Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[hdbuck]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier?  How retrograde.   

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence.  Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

or nukes.

[tvbcof]

...
We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack.  Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak.

...

We humans do have enough needless problems, but ignoring the biggest one we've yet to confront because it doesn't fit your politics is not the best way forward.

As much as I despise the pseudo-intellectual buffoon known as Spendulus, at least you are fairly coherent in your arguments.

As I've alluded to before, and as can be seen in my earlier work here (if one reads between the blatant trolling) I've always been on the Liberal side at least, and for a time could be rightly accused of being prone to lean toward 'progressive' causes.  I continue to consider myself a 'liberal' and as such I needed to run to the so-called 'alt-right' for protection as the 'left' stalled out and entered it's death spiral.

Probably the biggest influence on my personal shift was the 'climate change' issue, and this because of the incredible damage done to 'science' which I always have glorified.  I will never forgive the modern leftists for clubbing science to a bloody pulp in their hijack.

[Spendulus]

...
We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack.  Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak.

...

We humans do have enough needless problems, but ignoring the biggest one we've yet to confront because it doesn't fit your politics is not the best way forward.

As much as I despise the pseudo-intellectual buffoon known as Spendulus, at least you are fairly coherent in your arguments.

As I've alluded to before, and as can be seen in my earlier work here (if one reads between the blatant trolling) I've always been on the Liberal side at least, and for a time could be rightly accused of being prone to lean toward 'progressive' causes.  I continue to consider myself a 'liberal' and as such I needed to run to the so-called 'alt-right' for protection as the 'left' stalled out and entered it's death spiral.

Probably the biggest influence on my personal shift was the 'climate change' issue, and this because of the incredible damage done to 'science' which I always have glorified.  I will never forgive the modern leftists for clubbing science to a bloody pulp in their hijack.

A coherent argument is that.

[dwma]

...
It sucks that physics works out the way it does, but you have to get past this blindingly narrow ideological approach to life.  Inaction now is blatant violence towards those who have no say in having their environment turned upside down and destroyed in some ways.

'Action' (not 'inaction') in the way the 'consensus' describes it (however nebulously) is blatant violence against all but the upper 1% or less of the world's population.  For probably 25% at least it is effectively a death sentence.  It is a genocidal program, or at least a major component there-of.

I believe this is more the underpinning of your belief than rational inspection of the evidence.

It will be a far lesser mistake to switch to renewables then find out we were wrong than it will be to find out we are wrong after even more damage will have been done.

Oil companies have already switched their mining methods to things like fracking because we've used up round one of oil. Even if you are correct about manmade global warming being a fraud, you've basically admitted we do not live in a way approaching sustainable. You did say that renewables = 25% death sentence, right?  I would like to hear your views on what we should do as carbon based burn'em up energy will be used up at some point? Or will this just be another inconsistency in your beliefs...

What is the bar for you to admit you were wrong? 

If you have not set a bar it is further evidence that your beliefs come from somewhere not so rational.

[dwma]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier?  How retrograde.   

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence.  Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong.

I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong.

[dwma]

Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS.  It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists.

I typically do not get involved in threads like this but could not help myself this time  . I have read a few pages and must say " WHAT THE FUCK"

The first thing that jumps out from the last few pages is that you are trying to validate your arguments with a third grader mentality.

1 - Insinuating you have a degree above a bachelors degree, and more importantly that you "ALWAYS" (because you are intellectually superior) find the "additional component"

2- Validate your comments as being correct by making other educated people look inferior to you with statements like "buffoon who went to Columbia" etc.

I can guarantee a few things:

1 - You will NEVER prove any of your statements - It is far beyond your capabilities and any 1 scientist capabilities to do so.
2 - You will continue to believe the shit coming out of your mouth when it opens because your only purpose is to persuade others to think like you.

Lastly, have you considered the following:
Taken from the signature of another BCT member (Unacceptable)

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day long, you are the asshole."  -Raylan Givens

Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming

Maybe you are the asshole

Where do I insinuate that I have more than a bachelors? 

Or is it more bullshit.. why can't you guys just stick with facts.

Yes I won't prove my statements and neither will you guys.

It is true that I am trying to persuade others to realize that their anti-government biases fail them in this one issue. Yes, that happens to mean they'd believe what I believe. Why else would I post in here? lol

[dwma]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.
...

Small percentage?

Nope.

Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise.

The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject.

Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you?

So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim?

[Spendulus]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.
...

Small percentage?

Nope.

Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise.

The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject.

Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you?

So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim?

Google is your friend.

[dwma]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.
...

Small percentage?

Nope.

Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise.

The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject.

Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you?

So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim?

Google is your friend.

Lol oook. Google has tons of biases in itself. I'll just assume I'm right and there isn't more contrarians than one would expect. Maybe there is like 2-3 guys who call themselves solar scientists?? hehe


I was googling up other climate change models vs observed stuff and this is the first article I found. I would like to see more stuff like John Cristy's graph but I assume the work cited on theguardian was actually peer reviewed. Now I understand you guys don't buy into that system so much and it is a valid belief, but I suspect John Cristy did something wrong. This is a real basic thing that we should be able to find an answer for. I'll keep at it, but I'm limited in the time I have available.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

vs

the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.

[Spendulus]

.... John Cristy's graph .....John Cristy ....
the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.

Sez who?

IPCC graph, another by gibbering Warmer Tamino....

