Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

The National Wildlife Federation put out a 'Mascot Madness' report detailing climate change's impact on the actual animals.



Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., left, warns climate change could destroy a number of college mascots' real-life counterparts.


Like college basketball? Excited to fill out your March Madness bracket on Sunday? Well, here’s a pretty big college basketball-related bummer: The National Wildlife Federation put out a report Tuesday entitled “Mascot Madness” that details how climate change could obliterate some of college mascots’ real-life counterparts.

“In fact, what I would say – if you pardon the pun – is that the game may soon be over for many of our wildlife mascots unless we reduce our carbon pollution and develop new energy sources,” warned Doug Inkley, a senior scientist for the D.C.-based group.

The animals in trouble span the country and the globe, according to the report.

Inkley used one particularly strong rivalry to prove the point. “Wolverines are tenacious animals, like the sports teams at the University of Michigan, but they rely on deep snowpack for denning and to raise their young,” he said. “This is disappearing as a result of climate change.” Meanwhile, in nearby Ohio, the buckeye – which is the state's official tree and Ohio State University’s mascot – is finding that Ohio is no longer the most suitable climate to grow in and is high-tailing it to Michigan. “So this rivalry between Ohio and Michigan, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan, could become even more intense, if you will, as the buckeyes invade the wolverine territory,” Inkley said.

Other creatures who may face problems include red wolves of North Carolina State Wolfpack fame, whose coastal habitat could be destroyed. Gators – the mascot of the No. 1-ranked University of Florida – face a similar habitat problem. And the terrapins of the University of Maryland, which also live in low-lying areas, additionally could experience a sex-ratio imbalance because of the heat. “They face a reproductive threat,” explained Inkley. “When the terrapin eggs are incubated and the temperatures become warmer because of climate change, a greater proportion of eggs hatch as females.”

Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee (and huge college basketball fan), spoke to reporters about the study and suggested that Americans make it a part of picking their March Madness teams.

“I want to encourage you to look at the National Wildlife Federation report, match it up with those brackets, see those species that are in danger because of our changing climate,” she said, noting that she would be taking her own advice. “I can’t wait to dig through the report and actually compare the dangers to those mascots to my brackets come Sunday.”


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/11/rep-donna-edwards-warns-climate-change-will-kill-off-college-mascots

[AnonyMint]

The National Wildlife Federation put out a 'Mascot Madness' report detailing climate change's impact on the actual animals.

Yep those two animals pictured above definitively exhibit mannerisms of psychosis that are indicative of heat stroke.  

[Wilikon]

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee


The federal committee crafting the 2015 “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” features radical nutritionists who favor Americans moving to “plant-based” diets and a vice chair that laughs about sending Ronald McDonald to the guillotine.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is responsible for creating new nutrition standards that are used to create policy at the federal level. The committee will meet for the third time on Friday, and though the group has not yet released an agenda, past meetings have heavily focused on climate change.

During DGAC’s second meeting on Jan. 13, Kate Clancy, a food systems consultant and Senior Fellow in the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Minnesota, was brought to speak on “sustainability.”

“After 30 years of waiting, the fact that this committee is addressing sustainability issues brings me a lot of pleasure,” she began. Clancy went on to advocate that Americans should become vegetarians in order to achieve sustainability in the face of “climate change.”

“What pattern of eating best contributes to food security and the sustainability of land air and water?” Clancy asked. “The simple answer is a plant-based diet.”

“Now, this is not new, this idea of how important plant-based diets are has been around for, gosh, 30-40 years,” she said. “Before that for people who long ago were eating vegetarian.”

Clancy said plant-based diets lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and have a “smaller ecological impact” on “drought, climate change, soil erosion, pesticides and antibiotics in water supplies.”

“In terms of keeping a broader idea of food security in your minds it would be perilous, I would think, for this committee or anybody else to not be taking climate change into account in any of the deliberations about sustainability,” she said.

Clancy said beef production is the “greatest concern.”

