the emmission and the link with human activities, but we know for sure that CO2 emissions are not negligible and when you look at the result:
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
Hard to say that their is no correlation at all no? :/

[Spendulus]

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?

When you quote things that are made up for politicians and which are specifically about funding for "climate change" for vested interests of those writing, don't be surprised if you get criticized by people saying "That's written just to get funding!"  "That's written for politicians!"

There is NO increase in "extreme weather events in the last several decades."

None whatsoever.  This is pure alarmist nonsense.  Climate is essentially mathematical chaos - you may be able to show that regional weather has changed, some in one direction and some in another.  But it can net out easily at the same level over each of the 30 year intervals which define climate.  Examples are 1950-1979, 1960-1989, etc.

You are a victim of emotional propaganda about "extreme weather."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/speaking-of-emotionalism-and-global-warming-use-of-extreme-weather-as-an-emotional-motivator-is-up-nearly-1000-percent/

Network Coverage Of ‘Extreme Weather’ Up Nearly 1,000 Percent

Sean Long, Media Research Centerscreen-shot-2010-10-23-at-3-06-20-pm[1]

Ten years ago ABC, CBS and NBC barely used the phrase, now they go to extremes despite scientific disagreement.

A “bizarre cold snap” is hitting the U.S. and the media have already begun to draw comparisons to the polar vortex. It is only a matter of time before the networks resume panic over “extreme weather.”

Use of the phrase “extreme weather” in news stories has exploded in recent years. Almost a decade ago, before former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released, the broadcast news networks rarely used the term. Gore’s 2006 movie and book of the same name used the phrase “extreme weather” and linked the hurricanes, floods, drought and other natural disasters to global warming.

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


The reference document on climate change is the IPCC report, issued about every five years.    You appear to not even be aware of the actual scientific conclusions.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

I will list some of the conclusions FROM THE REPORT for your consideration.

Here are a few:

    “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
    "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
    “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
    “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
    “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
    “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
    “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

[mOgliE]

So how your report made for the senate is different from the reports I showed for EU? 

I just don't understand how you define a "valid and trustworthy source" dude, cause in both cases they are reports made by scientist for politicians...

But you know what's the most funny thing here? It's that you didn't read your report xD

Again you don't have to go through a dubious article actually lying, just post me the adress to the report. Here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

And take the time to read it, cause the article you linked to is just lying, if you read the report YOU showed me as trustworthy, it confirms every point I made!

-"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely
 the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)"

-"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting
for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. "

-"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern
Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) "

-"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750"

-"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. "

-"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. "


AND IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT NATURAL DISASTERS
But anyway, if the complete report explains that it's higly unlikely that we can link CO2 and natural disasters, very well, maybe you're right here. 


Could we just agree on the fact that YOUR trustworthy report totally agrees with me on every other point?

[mOgliE]

Ahahah xD

I mean, that's so funny, that's the FIRST time you give an ACTUAL scientific source. And you know what? It just agrees on every aspects of the importance and the reality of climate change!

So, where is your proof now deniers? 

[Spendulus]

So how your report made for the senate is different from the reports I showed for EU? 

I just don't understand how you define a "valid and trustworthy source" dude, cause in both cases they are reports made by scientist for politicians...

But you know what's the most funny thing here? It's that you didn't read your report xD

Again you don't have to go through a dubious article actually lying, just post me the adress to the report. Here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

And take the time to read it, cause the article you linked to is just lying, if you read the report YOU showed me as trustworthy, it confirms every point I made!

-"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely
 the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)"

-"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting
for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. "

-"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern
Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) "

-"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750"

-"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. "

-"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. "


AND IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT NATURAL DISASTERS
But anyway, if the complete report explains that it's higly unlikely that we can link CO2 and natural disasters, very well, maybe you're right here. 


Could we just agree on the fact that YOUR trustworthy report totally agrees with me on every other point?

Well, you wanted to talk about Extreme Weather Events, you get some talk about Extreme Weather Events.  Yes, you need to go to the complete report.  No, I don't have to read the complete report at your insistence.

