Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

This is kind of cool. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AybBEuIpy44

[1713983354]

1713983354

[1713983354]

1713983354

[1713983354]

1713983354

[kuroman]

Obviously banning is not the right to do and it hinders the freedom of speech, but you have to consider that most of the climate deniers are way too vocal (as most of them are politically or money driven) and it makes it hard to have a civil conversation with them, heck some did and were found guilty to provide fake and trafficed data as fact for the sake of winning an argument. So really I understand why banning is a bad thing, but at the same time I can understand that it might have been the only solutions for mods to keep some sections clean, only that, but it's not that bad either because climate deniers could make their own reddit and no one will stop them to say whatever they want there so it's not as bad as it seems

[Wilikon]

Obviously banning is not the right to do and it hinders the freedom of speech, but you have to consider that most of the climate deniers are way too vocal (as most of them are politically or money driven) and it makes it hard to have a civil conversation with them, heck some did and were found guilty to provide fake and trafficed data as fact for the sake of winning an argument. So really I understand why banning is a bad thing, but at the same time I can understand that it might have been the only solutions for mods to keep some sections clean, only that, but it's not that bad either because climate deniers could make their own reddit and no one will stop them to say whatever they want there so it's not as bad as it seems

"Most climate deniers are way too vocal"
"Most of them are politically or money driven"

Are we supposed to believe the warmists are not too vocal, not politically or money driven?

[Spendulus]

Obviously banning is not the right to do and it hinders the freedom of speech, but you have to consider that most of the climate deniers are way too vocal (as most of them are politically or money driven) and it makes it hard to have a civil conversation with them, heck some did and were found guilty to provide fake and trafficed data as fact for the sake of winning an argument. So really I understand why banning is a bad thing, but at the same time I can understand that it might have been the only solutions for mods to keep some sections clean, only that, but it's not that bad either because climate deniers could make their own reddit and no one will stop them to say whatever they want there so it's not as bad as it seems

"Most climate deniers are way too vocal"
"Most of them are politically or money driven"

Are we supposed to believe the warmists are not too vocal, not politically or money driven?

I'm still trying to figgur out what a Climate Denier is.

I know a couple years ago warmies were saying it was someone who said "It's not warming!".

Are they still saying that?

[hdbuck]

Global warming deniers are antisemitics.. Thats all. We dont agree with this system, hence we are hateful people. Been there done that. F*** em all.

[Wilikon]

Hmmm... Now I understand why this thread is so "popular". Who knew!     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/23/survey-climate-change-abortion-gun-control-death-penalty/

[Spendulus]

Global warming deniers are antisemitics.. Thats all. We dont agree with this system, hence we are hateful people. Been there done that. F*** em all.

Okay, yeah.  I'm watching Silicon Valley and really, like this thread isn't weird enough.  It needs to at least match up and rate.

Can we start famous quotes of wisdom from Paul Erlich or something?

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

[Nathonas]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

[Wilikon]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So the warmists are the torchbearer of the TRUTH.

[Spendulus]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Who gets to decide what constitutes free speech, ignorance and stupidity, and the nuanced variations and differences between them?

I'm pretty sure I know what the answer should be.  It would of course, be that people who think like me get to decide these things.  That would make the world more to my liking....

[Ron~Popeil]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

[Spendulus]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

But we feast on nothing less than the opinions of the many.

Well, unless it be the consensus of the few.

[dwma]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

It is just as facist of you to think you should be able to say what you want in private forums and everyone should be forced to read it even though that is not what they went there for.

You might not like it, but you're no less of a fascist yourself.

[Ron~Popeil]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

It is just as facist of you to think you should be able to say what you want in private forums and everyone should be forced to read it even though that is not what they went there for.

You might not like it, but you're no less of a fascist yourself.

I think you need to look up the definition of fascism and then apply it to the context of the discussion. 

[dwma]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

It is just as facist of you to think you should be able to say what you want in private forums and everyone should be forced to read it even though that is not what they went there for.

You might not like it, but you're no less of a fascist yourself.

I think you need to look up the definition of fascism and then apply it to the context of the discussion. 