Meat production is harmful to the environment because of manure runoff and “methane production by cattle,” she said, which has “a much stronger effect on climate change than carbon dioxide does per unit of methane.”

Following the talk, Dr. Miriam Nelson, a member of the DGAC committee, thanked Clancy for her “really, really wonderful presentation.”

“I think the good news here, in my mind, is that when we look at actually the current dietary guidelines—with the exception of fish, because I think fish is an issue—really we are talking about eating more plants, fewer animals,” she said.


http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-radicals-creating-the-new-federal-dietary-guidelines/

[Wilikon]

[...]
Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness plan.
If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.

[...]
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.


https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111#comment_333276

[Spendulus]

CALIFORNIA is now in the midst of the third year of one of its worst droughts on record. As our planet gradually warms from our rampant burning of fossil fuels, it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change has played in California’s troubles.

The answer is this: At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.
....

What this line of thought presupposes is that it's "okay to teach" the current political mythology about "man made climate change", but keep all people ignorant about the history of changes in climate.

In particular, the west cost of the US, including the northern states there, are highly impacted by the 60-80 year cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  This is basic meteorology.

[dotcom]

[...]
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

I'm glad, censorship always ends well.

[Spendulus]

[...]
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

I'm glad, censorship always ends well.

well...really now...wouldn't it be a better world if they weren't allowed in the same hotels as the good people?  You wouldn't want them using the same drinking fountains and restrooms would you?

Just think...if that sort of thing was allowed, next you know they'd be wanting to date your daughters.

LOL...

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

You know I have to say it really saddens me that we are living in a time where freedom of speech, can sometimes compromise intelligence. For a long time in history, our right to speak freely (or lack their of) held back the truth and its like we are living in this weird kind of time where now our big mouth and ignorance now often holds it back.

Its not about bringing to light an unforeseen idea or viewpoint and forcing your views on the public, its about making informed choices based on the evidence. Climate deniers fail to bring to light enough evidence to back their claims, yet they cling to it with faith! It boggles my mind as why someone wants to do this, what could their possibly be to gain from misdirecting everyone from what evidence is suggesting in several different environmental research fields.

In my opinion, (and I'm shocked this is my opinion, cause I never thought I'd be against Freedom of Speech) Reddit was 100% right to ban these people. They are what I call "Jerks" and sometimes "Jerks" just need to be told to shut up.  

[Spendulus]

You know I have to say it really saddens me that we are living in a time where freedom of speech, can sometimes compromise intelligence. For a long time in history, our right to speak freely (or lack their of) held back the truth and its like we are living in this weird kind of time where now our big mouth and ignorance now often holds it back.

Its not about bringing to light an unforeseen idea or viewpoint and forcing your views on the public, its about making informed choices based on the evidence. Climate deniers fail to bring to light enough evidence to back their claims, yet they cling to it with faith! It boggles my mind as why someone wants to do this, what could their possibly be to gain from misdirecting everyone from what evidence is suggesting in several different environmental research fields.

In my opinion, (and I'm shocked this is my opinion, cause I never thought I'd be against Freedom of Speech) Reddit was 100% right to ban these people. They are what I call "Jerks" and sometimes "Jerks" just need to be told to shut up.  

What claims would you be referring to?

[arepo]

the contents of this thread easily describe the reason why that particular subreddit chose this action, whether or not i personally agree.

also i'd just like to point out that spamming this thread with ridicule and general condescension such that the ratio of posts defending either side of this important debate are strongly skewed in one direction has the same destructive effect as direct censorship.

--arepo

[Wilikon]

the contents of this thread easily describe the reason why that particular subreddit chose this action, whether or not i personally agree.

also i'd just like to point out that spamming this thread with ridicule and general condescension such that the ratio of posts defending either side of this important debate are strongly skewed in one direction has the same destructive effect as direct censorship.

--arepo

[AnonyMint]

Just let the climate freaks eat their poison. It is futile to convince of them of the facts.

Get yourself some anonymous crypto-currency, then sit back with your popcorn and watch them destroy themselves with taxes.

