Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

What is going on is that people should have a right to live their life free of listening to your bullshit, regardless of your sense of entitlement on the issue.

Perfect reciprocity

Lol.  Well you should start a subreddit named "/r/ClimateChangeDeniers" or what have you and trust me, I won't show up there.  Then you guys can kick out anyone who believes in global warming attributed to man.

Also while you are at, create "/r/Smokingdoesntcausecancer"  and possibly "/r/Flatearthsociety"... continue on with "/r/vacinationssuck"

I'll preemptively say thanks for the accolades, but send the tips to the american cancer society, please.

Why go elsewhere when the party is here? The hottest climate change thread club in town! With the smallest carbon footprint to boot.
Our door will always stay open. You and your friends are always welcome here, insults included...

[1715539133]

1715539133

[1715539133]

1715539133

[1715539133]

1715539133

[1715539133]

1715539133

[dwma]

What is going on is that people should have a right to live their life free of listening to your bullshit, regardless of your sense of entitlement on the issue.

Perfect reciprocity

Lol.  Well you should start a subreddit named "/r/ClimateChangeDeniers" or what have you and trust me, I won't show up there.  Then you guys can kick out anyone who believes in global warming attributed to man.

Also while you are at, create "/r/Smokingdoesntcausecancer"  and possibly "/r/Flatearthsociety"... continue on with "/r/vacinationssuck"

I'll preemptively say thanks for the accolades, but send the tips to the american cancer society, please.

Why go elsewhere when the party is here? The hottest climate change thread club in town! With the smallest carbon footprint to boot.
Our door will always stay open. You and your friends are always welcome here, insults included...

Don't take offense at this Wilky, but I actually sorta like you.  You have a sense of humor a lot of the others don't.

[AnonyMint]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Armstrong pounds sand against global climate change hoax BS
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/18/global-warming-fascist-movement-academic-welfare/

And admirably no mention of whether a global elite is aiding that process,
so at least he isn't arguing that these global movements aren't possibly
coordinated by globalists.

Note he didn't mention the 1972 U.N. Convention on Human Environment in
Brazil. Remember the U.N. was created by globalists as a second attempt
after Rockefeller's League of Nations floundered.

Armstrong is good at identifying the overt visible protagonists. But he is
wary to connect the dots of the globalists who are pulling the
coordination strings behind the curtain which he can't see in his personal
experiences in meeting politicians and academics.

[Wilikon]

What is going on is that people should have a right to live their life free of listening to your bullshit, regardless of your sense of entitlement on the issue.

Perfect reciprocity

Lol.  Well you should start a subreddit named "/r/ClimateChangeDeniers" or what have you and trust me, I won't show up there.  Then you guys can kick out anyone who believes in global warming attributed to man.

Also while you are at, create "/r/Smokingdoesntcausecancer"  and possibly "/r/Flatearthsociety"... continue on with "/r/vacinationssuck"

I'll preemptively say thanks for the accolades, but send the tips to the american cancer society, please.

Why go elsewhere when the party is here? The hottest climate change thread club in town! With the smallest carbon footprint to boot.
Our door will always stay open. You and your friends are always welcome here, insults included...

Don't take offense at this Wilky, but I actually sorta like you.  You have a sense of humor a lot of the others don't.

[Anon136]

well apparently there is a climategate 2 now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8

This simple video is worth all the 45 pages on this thread...   Thank you for the link.

Yea, listen to some more of his videos.  He also goes into the evil of vaccines.  Good stuff.

really. i always thought that was an area of disagreement between us. can you provide a link please.

[Anon136]

You can claim this isn't logical or whatever, but frankly I don't give a shit.

that does sum up your general attitude and position quite nicely.

[Wilikon]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brown-lax-remarks-20140514-story.html?track=rss


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you get a set of free rubber boots from the TSA 200 years from now?

[Ron~Popeil]

There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge that by its very nature should demand an ever higher burden of proof.

They called the lipid hypothesis settled science, there was a time when it was a "scientific fact" that the smallest particles in the universe were atoms. It was very recently that it was "settled science" that no particle of matter could be in two places at the same time. All of these "facts" have been tested and shown to be either over simplifications or just wrong.

Any one that calls something "settled science" is trying to shut down a conversation. The next step is to label those that disagree and then to isolate them.

I don't if man made global warming actually occurs. I am no scientist, but i do know that using intellectual and economic fascism to silence opposition is not science.

Yes, people are allowed to have any and all opinions.  Just like others are allowed to ignore fringe elements in order to be productive.

The simple fact is ignoring this issue will have exceptionally grave consequences if man-made global warming is true.  These guys want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after the climate and ecosystem as we know it has been destroyed.

I can ask a 100th time what the fallacy with the basic cause behind global warming is and the question will be removed from the quote and ignored for the 100th time.

Sorry, before you wreck the world wide economy and cause the death of many innocent people due to increased food an fuel costs and lower the standard of living for every person on the planet you might want to provide some proof. I am open to all ideas, but I could never accept the idea that we have to destroy the lives of people to prevent something that might happen. That is immoral and unconscionable.

[Wilikon]

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

Key facts about global temperature:
** The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. That is more than half the entire 423-month satellite record.
** The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
** The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
** The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
** Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
** The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
** In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.
** The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.
** In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! 17 years and 9 months? That's almost as good as some people believing in AGW for the past 20 years... Well, almost.

[Wilikon]

“The coalition government acknowledges the role of renewable energy in Australia’s energy mix,” said Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. “There is over $1 billion in funding for existing renewable projects to be completed over the coming years.”

