Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Ron~Popeil]

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?

As an added bonus we get higher energy prices. I guess in the northeast we can burn worthless federal reserve play money for heat this winter.   

[1715311126]

1715311126

[1715311126]

1715311126

[1715311126]

1715311126

[1715311126]

1715311126

[Spendulus]

Obama administration targets coal with controversial emissions regulation

Let me get this straight.

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

As an added bonus we get higher energy prices. I guess in the northeast we can burn worthless federal reserve play money for heat this winter.   

Well what do you think you can do with those bitcoins?  You can't start a fire and keep warm burning them, can you?

[NewLiberty]

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

reddit is the great landscape of the unwashed scientist.  It is less peer review than it is a mob ridicule..

Even so.  That is pretty much how science is done.  Scientists argue with each other, then they get out things to measure, then they argue about the measurement tools and whether the right things are being measured.
When someone ultimately wins, sometimes unfortunately they are sore winners and boot their noble opposition out of the scientific community.
Such hubris damages science though.

Making separate-but-equal discussions is not better.

[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

reddit is the great landscape of the unwashed scientist.  It is less peer review than it is a mob ridicule..

Even so.  That is pretty much how science is done.  Scientists argue with each other, then they get out things to measure, then they argue about the measurement tools and whether the right things are being measured.
When someone ultimately wins, sometimes unfortunately they are sore winners and boot their noble opposition out of the scientific community.
Such hubris damages science though.

Making separate-but-equal discussions is not better.

yes, it is exactly that argument that is desirable, rather than that should be banned, in order to establish scientific principles.

Notice nobody has banned or proposing banning the speech of those  who are against vaccinations (or any of a number of other subjects thought of as "anti-science"). 

[Ron~Popeil]

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

reddit is the great landscape of the unwashed scientist.  It is less peer review than it is a mob ridicule..

Even so.  That is pretty much how science is done.  Scientists argue with each other, then they get out things to measure, then they argue about the measurement tools and whether the right things are being measured.
When someone ultimately wins, sometimes unfortunately they are sore winners and boot their noble opposition out of the scientific community.
Such hubris damages science though.

Making separate-but-equal discussions is not better.

yes, it is exactly that argument that is desirable, rather than that should be banned, in order to establish scientific principles.

Notice nobody has banned or proposing banning the speech of those  who are against vaccinations (or any of a number of other subjects thought of as "anti-science"). 

When your arguments are flawed you can either strengthen them with more study and facts or you can shut down the discussion by calling it "settled science." If that doesn't work you resort to intellectual fascism. This climate change fraudsters have damaged their discipline so much that it will take years for the moderate voices to repair it.

[SgtMoth]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

[Spendulus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

This is quite interesting because of the underlying assumption, stated in the article, that meteorologists "don't know anything about climate."

I actually think they know more about climate than people who get degrees in climatelobotomy.  At least after they've worked in the field for 20 years or so.

For example, a meteorologist is well versed in actual climate variability, something that the propaganda machines would like to attribute causation of "climate change" to.

Can't have anyone refuting that, now, can we....

[Ron~Popeil]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

Great plan. Use the force of government to shut down scientific debate. They might do well to read up on Galileo and other early astronomers.

[TECSHARE]

......
Climate change is fucking up a whole lot of people's lives already. It has killed a lot of people. This is not an unsubstantiated claim. During a catastrophic event the extra water may be all that knocked over and killed a lot of people's families. Same thing goes about heatwaves, drying out of certain areas and wild-fires.  We only have one planet so we can't afford to be careless with it.

The false attribution of human death or misery to climate change BY HUMANS is the issue.

Exactly. They think claiming that it is not the issue, makes us magically not have our own opinions and conclusions, because "I say so." Sounds like a actual scientific review to me!

Littleshop.  You have logic problems with your posts here.  Here are a couple...