[Spendulus]

Just let the climate freaks eat their poison. It is futile to convince of them of the facts.

Get yourself some anonymous crypto-currency, then sit back with your popcorn and watch them destroy themselves with taxes.

Interesting point.  They would seem to have to be opposed to anything that could not enable them to control individuals.

Like anonymous crypto-currency.

[Spendulus]

the contents of this thread easily describe the reason why that particular subreddit chose this action, whether or not i personally agree.

also i'd just like to point out that spamming this thread with ridicule and general condescension such that the ratio of posts defending either side of this important debate are strongly skewed in one direction has the same destructive effect as direct censorship.

--arepo

But reddit retained the spamming of their threads with ridicule and general condescension such that the ratio of posts defending one side of this important debate was 100%, which is the same as direct censorship.

Hence your post describes the problem they chose as a "solution".

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

You know I have to say it really saddens me that we are living in a time where freedom of speech, can sometimes compromise intelligence. For a long time in history, our right to speak freely (or lack their of) held back the truth and its like we are living in this weird kind of time where now our big mouth and ignorance now often holds it back.

Its not about bringing to light an unforeseen idea or viewpoint and forcing your views on the public, its about making informed choices based on the evidence. Climate deniers fail to bring to light enough evidence to back their claims, yet they cling to it with faith! It boggles my mind as why someone wants to do this, what could their possibly be to gain from misdirecting everyone from what evidence is suggesting in several different environmental research fields.

In my opinion, (and I'm shocked this is my opinion, cause I never thought I'd be against Freedom of Speech) Reddit was 100% right to ban these people. They are what I call "Jerks" and sometimes "Jerks" just need to be told to shut up.  

What claims would you be referring to?

The Claim, that climate change is a hoax, and naturally occurring. Not caused by man. There is simply not enough evidence to support this and an over whelming amount of evidence to support the contrary.

All we really ever have is evidence! Evidence and our ability to make an informed decision based on our understanding of the world around us and our past experience.

[Spendulus]

You know I have to say it really saddens me that we are living in a time where freedom of speech, can sometimes compromise intelligence. For a long time in history, our right to speak freely (or lack their of) held back the truth and its like we are living in this weird kind of time where now our big mouth and ignorance now often holds it back.

Its not about bringing to light an unforeseen idea or viewpoint and forcing your views on the public, its about making informed choices based on the evidence. Climate deniers fail to bring to light enough evidence to back their claims, yet they cling to it with faith! It boggles my mind as why someone wants to do this, what could their possibly be to gain from misdirecting everyone from what evidence is suggesting in several different environmental research fields.

In my opinion, (and I'm shocked this is my opinion, cause I never thought I'd be against Freedom of Speech) Reddit was 100% right to ban these people. They are what I call "Jerks" and sometimes "Jerks" just need to be told to shut up.  

What claims would you be referring to?

The Claim, that climate change is a hoax, and naturally occurring. Not caused by man. There is simply not enough evidence to support this and an over whelming amount of evidence to support the contrary.
...

Really?

But of course there is a component of the whole of assertions and argument concerning climate change which is in fact a hoax, and of course there is a component of the arguments against which calls the hoax out as a hoax.

As an example, Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore's rigging of the air conditioners so they did not work, prior to the August 1988 Senate hearings on man made climate change, was a hoax.  I'm quite happy to call it out as a hoax.

Do you have a problem with that?  Why would anyone want to prevent me from shouting "Hoax" on that?  I can provide many other examples like that, where lies, mis statements should be pointed out.

And of course climate change occurs naturally, not caused by man.  Night and day.  Winter and summer.  Ice ages and interglacials.   There is a controversy over whether man has a major or minor part in one small area of the totality of "climate change".

I am not seeing from what you have written that you are very knowledgeable on the subject.

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

You know I have to say it really saddens me that we are living in a time where freedom of speech, can sometimes compromise intelligence. For a long time in history, our right to speak freely (or lack their of) held back the truth and its like we are living in this weird kind of time where now our big mouth and ignorance now often holds it back.