Fascism really has nothing to do with it at all.  It is a privately held message board.  I understand you don't like that those people choose not to read you people anymore.  I've given the skeptics plenty of time here to try and convince me.  Blech.  You feel entitled to make people listen to you in a privately owned forum meant for one purpose.  People have this right to remove you all the time and should continue.  Nothing to do with fascism. They're no more fascists than you are for insisting on some sort of entitlement of venue.

[Wilikon]

The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.

CNA’s webpage states that it is not an advocacy group. It says it maintains “absolute objectivity. In our investigations, analyses and findings we test hypotheses, carefully guard against personal biases and preconceptions, challenge our own findings and are uninfluenced by what a client would like to hear.”

The Center for Naval Analyses’ motto is “high quality, impartial information.”

One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.

The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.

In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report.

Other board members work in the climate change world of consulting and technology.

The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.

The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.

“This is a world which recognizes that climate change risks are unprecedented in human history and does not wait for absolute certainty before acting to mitigate and adapt to those risks,” the center says.

The CNA report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” says: “Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data.” It then quotes a board member as saying, “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

The Center for Climate and Security has taken donations from the Tides Foundation, which gets money from Democratic Party financier and liberal billionaire George Soros.

The CNA credits the Center for Climate and Security for helping release the report, and the center issued a press release lauding the report the day it was released.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-host-helps-bill-nye-with-a-perfect-response-to-all-the-people-who-doubt-his-science-facts-on-tv

[Ron~Popeil]

I'm all for it. They're not stifling free speech, they're stifling ignorance and stupidity, one of the greatest threats to the survival and well-being of the human race.

So you are all for silencing speech that you consider ignorant and stupid? Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you are also a fascist and that has nothing to do with climate science.

It is just as facist of you to think you should be able to say what you want in private forums and everyone should be forced to read it even though that is not what they went there for.

You might not like it, but you're no less of a fascist yourself.

I think you need to look up the definition of fascism and then apply it to the context of the discussion. 

Fascism really has nothing to do with it at all.  It is a privately held message board.  I understand you don't like that those people choose not to read you people anymore.  I've given the skeptics plenty of time here to try and convince me.  Blech.  You feel entitled to make people listen to you in a privately owned forum meant for one purpose.  People have this right to remove you all the time and should continue.  Nothing to do with fascism. They're no more fascists than you are for insisting on some sort of entitlement of venue.

Attempting to silence speech by using labels or accusations to silent your opponents is in fact a form of fascism. Reddit is a privately owned and can do what it wants. If they want to exist in an echo chamber I don't really give a shit. I don't feel entitled to anything. Your movement however uses labels and accusations to silence, isolate and even intimidate opposition. This is in fact a form of fascism and you endorsed it and parroted the usual garbage above.

[Wilikon]

Obama administration targets coal with controversial emissions regulation

The Obama administration took aim at the coal industry on Monday by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030 — despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.

The controversial regulation is one of the most sweeping efforts to tackle global warming by this or any other administration.

The 645-page rule, expected to be final next year, is a centerpiece of President Obama’s climate change agenda, and a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

While the plan drew praise from environmental groups, the coal industry was immediately suspect.

Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said he’s “certain that it will be very bad news for states like Kentucky who mine and use coal to create electricity.”

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions.

Under the plan, states could have until 2017 to submit a plan to cut power plant pollution, and 2018 if they join with other states to tackle the problem, according to the EPA’s proposal.

States are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.

They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

[Spendulus]

Obama administration targets coal with controversial emissions regulation

The Obama administration took aim at the coal industry on Monday by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030 — despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.

The controversial regulation is one of the most sweeping efforts to tackle global warming by this or any other administration.

The 645-page rule, expected to be final next year, is a centerpiece of President Obama’s climate change agenda, and a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

While the plan drew praise from environmental groups, the coal industry was immediately suspect.

Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said he’s “certain that it will be very bad news for states like Kentucky who mine and use coal to create electricity.”

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions.

Under the plan, states could have until 2017 to submit a plan to cut power plant pollution, and 2018 if they join with other states to tackle the problem, according to the EPA’s proposal.

States are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.

They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

Let me get this straight.

Total lawlessness from the White House is going to solve environmental problems which don't really exist?