“Given the tight fiscal environment as a result of [liberal] Labor’s legacy of debt and deficit, the government considers there is a very significant investment in renewable energy,” MacFarlane added.

Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition won a landslide victory in Australia’s election last fall. One of the main promises of Abbott’s coalition was to repeal the country’s carbon tax and costly environmental agenda.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/aussies-to-slash-90-of-global-warming-funding-from-budget/

--------------------------------------
What I would call "A good start!"

[Spendulus]

Wow! 17 years and 9 months? That's almost as good as some people believing in AGW for the past 20 years... Well, almost. ;

I have to admit to a bit of exaggeration when I have been using the phrase "no warming for the last 20 years".  Knowing it was 17+, close enough.

Then again, since this is measurements of temperature and not latent heat or energy content, it may be meaningless. 

[Spendulus]

.....One of the main promises of Abbott’s coalition was to repeal the country’s carbon tax and costly environmental agenda.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/aussies-to-slash-90-of-global-warming-funding-from-budget/

--------------------------------------
What I would call "A good start!"

If I was trying to change the climate in Australia, I'd be advocating nuclear power running giant desalinization plants and carving rivers inland from the sea.  Turning that huge desert into a paradise.

Terraforming right here.

Check out the weather around the bunny fence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

[Wilikon]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-if-were-wrong-climate-change-whats-worst-can-happen_793392.html

[Wilikon]

.....One of the main promises of Abbott’s coalition was to repeal the country’s carbon tax and costly environmental agenda.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/aussies-to-slash-90-of-global-warming-funding-from-budget/

--------------------------------------
What I would call "A good start!"

If I was trying to change the climate in Australia, I'd be advocating nuclear power running giant desalinization plants and carving rivers inland from the sea.  Turning that huge desert into a paradise.

Terraforming right here.

Check out the weather around the bunny fence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

The photo with the cloud is stunning.

[Schleicher]

https://i.imgur.com/XQjrBqm.png

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

Here's the trend from 4 different sources:

But yes, the air temperature has not risen much in the last years.

[SgtMoth]

There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge that by its very nature should demand an ever higher burden of proof.

They called the lipid hypothesis settled science, there was a time when it was a "scientific fact" that the smallest particles in the universe were atoms. It was very recently that it was "settled science" that no particle of matter could be in two places at the same time. All of these "facts" have been tested and shown to be either over simplifications or just wrong.

Any one that calls something "settled science" is trying to shut down a conversation. The next step is to label those that disagree and then to isolate them.

I don't if man made global warming actually occurs. I am no scientist, but i do know that using intellectual and economic fascism to silence opposition is not science.

Yes, people are allowed to have any and all opinions.  Just like others are allowed to ignore fringe elements in order to be productive.

The simple fact is ignoring this issue will have exceptionally grave consequences if man-made global warming is true.  These guys want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after the climate and ecosystem as we know it has been destroyed.

I can ask a 100th time what the fallacy with the basic cause behind global warming is and the question will be removed from the quote and ignored for the 100th time.

The fallacy is believing that carbon is a green house gas, water vapor in the air causes more warming.  What about the sun...north pole migration...doesnt volcanoes cool the planet?  These are some of the things I never hear the global warming crowd talking about.  Answer this?  Where did all the carbon come from in the past?  Was it man-made or natural.

[Schleicher]

The fallacy is believing that carbon is a green house gas, water vapor in the air causes more warming.  What about the sun...north pole migration...doesnt volcanoes cool the planet?  These are some of the things I never hear the global warming crowd talking about.  Answer this?  Where did all the carbon come from in the past?  Was it man-made or natural.

The sun's radiation doesn't change very much. About 0.2% or so in a 11 year cycle. 2009 was a record low, I think.
The north pole doesn't move very much. Only the magnetic pole.
Big vulcano eruptions are cooling the planet for a year or two, but usually not for decades.
One upon a time all the carbon has been in the air as CO2. Then the plants appeared on earth and split up the CO2.
Dead plants and microbes got buried in the ground and created oil and coal.

[Wilikon]

A new report out Tuesday says climate change might increase the price of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes by 30 percent in the next 15 years.

The Oxfam study draws from the recent slew of reports released by the Obama administration and the United Nations to argue that climate change will hike prices on raw agricultural goods.

Oxfam estimates that changing weather patterns like hurricanes and drought could drive up grain prices, which will hurt the retail price of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes in the U.S. by roughly 30 percent and about 40 percent in the United Kingdom.

The report cites a statement by Kellogg’s to the Carbon Disclosure Project last year in which the company notes the growing risks inflicted by climate change.

Kellogg’s said that could raise prices for both Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/206637-climate-change-may-ruin-breakfast

[dwma]

The fallacy is believing that carbon is a green house gas, water vapor in the air causes more warming.  What about the sun...north pole migration...doesnt volcanoes cool the planet?  These are some of the things I never hear the global warming crowd talking about.  Answer this?  Where did all the carbon come from in the past?  Was it man-made or natural.

I'm tired of the nonsense from you loons, but i can't pass this last one up.  No one believes "carbon" is a green house gas.  Pure idiocy.  "Where did it come from!?!" <guffaw>

[notbatman]

I'll have to say that sheeple people appear to be developing a resistance to bullshit, what a great improvement from a decade or two ago. I'm sure the demise of the idiot box has a lot to do with it.

Infact, I think you've got "them" on the run here.