So far you are wrong about "proofs," wrong about 19 years+ of no warming, wrong about "extreme weather," wrong about "co2 partial pressure," wrong about certain scientists definitely misrepresenting the scientific facts, which is basically lying.   

Gosh, I'm just losing count.

Now my question is very simple.

Why on Earth would you think Deniers should be barred from a discussion about climate change, such as occurred on Reddit?  A Denier is only someone that has a different opinion than you about some aspect of the science.  But you have made many errors.  Seems to me everyone benefits if there is open discussion.

We see clearly here that Righteous Believers, if not yourself, then some of those that you quote and believe in, may be wrong a lot of the time, exaggerate, misrepresent, and falsify information.

Just curious.

[strayanbit]

2015, warmest year on record.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

Since you deniers seem to like the daily mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3408581/Last-year-planets-hottest-modern-times-wide-margin-US.html

and more....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0120/2015-shatters-record-for-warmest-year-why-climate-scientists-are-celebrating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/2015-hottest-year_us_568e9101e4b0a2b6fb6ef5eb?section=australia

Also, in fact the last 20 years are all close behind last year in terms of warm.  If you read a few of these you might get a grasp for the basic science and not just what bigoil and their conservative politician mates think about it.

Good luck!

[tvbcof]

I understand the concerns about ethics, objectivity and lack of data. But for the ethic part... Well scientists have to be paid by someone! If you don't want them to be paid by governments (because in your opinion they become influenced by politicians) then who will pay them? General Motors? 

It really should not matter who pays them if science is being done correctly with complete transparency.

I am negative about entire schools of study being funded by 'charitable foundations' because doing so can make real world negative impacts on society eventually.  I believe that this is why the medical/pharam monster roams free among us victimizing huge numbers of people.

What I see happening more and more, and especially in climate 'science' is that the peer review process is being turned into a closed circle-jerk and academics who dissent from the 'party line' are unfairly excluded.  Most of those who do, do so only after attaining high prestige and/or at/near the ends of their careers because it is a death sentence (career wise) to do so at other points.  The science itself is being used for a huge number of political, social, and economic projects so it makes sense that there would be some focus on gaining control of this.

Regarding the rate of CO2... No it's not possible to be 100% sure about the emmission and the link with human activities, but we know for sure that CO2 emissions are not negligible and when you look at the result:
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
Hard to say that their is no correlation at all no? :/

Actually, it is fairly easy to calculate emissions from fossil fuels.  'Other activities' such as agriculture and the like are somewhat more ambiguous, but still much more easy to understand and quantify than various processes that happen at/under sea, in the atmosphere, etc.

NASA is and always has been a highly political organization, and it has shown through at various times (e.g., their dismal results with the shuttles.)  They hire some of the most fundamentalist among the global climate crowd and I am convinced that they do so for political reasons.  I have zero confidence in their charts on historical CO2, and Murry Salby's presentation in Germany blows the ice core analysis out of the water as far as I am concerned.  Beyond that, his hypothesis that temp leads CO2 concentration increases seems a much better match to the data as well as the results of the last two decades where CO2 increases while temps remain flat.  This observation alone blows the 'consensus' hypothesis about CO2 forcing temps out of the water, or at least deflates it most significantly.  The fact that almost without exception the modeled predictions have been wrong only adds to the doubts I have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

Salby's most recent presentation demonstrates that we could burn basically all of the fossil fuel reserves with minimal impacts on global temps.  The converse is that we could all max out our credit cards, send all our money to the politicians, then kill ourselves and that also would have a negligable impact on climate.  Ignoring climate altogether, the presentation was, in my opinion, a remarkable study in generic scientific philosophy in that they guy did three independent analyses to compare the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8

Before I bit off the task of trying to understand the science, I was somewhat alarmed at the percent rise in CO2 concentrations.  Basically anything in the atmosphere which changes so radically is a red flag that could mean trouble.  I understand science and engineering enough to recognize this, but that does not translate into a certainly of it being a problem.  CO2 is still a trace gas so 250ppm to 400ppm is still only a 150ppm change and is fully possible that it will change not much, and the changes may not be net bad and may be fairly common.  There are some who theorize that we are, in geological time periods, in a period of relative starvation of available carbon to support plant and animal life due to sequestration in carbonate rocks and the like.  Even if so, burning all of the fossil fuels would probably not change this situation for (or against) 'Mother Gaia' anyway though.

