Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Lieldoryn]

I believe those scientists who say that the climate of our planet is changing. We constantly see the consequences of these changes. I was shocked when Trump refused to respond to warnings of scientists. Now they must declare him the silent treatment.

[1714844523]

1714844523

[Spendulus]

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/



Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

Wow, the nerve of that guy Mann.

Refusing a direct order from the court to hand over his data for examination -

[Spendulus]

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/latest-from-the-greenland-meltdown/

[Spendulus]

I believe those scientists who say that the climate of our planet is changing. We constantly see the consequences of these changes. I was shocked when Trump refused to respond to warnings of scientists. Now they must declare him the silent treatment.

Mann has been proven to be a fraudster.

https://realclimatescience.com/the-100-fraudulent-hockey-stick/

[SgtMoth]

I know, but some people you have to slap them with the truth until they get it.

...i also havent been around too much...real life shit sucks

[Wintorez]

I know, but some people you have to slap them with the truth until they get it.

...i also havent been around too much...real life shit sucks

It seems to me that you need to prove the opposite If you have such thoughts. If there is an opponent, then it means that you need to defend your point of view.

[Spendulus]

I know, but some people you have to slap them with the truth until they get it.

...i also havent been around too much...real life shit sucks

It seems to me that you need to prove the opposite If you have such thoughts. If there is an opponent, then it means that you need to defend your point of view.

Given the sheer idiocy demonstrated by perverted liberal authoritarian controller wannabes who latched onto the Global Warming bandwagon, I'd say a good bitch slapping is in order.

They are and always were the true deniers of science and the scientific method.

[notbatman]

^^^ Use of the scientific method is absolutely forbidden at NASA.

[robbylove]

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not A Valid Representation Of Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”


As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf


----------
Somebody with a hockey stick in his closet could end up in jail for fraud...

[Spendulus]

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not A Valid Representation Of Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”


As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf


----------
Somebody with a hockey stick in his closet could end up in jail for fraud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[tvbcof]

The thing about science is that it uncovers the truth sooner or later.  So if there is no global warming due to our human activity, it will be discovered.  Science cannot be involved in politics or religion for too long.  Sooner or later the truth will come out.

...

Be that as it may, do you think the law and policy built on top of this human-caused climate change fraud with the stated goal of 'saving the planet' are going to be rolled back?  You think the billions of dollars spent on the wind and solar boondoggles under the same fraudulant scammery are going to be clawed back?

Don't stay up nights waiting for it.

[Love!]

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/user-59/climate-graphic-530.jpg

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

It is a privately owned site so the owners can do what they want with it. I understand the frustration, you want healthy conversations from both sides, but it's still their site.

[Spendulus]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

It is a privately owned site so the owners can do what they want with it. I understand the frustration, you want healthy conversations from both sides, but it's still their site.

It is important to understand the difference between critical thinking and understanding and mindless following and obeying.

[realHCplease]

it does not stand up to scrutiny! truth  does not fear investigation!!

[notbatman]

^^^ Vampires really hate the light of day.

[notbatman]

All on board!

[robbylove]

The Climate Consensus Has Failed

Citing the “97 percent consensus” talking point to silence debate on global warming is an unsuccessful distraction from more urgent public policy debates on the issue, according to a group of UK social scientists.

“Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers,” sociologist Warren Pearce and others wrote in an academic commentary, published Monday.

“More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

Pearce and his co-authors argue there needs to be a more “cosmopolitan approach” to the climate debate that doesn’t rely on quantifying a scientific consensus, but rather “more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.”

“Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

“Rather than securing certainty that was absent before, this exercise has invited intense scrutiny to the judgments underpinning their claim, and generated further doubt,” they wrote.

For years, Democrats and environmentalists have cited research claiming that 97 percent of scientists agree human activities are warming the planet. The figure stems from a 2010 study led by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s study examined thousands of scientific papers and interviewed their authors to claim about 97 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Former President Barack Obama used the 97 percent figure to undercut critics of his policies to fight global warming. NASA cites the Cook study as one of several purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on global warming.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has already reported on why Cook’s consensus figures are more a statistical sleight of hand than actual agreement. University of Delaware geologist David Legates and some colleagues wrote a paper in 2015, debunking the Cook paper.