[dwma]

.... John Cristy's graph .....John Cristy ....
the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.

Sez who?

IPCC graph, another by gibbering Warmer Tamino....

Cristy has been criticized for over a decade now for his nonsensical cherrypicking.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ Is a good place to start.

It took me some time to start finding stuff that isn't overtly political. It can be hard.

So basically Cristy cherry-picked data and has continued doing so. He still is the one invited to US government proceedings by Republicans who like his message. It must be fun for him?  No surprise here.

Facts will never get in the way ...

-- edit

See what I did here. You guys presented a chart. It didn't agree with the stuff I had seen so I looked further into it. It took me a bit to find the source, but it wasn't too hard. After reading a few things that were political I finally found stuff that seems legitimate. Christy cherrypicks and has done so for some time. His data set is questionable and he refuses to correct it. In fact, it is cited often by those who wish to deny man made global warming.

There is no surprise that a guy like this exists...  heck he even gets to go straight to the Senate to give a talk. Must be exciting for him.

Wonder why he isn't part of some larger non-political study ?  Hmmm.. I wonder

[Spendulus]

.... John Cristy's graph .....John Cristy ....
the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.

Sez who?

IPCC graph, another by gibbering Warmer Tamino....

Cristy has been criticized.....

Answer the question.  What chart is it that you claim is Cristy's?

[iCEBREAKER]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier?  How retrograde.   

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence.  Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong.

I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong.

Foolish child, you know so very little about these vast, interdisciplinary topics and gain from your smugness only intellectual closure.

EG, the Population Wars were not just popsci proto-clickbait but rather fought between two professors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Julian Simon of UM.

I spent high school and college diving deep into scholarly journals only found in university libraries researching this stuff, and arguing both sides in debate tournaments.

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco?  That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

[Spendulus]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier?  How retrograde.   

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence.  Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong.

I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong.

Foolish child, you know so very little about these vast, interdisciplinary topics and gain from your smugness only intellectual closure.

EG, the Population Wars were not just popsci proto-clickbait but rather fought between two professors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Julian Simon of UM.

I spent high school and college diving deep into scholarly journals only found in university libraries researching this stuff, and arguing both sides in debate tournaments.

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco?  That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Why, sir.  I beg that the Classics should be included in such erudite educatifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[Spendulus]

....... Hmmm.. I wonder

Because you are not qualified to discuss science and do not have a background in rigorous thinking, I would like to suggest a method.  Clearly you are genuinely concerned about the Alarming Drastic Consequences of Not Taking Urgent Action Now on glibbal worming. 

Why not focus on one subtopic?  Work on it until you thoroughly understand it inside and out.  This will build confidence and self esteem as you sail through the seventh circle of Denier Hell.  I suggest the subject be one that is very alarming amongst alarmers.

Cow Farts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md2M2SKExmI

[iCEBREAKER]

Why, sir.  I beg that the Classics should be included in such erudite educatifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

"George Carlin on Global Warming" should be mandatory viewing for all libtards.

So much truth bomb.   

[dwma]

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier?  How retrograde.   

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence.  Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong.

I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong.

Foolish child, you know so very little about these vast, interdisciplinary topics and gain from your smugness only intellectual closure.

EG, the Population Wars were not just popsci proto-clickbait but rather fought between two professors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Julian Simon of UM.

I spent high school and college diving deep into scholarly journals only found in university libraries researching this stuff, and arguing both sides in debate tournaments.

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco?  That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

[iCEBREAKER]

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco?  That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

LOL, of course you had to say "false equivalence."  Everybody take a drink, then spin around waving your hands.   

And you personalize the debate to avoid acknowledging Prof. Julian Simon (IE NOT iCEBREAKER) won the wager against Prof. Ehrlich.

The claims from the Register article certainly hold up; they are based on a whistleblower's exquisitely curated leak of the perverted science behind the ManBearPig-Industrial Complex.

Of course you can't read code, so the otherwise damning phrase "fudge factor" as applied to an innocent data array means nothing to you.

Your parents and education have failed you so badly and completely you don't even realize how stupid and ignorant you are.

That's why you "can't even" why Climategate matters, despite a well-written non-technical article explaining the issues in plain English. 

[dwma]

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco?  That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

LOL, of course you had to say "false equivalence."  Everybody take a drink, then spin around waving your hands.  

And you personalize the debate to avoid acknowledging Prof. Julian Simon (IE NOT iCEBREAKER) won the wager against Prof. Ehrlich.

The claims from the Register article certainly hold up; they are based on a whistleblower's exquisitely curated leak of the perverted science behind the ManBearPig-Industrial Complex.

Of course you can't read code, so the otherwise damning phrase "fudge factor" as applied to an innocent data array means nothing to you.

Your parents and education have failed you so badly and completely you don't even realize how stupid and ignorant you are.

That's why you "can't even" why Climategate matters, despite a well-written non-technical article explaining the issues in plain English.  

That is insanity. I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it.  They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach of a man who won't put his money where his mouth is. Always weaseling your way out of it with some bullshit.

I'm not the one "hand waving".

Epic that you somehow bring up programming.  You guys are always throwing out random guesses. "You don't understand variance."  "You don't understand the big picture."  and now "of course you can't read code".

J

[Spendulus]

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it.  They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait.  No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant.  Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues.  Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong.  But that's no reason to insult people.