[tvbcof]

2015, warmest year on record.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

Since you deniers seem to like the daily mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3408581/Last-year-planets-hottest-modern-times-wide-margin-US.html

and more....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0120/2015-shatters-record-for-warmest-year-why-climate-scientists-are-celebrating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/2015-hottest-year_us_568e9101e4b0a2b6fb6ef5eb?section=australia

Also, in fact the last 20 years are all close behind last year in terms of warm.  If you read a few of these you might get a grasp for the basic science and not just what bigoil and their conservative politician mates think about it.

Good luck!

I'll look at this later, but will expect to see the same thing as last year.  That is, people exclaiming the hottest year ever on the basis of readings that were within a margin of error.  Basically that would constitute fraud when when used withing scientific circles and propaganda otherwise.

[Spendulus]

2015, warmest year on record.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

Since you deniers seem to like the daily mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3408581/Last-year-planets-hottest-modern-times-wide-margin-US.html

and more....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0120/2015-shatters-record-for-warmest-year-why-climate-scientists-are-celebrating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/2015-hottest-year_us_568e9101e4b0a2b6fb6ef5eb?section=australia

Also, in fact the last 20 years are all close behind last year in terms of warm.  If you read a few of these you might get a grasp for the basic science and not just what bigoil and their conservative politician mates think about it.

Good luck!

It's a valid point, that "deniers" suggest the satellite record is more reliable than the land based temperature record, and "warmers" want to insist on the land based record.  This is a serious dispute.  There is zero reason for ridicule, attitude or ad hominems if someone says they think the satellite record is superior and more accurate.

In addition to this, there has been some funny stuff with the land based temperature records.  You can believe them if you wish, but you cannot validate them.  Period.  You must take them on faith.  Generally, when scientific findings can be independently validated, they gain credibility.

Now you go and try to argue ANY of these past positions by devout warmers, such as the following.  You will find they cannot be supported.

1.  There was no Little Ice Age.
2.  There was no Medieval Warming Period.
3.  The climate forecasting models of 1988 were accurate.
4.  The climate forcasting models of 1990-2000 were accurate.

There has been a very large amount of very poor "scientific research" in the area of climate science.

Also, note the goal shifting. 

M0glie, don't you want to keep arguing about Extreme Weather Events?  If not, why?

[mOgliE]

Dude I had a party last night and then I slept :p

I don't want to talk anymore. The report you showed me explains in detail:
-The incredible warming record of the last 19 years
-The rise of sea levels (linked to CO2)
-The impact of humans on CO2 levels
-The impact of CO2 on temperature

The report YOU showed me talk only about that. There is not a word on natural disaster (contrary to what the lying article is saying).
Just go and read the report. You gave me the proof on every point I made. You just don't want to admit it.

You shouldn't be allowed to talk on reddit simply because you're trolling. Discussing imits of measures, or influences made on scientists is interesting. Giving me a report proving all my points then saying "see you're wrong" is just trolling.

I don't want to go further because we can't go further. You proved my points yourself. You just don't want to admit it.

Read the summary of the report, it's 12 pages long and it explains perfectly everything I tried to proove you. It also completly reject your ideas like "there was no warming in last 2 decades" or "there is no proof between CO2 and any human impact".

Just assume what you proved.

[mOgliE]

Now you go and try to argue ANY of these past positions by devout warmers, such as the following.  You will find they cannot be supported.

1.  There was no Little Ice Age.
2.  There was no Medieval Warming Period.
3.  The climate forecasting models of 1988 were accurate.
4.  The climate forcasting models of 1990-2000 were accurate.

There has been a very large amount of very poor "scientific research" in the area of climate science.

Well just read the report you gave me. It supports every point here =)
Especially the accuracy of late climate forcasting models.