Legates’ study found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly agreed that mankind is responsible for most of the warming since 1950.

But even if Cook’s 97 percent consensus is correct, it’s use has done little to sway the policy, according to Pearce.

Claiming there’s a broad consensus on global warming opens consensus enforcers up to criticism when skeptics start to find inconsistencies in the science. That only undermines the supposed 97 percent consensus.

Pearce wrote “the fact remains that in many fields of climate change research scientific consensus is elusive.”

“Scientific consensus exists among some relevant, small communities,” Pearce wrote, “but there are many fields relevant to climate change impacts where such a consensus does not hold.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/24/enforcing-the-97-consensus-has-generated-further-doubt-about-global-warming/

[crwth]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

It is a privately owned site so the owners can do what they want with it. I understand the frustration, you want healthy conversations from both sides, but it's still their site.

It is important to understand the difference between critical thinking and understanding and mindless following and obeying.

there can never be one side where everybody would agree, that's just a fantasy that's not going to happen. Everybody is just being surrounded with the peers that believe in one thing. That's how the birds with the same feather was founded upon. You should have your own decision and believe in what you are trying to accomplish.

[Spendulus]

The Climate Consensus Has Failed

Citing the “97 percent consensus” talking point to silence debate on global warming is an unsuccessful distraction from more urgent public policy debates on the issue, according to a group of UK social scientists.

“Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers,” sociologist Warren Pearce and others wrote in an academic commentary, published Monday.

“More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

Pearce and his co-authors argue there needs to be a more “cosmopolitan approach” to the climate debate that doesn’t rely on quantifying a scientific consensus, but rather “more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.”

“Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

“Rather than securing certainty that was absent before, this exercise has invited intense scrutiny to the judgments underpinning their claim, and generated further doubt,” they wrote.

For years, Democrats and environmentalists have cited research claiming that 97 percent of scientists agree human activities are warming the planet. The figure stems from a 2010 study led by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s study examined thousands of scientific papers and interviewed their authors to claim about 97 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Former President Barack Obama used the 97 percent figure to undercut critics of his policies to fight global warming. NASA cites the Cook study as one of several purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on global warming.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has already reported on why Cook’s consensus figures are more a statistical sleight of hand than actual agreement. University of Delaware geologist David Legates and some colleagues wrote a paper in 2015, debunking the Cook paper.

Legates’ study found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly agreed that mankind is responsible for most of the warming since 1950.......

The UK scientists are saying, in a very polite sort of a way, what we can express more succinctly.

Cook's study was a complete fraud, and it's been used to propagate lies.

[robbylove]

The Climate Consensus Has Failed

Citing the “97 percent consensus” talking point to silence debate on global warming is an unsuccessful distraction from more urgent public policy debates on the issue, according to a group of UK social scientists.

“Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers,” sociologist Warren Pearce and others wrote in an academic commentary, published Monday.

“More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

Pearce and his co-authors argue there needs to be a more “cosmopolitan approach” to the climate debate that doesn’t rely on quantifying a scientific consensus, but rather “more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.”

“Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

“Rather than securing certainty that was absent before, this exercise has invited intense scrutiny to the judgments underpinning their claim, and generated further doubt,” they wrote.

For years, Democrats and environmentalists have cited research claiming that 97 percent of scientists agree human activities are warming the planet. The figure stems from a 2010 study led by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s study examined thousands of scientific papers and interviewed their authors to claim about 97 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Former President Barack Obama used the 97 percent figure to undercut critics of his policies to fight global warming. NASA cites the Cook study as one of several purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on global warming.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has already reported on why Cook’s consensus figures are more a statistical sleight of hand than actual agreement. University of Delaware geologist David Legates and some colleagues wrote a paper in 2015, debunking the Cook paper.

Legates’ study found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly agreed that mankind is responsible for most of the warming since 1950.......

The UK scientists are saying, in a very polite sort of a way, what we can express more succinctly.

Cook's study was a complete fraud, and it's been used to propagate lies.

... And make some people rich like with that Chicago Climate Exchange scam, among other carbon tax scams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g961YA35-ow