If I was in a message board trying to have a discussion and a small group was yelling about how the earth was flat or 2+2=5 I would want to shut them up too.  Putting up debunked junk journal links proving 2+2=5 that link to further lies does not help. 

False equivalence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence  You seem to imply that people who doubt AGW theories, or see a political angle are like those who believe 2+2=5.  This is also an oversimplification and a bit of ad hominem.

Just like cigarettes don't cause cancer right because you can't put 2 + 2 together. The evidence is overwhelming.  The only thing not certain is the extent and what to do about it.

  False equivalence again, with ad hominim again, but this time with the added bonus of a strawman.  A hat trick!

You are doing badly.  Try again,

Just because you claim false equivalence does not make it so.  For instance, I could accuse you of that logic fallacy in your post.  You are falsely equating his assertion with false equivalence, thereby using it yourself.

Really it comes down to biases for me and what is the underlying cognitive defect of you people to be so nonsensical.  We got 45 pages and Wilky telling us some video is great...  the video by a guy who has issues with vaccines.  Now I'm sure some of you will be like 'hes a free thinker', but a lot of us will be like.. <groan> <facepalm>

Actually, yes it is a false equivalence.  You will find that rules of logic in debate are universally agreed upon.  That is why there can exist things like college debating teams, which have winners, and losers.  Ad hominem, which you mostly use, puts you squarely in the "debate loser category".   Regarding the call of a false equivalence, you can't just claim it is not so.  The burden of proof is on you - you need to go read the definition think up why it isn't a FE and state your reasons for others to review.  When the comparison is the (commonly used) 2+2=5 equivalence argument you will not be able to do this.

Logical fallacies actually work pretty well in politics, and even in common speech, but on text driven Internet forums they ring false.  And that's where we are.  AGW by the way is a common place for discussion of logical arguments because so many of them by the true believers are not at all logical (and yes, a smaller but recognizable group are not logical by the skeptics of the global warming theory-that-is-not-a-theory).

tl;dr

Are you the logic professor?

So is every analogy a "false equivalence" ?  lol.

Maybe I should ask again what the basic fallacy with the basic science of man made global warming is, but I'm sure I'll once again hear nothing but crickets.

So you want us to provide evidence of you having no evidence? Thats not how science works.

Here is a free lesson on how science works since you clearly weren't paying attention in grade school.

1. A scientist creates a hypothesis based on personal observation.

2. These observations based on measurable empirical data are composed into a prediction and a theory.

3. A repeatable experiment is composed under which demonstrable and dependent empirical data is observed and logged in order to support the theory.

4. A conclusion is made by the scientist.

5. The scientist publishes the data publicly for the world to review and repeat the experiment.

6. Peer review results in a conclusion of the debate of the validity or lack of validity in the scientist's methods, theory, and data.

7. Scientists continue to repeat these steps to refine data and conclusions.


Here are some colorful pictures in case you can't wrap your head around this.

[TECSHARE]

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.

That isn't a source. It is a chart with absolutely no information provided showing what the chart is based on. Could you possibly be more lazy?

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.

So when someone comes to your home and forces you to read these comments at gunpoint, why don't you call the police?

[KonstantinosM]

Updated daily, the ice extent in the arctic with historical averages for the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. 

[TECSHARE]

Updated daily, the ice extent in the arctic with historical averages for the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. 

You still didn't provide any sources, just a chart.



I found this chart which I feel is just as relevant as yours without a source.

[Spendulus]

....
You still didn't provide any sources, just a chart.

I think "IARA-JAXA" does represent the source.

A fatal flaw with these types of charts is that they deny longer term and well known cycles.  For example the PDO is a 60-80 year climate cycle.  Other similar oscillations exist.  We do not HAVE Arctic ice extent for even one 60-80 year period, only since the 1970s.  Thus the attempt by biased users of charts to suggest the existence of a linear trend is a giant lie.  That is what this chart attempts to do.

It's human nature to believe a linear progression.