[Spendulus]

Dude I had a party last night and then I slept :p

I don't want to talk anymore. The report you showed me explains in detail:
-The incredible warming record of the last 19 years
-The rise of sea levels (linked to CO2)
-The impact of humans on CO2 levels
-The impact of CO2 on temperature

The report YOU showed me talk only about that. There is not a word on natural disaster (contrary to what the lying article is saying).
Just go and read the report. You gave me the proof on every point I made. You just don't want to admit it.

You shouldn't be allowed to talk on reddit simply because you're trolling. Discussing imits of measures, or influences made on scientists is interesting. Giving me a report proving all my points then saying "see you're wrong" is just trolling.

I don't want to go further because we can't go further. You proved my points yourself. You just don't want to admit it.

Read the summary of the report, it's 12 pages long and it explains perfectly everything I tried to proove you. It also completly reject your ideas like "there was no warming in last 2 decades" or "there is no proof between CO2 and any human impact".

Just assume what you proved.

No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions."  It's not.  The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.

A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right.  I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong.  See?  You're wrong."

Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.

[mOgliE]

No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions."  It's not.  The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.

A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right.  I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong.  See?  You're wrong."

Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.

Dude... I gave you the link to the summary of the report, it's not 1000 pages but 33, with 3 presentation pages and 2 blanks so only 28 pages long, you can surely read 28 pages can't you? xD
Regardless, the important information are in orange at the end of each part.

And don't turn the tables!

You're the one who brought this report here! You're the one who claimed that it was here to prove that I was wrong! And now that I took the time to actually read it and show you that the report in fact tells exactly the contrary you suddenly say that "it's just a report made for politicians, it doesn't prove anything".

Now if that's not bad faith I don't know what it is xD

And you wouldn't ban me, fair enough. I provide only logical arguments backed with what I think are reliable sources. You on the contrary only deny my sources saying "they're lying" and when I turn your own sources against you you deny them too. So I think I would have banned you from reddit too, cause you don't bring anything good here.

[Spendulus]

No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions."  It's not.  The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.

A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right.  I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong.  See?  You're wrong."

Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.

Dude... I gave you the link to the summary of the report, it's not 1000 pages but 33, with 3 presentation pages and 2 blanks so only 28 pages long, you can surely read 28 pages can't you? xD
Regardless, the important information are in orange at the end of each part.

And don't turn the tables!

You're the one who brought this report here! You're the one who claimed that it was here to prove that I was wrong! And now that I took the time to actually read it and show you that the report in fact tells exactly the contrary you suddenly say that "it's just a report made for politicians, it doesn't prove anything".

Now if that's not bad faith I don't know what it is xD

And you wouldn't ban me, fair enough. I provide only logical arguments backed with what I think are reliable sources. You on the contrary only deny my sources saying "they're lying" and when I turn your own sources against you you deny them too. So I think I would have banned you from reddit too, cause you don't bring anything good here.

Well, let's examine this.

First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument.  Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations.  So then you got them.  Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather." 

Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document.  Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS.  And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that.  You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."

I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it.  Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible.  But science is always evolving.

Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course.  Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.

Here, your arguments have been refuted.  Go deal with it.  No reason to get mad at me.

[mOgliE]

Well, let's examine this.

First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument.  Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations.  So then you got them.  Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather." 

Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document.  Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS.  And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that.  You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."

I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it.  Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible.  But science is always evolving.

Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course.  Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.

Here, your arguments have been refuted.  Go deal with it.  No reason to get mad at me.

Sure xD
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD

And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather, they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link.

"Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course.  Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted."

Of course you can! With pleasure! You can discuss all you want if you bring any kind of start of proof =)

[Spendulus]

...
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD

It's not a matter of belief, but where the facts and logic leads one.  Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?

...

And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...

It's not necessary to "refute links."

What is required is to establish a relationship between a cause, and an effect.  That hasn't been done.  That's the different between asserting A could cause B, and A certainly causes B.  The party making the claim is the one that must substantiate the claim.  Here that is you, making the claim that CO2 increases increase extreme weather. 

As an example, suppose Al Gore made a claim.  You believed it.  Then I suggest that the scientific literature does not support the claim.  You say "But it doesn't REFUTE the claim!"

That's nonsense.