Its not about bringing to light an unforeseen idea or viewpoint and forcing your views on the public, its about making informed choices based on the evidence. Climate deniers fail to bring to light enough evidence to back their claims, yet they cling to it with faith! It boggles my mind as why someone wants to do this, what could their possibly be to gain from misdirecting everyone from what evidence is suggesting in several different environmental research fields.

In my opinion, (and I'm shocked this is my opinion, cause I never thought I'd be against Freedom of Speech) Reddit was 100% right to ban these people. They are what I call "Jerks" and sometimes "Jerks" just need to be told to shut up.  

What claims would you be referring to?

The Claim, that climate change is a hoax, and naturally occurring. Not caused by man. There is simply not enough evidence to support this and an over whelming amount of evidence to support the contrary.
...

Really?




But of course there is a component of the whole of assertions and argument concerning climate change which is in fact a hoax, and of course there is a component of the arguments against which calls the hoax out as a hoax.

As an example, Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore's rigging of the air conditioners so they did not work, prior to the August 1988 Senate hearings on man made climate change, was a hoax.  I'm quite happy to call it out as a hoax.

Do you have a problem with that?  Why would anyone want to prevent me from shouting "Hoax" on that?  I can provide many other examples like that, where lies, mis statements should be pointed out.

And of course climate change occurs naturally, not caused by man.  Night and day.  Winter and summer.  Ice ages and interglacials.   There is a controversy over whether man has a major or minor part in one small area of the totality of "climate change".

I am not seeing from what you have written that you are very knowledgeable on the subject.

No one wants to prevent you from shouting hoax, if you believe in conspiracy theories, that's your problem, but Reddit agrees with me apparently.

Secondly of course the seasons change, good job pointing that out captain science that's not what was being discussed. nor is it evidence for what is currently happening to our planet. as a matter of fact it is a perfect example of what climate change deniers try and use as evidence and why you should dismiss them.

There are several different fields of scientific research pointing out the current circumstances, and it would have to be a massive conspiracy, with millions of individuals all over the world working together to lie to us about climate change and cover it up. and to what end?

If that's what you want to believe, you go ahead, I guess your entitled to your opinion. but I would agree with Reddit banning your nonsense, cause I am entitled to my opinion.

[Jeezy911]

Tolarance and free speech as long as you agree with my side. Sounds like a political party I know of in the US. You know "there is a war on woman" but sara palin is a cunt folks.

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

Tolarance and free speech as long as you agree with my side. Sounds like a political party I know of in the US. You know "there is a war on woman" but sara palin is a cunt folks.

I agree but what do you do when a majority of people start choosing to ignore the truth, People out their deny all kinds of things, and sometimes we need to tell them to shut up, there are all kinds of "jerks" out there, there are people who deny the holocaust, there are people who deny evolution.

I am all for proposing new ideas and new viewpoints, but when people chose to start making up evidence and believing well crafted documentaries over experts and scientific research from multiple different academic fields and then they start gaining followers of dimwitted people who believe them, I get a little concerned for the sanity of our world and the definition of the word truth.

To Quote a personal hero of mine Bill Nye: "The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all."

That is all, I did not mean to offend anyone.

[Jeezy911]

Tolarance and free speech as long as you agree with my side. Sounds like a political party I know of in the US. You know "there is a war on woman" but sara palin is a cunt folks.

I agree but what do you do when a majority of people start choosing to ignore the truth, People out their deny all kinds of things, and sometimes we need to tell them to shut up, there are all kinds of "jerks" out there, there are people who deny the holocaust, there are people who deny evolution.

I am all for proposing new ideas and new viewpoints, but when people chose to start making up evidence and believing well crafted documentaries over experts and scientific research from multiple different academic fields and then they start gaining followers of dimwitted people who believe them, I get a little concerned for the sanity of our world and the definition of the word truth.

To Quote a personal hero of mine Bill Nye: "The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all."

That is all, I did not mean to offend anyone.

Thats the great thing about free speech, you can choose to disagree without all the name calling and demeaning.