But we don't do that when spring turns to summer, we know the cycle of a year.  A 50-100 year cycle is more difficult.

[TECSHARE]

....
You still didn't provide any sources, just a chart.

I think "IARA-JAXA" does represent the source.

A fatal flaw with these types of charts is that they deny longer term and well known cycles.  For example the PDO is a 60-80 year climate cycle.  Other similar oscillations exist.  We do not HAVE Arctic ice extent for even one 60-80 year period, only since the 1970s.  Thus the attempt by biased users of charts to suggest the existence of a linear trend is a giant lie.  That is what this chart attempts to do.

It's human nature to believe a linear progression.

But we don't do that when spring turns to summer, we know the cycle of a year.  A 50-100 year cycle is more difficult.

If you have to do research just to find out where the information was generated, it is not sourced. Let me put it this way... would this count as a source in a bibliography of any high school research paper?

[Spendulus]

....
You still didn't provide any sources, just a chart.

I think "IARA-JAXA" does represent the source.

A fatal flaw with these types of charts is that they deny longer term and well known cycles.  For example the PDO is a 60-80 year climate cycle.  Other similar oscillations exist.  We do not HAVE Arctic ice extent for even one 60-80 year period, only since the 1970s.  Thus the attempt by biased users of charts to suggest the existence of a linear trend is a giant lie.  That is what this chart attempts to do.

It's human nature to believe a linear progression.

But we don't do that when spring turns to summer, we know the cycle of a year.  A 50-100 year cycle is more difficult.

If you have to do research just to find out where the information was generated, it is not sourced. Let me put it this way... would this count as a source in a bibliography of any high school research paper?

Konstantinos has serious concerns about climate change and does support them with evidence.  One of the few rational ones, you might say...

What I am saying is that the reading of trends into this data set cannot be supported statistically.  We cannot read a 100 year trend into a 30 year set of data.
Scare stories based on "Arctic ice melt" come out routinely.  People hearing the stories are typically clueless about how to interpret the data, as well as what "Arctic ice" even is and what the differences between sea and land ice is.

[Ron~Popeil]

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.

That isn't a source. It is a chart with absolutely no information provided showing what the chart is based on. Could you possibly be more lazy?

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.

So when someone comes to your home and forces you to read these comments at gunpoint, why don't you call the police?

In the true believers minds the agenda is more important than getting to the truth. In an odd way they hurt their own cause because people stop listening when you scream wolf constantly. There are environmental issues that we can ans should address in a reasonable manner but the extremists cause reasonable to people to turn a deaf ear.

[JohnnyLightning]

Not surprised a bit that earth worshipers would ban dissent.

[notbatman]

Are we getting warm yet?

[hdbuck]

geoengineering at national french TV news. its official.
http://www.wikistrike.com/2014/06/tf1-parle-de-geo-ingenierie-et-avoue-que-c-est-mondial.html
they made it snow in china...


edit: rofl, now its all about cooling the earth.. no shit. spraying iron under the sea and sending mirrors in space to deviate sunlight for few degrees...
http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-we/2009/la-geo-ingenierie-solution-geniale-au-rechauffement-climatique-5552915.html
title: "geoengineering, the awesome solution to global warming"
WTFFFFFFFFFF

[Spendulus]

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.

First, the assertions are not scientifically formulated.  The right way is to say "No statistically significant warming in 17 years".

Second, the satellite data set is far more precise, replicable, and reliable than the ground based thermometer network.   Ground based instruments are fine for regional and local temperature - that's what they were put there for.  Generally though they are a hopeless mess of adjustments and incomparable data sets.  Satellite data accurately covers the entire planet, because the satellites used are in polar orbit - the earth rotates below them, and so they cover the land masses, the oceans, the North and South Poles equally.

But land based thermometers such as GSS and Hadcrut?  How many test points do they have in Antarctica?  Last I heard it was a grand total of 6, for a land mass larger than America.