Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[galdur]

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer

[1715158844]

1715158844

[1715158844]

1715158844

[1715158844]

1715158844

[Wilikon]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDIA_FORMER_CLIMATE_CHIEF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-01-07-27-24

-------------------------------------------------------------
I always knew, deep down, he was a denier...

 

[tvbcof]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDIA_FORMER_CLIMATE_CHIEF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-01-07-27-24

-------------------------------------------------------------
I always knew, deep down, he was a denier...

I've said it before and I'll say it again because it has significant explanatory power:  I suspect ever more strongly that the 'NWO' is actively install 'flawed' people who can be induced to do such things as 'homogenize' historical climate data.  For a true scientist, doing such a thing is an anathema to the discipline because it spoils  the ways and means of science going forward.

I suspect that many of the 'flaws' that are leveraged are financial in nature, but there are way to many which include an element of sexual deviancy.  Pachauri is something of a poster child here, but there are far worse behaviors which could probably be found if anyone had the gumption (and stomach) to look.

There are probably many people who have personal political reasons for bending science in the interest of the UN crowd and need no financial or other incentive to do so.  This phenomenon was exposed in the climategate data leak among other places.

This is not to say that the 'other side' is faultless and doesn't play the same games.  It seems to be the case that there is precious little mass on the 'other side' of the scale.  Everyone from Nature Conservancy to Exxon is making bank on the climate change fraud, or has a reasonable expectation to do so down the road.

In my country (U.S.), when the Republicans (some of them) are fighting to have transparency in science and the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep the data, algorithms, etc which feed into policy secret, it's pretty telling.  This more than probably any other factor has shifted me from being a generally solid left-wing type to taking a much more close look at all sides.

[Spendulus]

Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!

Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.

There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!

I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.

I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".

Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.

Denier.  Admit it, you denier.

[galdur]

Former spelunking enthusiast and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden’s propaganda letter to the American youth who “support real change” disparages capitalism, defends global warming alarmism and even attempts to invoke President Barack Obama and Thomas Paine.....

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/01/declassed-bin-laden-letter-invokes-obama-attacks-capitalism-defends-global-warming-alarmism/#ixzz41hnGrImp

[hdbuck]

I deny we're living on a spinning globe! Global Warming isn't an issue when there's no globe.

Well, you see.  It's just a globe spinning on top of an N-dimensional spacetime fabric.  And of course N-dimensional spacetime is flat in N dimensions.  It's just not flat in 2d.  So you don't have to worry.

flat warming?

[hdbuck]

Yale shuts down its climate change institute  

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/01/climate-change-institute-shut-down/

[SgtMoth]

Yale shuts down its climate change institute  

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/01/climate-change-institute-shut-down/

Thats says a lot!!

[valta4065]

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer

You're perfectly right. Find the error. Criticize it.

But willingly misinterpret clear words?
It's not criticizing. It's plain lies.

[valta4065]

Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!

Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.

There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!

I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.

I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".

Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.

Denier.  Admit it, you denier.

Ahah ^^

Thanks for explaining nothing again.

Your link to an article blog was totally flawed. You claim there is a "pause" and that everyone admits it and we go to your sources they talk about a "less important increase in temperature".

How do you transform this in a pause seriously? You're simply pointing a text saying "the temperature increases less than what we expect but still increases" and you go yelling "I WAS RIGHT THERE IS A PAUSE".

What's the logic here?

[valta4065]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.

Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it.

Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause".

Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!

Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.

First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0

Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133  showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...

Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."

Damn no pause here either!


Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?

[GreekBitcoin]

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[21] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[17][22][23][24] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[25] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[26]

You are wasting your time replying to either retards or scammers. Just saying...

[valta4065]

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[21] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[17][22][23][24] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[25] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[26]

You are wasting your time replying to either retards or scammers. Just saying...

That's a possibility.

But there is a problem with those scammers: they keep posting.
It means this thread is often on the top even if we don't answer. And they spread hoaxes and false data.

So I prefer keeping posting my quote on every freaking page if it means the people who will click here randomly don't fall in their trap!

[Spendulus]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

[yugo23]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Meh? The source you gave is just a blog article, and the blog article cites another source. And this source is saying it's just a slow down. What did you prove here?

Unless there is something really important I didn't see, you're just trying to cover the fact that the blog article you gave is lying.

Edit: And the bolded sentence makes no sense. There is no religion of warmers. It's just the entire world scientist community that approves the existence of global warming. It's a bit like if you called people believing Earth is round the "spinning religious". It's not a religion it's simply the truth.

[Spendulus]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Meh? The source you gave is just a blog article, and the blog article cites another source. And this source is saying it's just a slow down. What did you prove here?

Unless there is something really important I didn't see, you're just trying to cover the fact that the blog article you gave is lying.

Edit: And the bolded sentence makes no sense. There is no religion of warmers. It's just the entire world scientist community that approves the existence of global warming. It's a bit like if you called people believing Earth is round the "spinning religious". It's not a religion it's simply the truth.

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.

[yugo23]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Meh? The source you gave is just a blog article, and the blog article cites another source. And this source is saying it's just a slow down. What did you prove here?

Unless there is something really important I didn't see, you're just trying to cover the fact that the blog article you gave is lying.

Edit: And the bolded sentence makes no sense. There is no religion of warmers. It's just the entire world scientist community that approves the existence of global warming. It's a bit like if you called people believing Earth is round the "spinning religious". It's not a religion it's simply the truth.

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.

Ah ok. I indeed missed something.

Well it doesn't change the fact that your article is lying nonetheless.
Which is not really unusual considering your sources.

Seems nothing really proved your pause yet.

[valta4065]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Meh? The source you gave is just a blog article, and the blog article cites another source. And this source is saying it's just a slow down. What did you prove here?

Unless there is something really important I didn't see, you're just trying to cover the fact that the blog article you gave is lying.

Edit: And the bolded sentence makes no sense. There is no religion of warmers. It's just the entire world scientist community that approves the existence of global warming. It's a bit like if you called people believing Earth is round the "spinning religious". It's not a religion it's simply the truth.

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.

You gave me this link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/

And for God's sakes there isn't even one graph without a clear up trend!

[galdur]

Democratic voters defecting to guy who called B.S. on man-made global warming

29 Feb 2016 – “Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter,” says the Boston Herald. Thousands of them “are doing so to join the Republican ranks.” “The primary reason?” Secretary of State William Galvin said his ‘guess’ is simple: “The Trump phenomenon.”

“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop” – Donald Trump

[Spendulus]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
....

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Meh? The source you gave is just a blog article, and the blog article cites another source. And this source is saying it's just a slow down. What did you prove here?

Unless there is something really important I didn't see, you're just trying to cover the fact that the blog article you gave is lying.

Edit: And the bolded sentence makes no sense. There is no religion of warmers. It's just the entire world scientist community that approves the existence of global warming. It's a bit like if you called people believing Earth is round the "spinning religious". It's not a religion it's simply the truth.

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.

You gave me this link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/

And for God's sakes there isn't even one graph without a clear up trend!

You misrepresent the facts, which are clear right in the pages of this thread.

I provided direct links to the scientific data.  The only reason I did that is because you didn't seem to know where or how to find it it.  I explained, also, about the exact meaning of significance in trends as used by scientists. 

And I stand by my assertion.  If you DENY the hiatus, pause, "no warming in 19 years" in any fashion whatsoever,

You are a Denier.