Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[notbatman]

After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.

After I turned off the air conditioning last night the temperature outside dropped over 7 degrees in the following 3 hours.

What's your point!?

My point is that people are denying man-made climate change. I offer proof that they're wrong.

What's your problem?

My problem is that I don't see how your single line about two events (airplanes grounded and temperature increase) proofs man made climate change. So maybe you could / should elaborate if you're actually trying to convince anyone.

Globalwarming is clearly bullshit however, that doesn't stop "them" from spraying a layer of aluminum among other things to reflect incoming sunlight and perform other functions.

Who is them? Where are they spraying aluminium (I need it to produce hats!)? Sources?

"they" are the 1%.

As for elaborating on geoengineering, the current method of spraying aerosols from aircraft was conceived by Edward Teller to simulate the effects of nuclear winter.

[Wilikon]

Probably a good idea to ban deniers of evidence from any forum aimed at scientific discussion of evidence.

Even after the evidence of a fraud? Not too scientific, more like cultistic

[SgtMoth]

http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/02/un-official-admits-using-climate-change-change-economy/

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

[Wilikon]

http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/02/un-official-admits-using-climate-change-change-economy/

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Every time I see those red maple leaves I believe in man made global warming...


 

[galdur]

Wow, think I saw somewhere that China´s coal consumption is ballooning by 10%/year. That´s a doubling time of just seven years. A decade ago the doubling time was like ten years. Now they´re even about to import coal from Donbass, formerly in the Ukraine. Imagine the staggering pollution. It has been exponential growth. And it´s some really nasty stuff. Which naturally has led to exponential growth in desperate measures to divert attention from this catastrophe, this global warming thing being among the most prominent. After all debt is about the most important product in the west and most other production has gone to Asia. So there you are. That boat better not be rocked too much.  

from 100 after
7   years - 200 or so
14 years - 400
21 years - 800
28 years - 1600

And if the growth is 14%/year

5   years - 200
10 years  - 400 and so on

Someone said that one of modern man´s major shortcomings is a lack of understanding of exponential functions.
I´m sure it has been ignored in the education system so as not to disturb the debt production too much.

[Spendulus]

Wow, think I saw somewhere that China´s coal consumption is ballooning by 10%/year. That´s a doubling time of just seven years. A decade ago the doubling time was like ten years. Now they´re even about to import coal from Donbass, formerly in the Ukraine. Imagine the staggering pollution. It has been exponential growth. And it´s some really nasty stuff. Which naturally has led to exponential growth in desperate measures to divert attention from this catastrophe, this global warming thing being among the most prominent. After all debt is about the most important product in the west and most other production has gone to Asia. So there you are. That boat better not be rocked too much.  

from 100 after
7   years - 200 or so
14 years - 400
21 years - 800
28 years - 1600

And if the growth is 14%/year

5   years - 200
10 years  - 400 and so on

Someone said that one of modern man´s major shortcomings is a lack of understanding of exponential functions.
I´m sure it has been ignored in the education system so as not to disturb the debt production too much.

Assuming you are referring to co2 parts per million, co2 has an exponentially DECREASING effect with each added amount.  So basically, it's becoming irrelevant, the more of it that's added.

[galdur]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

[SgtMoth]

Reporters told to stop interviewing 'irrelevant' climate change critics
By Paul Bedard

A new study of how environmental reporters cover global warming and climate change reveals that they see the issue as one America has endorsed and, as a result, no longer include critics in their reports because they are “generally irrelevant.”

And the orders are coming from editors....http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560039

[Spendulus]

No Spendulus, I referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Oh, yeah.  The real pollution, conveniently forgotten because of the smoke screen.

I'd forgotten about THAT.

[Anon136]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

[galdur]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

[tvbcof]

In the relatively recent time's I've been trying to study this issue it does seem to me that there is a pick-up in the coverage of 'geoengineering'.  Smells like a trial balloon to me.

My strongest hypothesis about this whole global climate warming/cooling/changing thing is that it is mostly a tool for those who have other interests.  Seems that the 'social justice' and 'environmental' people have the upper hand at the moment.  They have other interests besides money, but money is still a big one.

There are many other people who like money.  People with a large fleet of aircraft for instance, or any number of specialized skills and contacts within the government.  They are not stupid and will certainly see the opportunity to make hay off the years of hard work of the eco-fundies.  I'm entirely unsurprised to see dynmaics like this forming:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/11/national-academy-of-science-demands-equal-access-to-the-climate-trough-for-geoengineering/

Now, I'm not very much more worried about geoengineering turning into some insurmountable catastrophe as I am about burning coal doing so.  That said, we are at a historic peak in the current ice-age cycle, so I find it a little bit more than simply just amusing the comment:

  'What could go wrong?"

[galdur]

Back to those inconvenient exponential functions. Increase of 10%/year = doubling every seven years or so (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc). 14% = doubling every five years or so. Yeah, I guess it´ll be an insurmountable catastrophe sooner rather than later and not just for the Chinese.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.

On some days, acid rain-inducing sulphate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulphate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.

Cities like Los Angeles received at least an extra day of smog a year from nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide from China's export-dependent factories, it said.

"We've outsourced our manufacturing and much of our pollution, but some of it is blowing back across the Pacific to haunt us," co-author Steve Davis, a scientist at University of California Irvine, said.

Between 17 and 36 percent of various air pollutants in China in 2006 were related to the production of goods for export, according to the report, and a fifth of that specifically tied to U.S.-China trade.

China pollution wafting across Pacific to blanket U.S. : study
Reuters
January 21, 2014 11:27 AM

[Anon136]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

[notbatman]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

You're making the assumption that there's competition involved here.

[Anon136]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

You're making the assumption that there's competition involved here.

I don't see how i am. I'm making the assumption that the scientists I've listened to were generally right about how much more energetic neuclear energy is. And im making assumptions that society will generally tend to move from less energy dense sources of fuel to more energy dense sources of fuel over the long term. That would even be in the interest of a monopolist.

[tvbcof]

Back to those inconvenient exponential functions. Increase of 10%/year = doubling every seven years or so (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc). 14% = doubling every five years or so. Yeah, I guess it´ll be an insurmountable catastrophe sooner rather than later and not just for the Chinese.

 - unimage: http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bqyYnvlZLNoO_o9rEFWT2A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/443970297e3cd023400f6a706700bfec.jpg

BEIJING (Reuters) - Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.

On some days, acid rain-inducing sulphate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulphate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.

Cities like Los Angeles received at least an extra day of smog a year from nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide from China's export-dependent factories, it said.

"We've outsourced our manufacturing and much of our pollution, but some of it is blowing back across the Pacific to haunt us," co-author Steve Davis, a scientist at University of California Irvine, said.

Between 17 and 36 percent of various air pollutants in China in 2006 were related to the production of goods for export, according to the report, and a fifth of that specifically tied to U.S.-China trade.

China pollution wafting across Pacific to blanket U.S. : study
Reuters
January 21, 2014 11:27 AM

I live on the West Coast of N. America right across from China.  I live in a rural area, and when I'm not burning brush or something, the air is crystal clear.  Maybe there is some special wind stream which funnels all the pollution from China right to Los Angeles, but I doubt it.  The suggestion that sounds to me like yet another bullshit scare story for the consumption of non-thinking sheep to make them glad to pay their carbon taxes (in spite of the broken chain of reason which would argue that such a thing would help much before they run out the clock.)

I'm kind of inclined to leave it up to the Chinese where they would like to draw the line between industrialization/pollution and economic-backwardness/starvation-cannibalism.  Some of the older ones probably know both worlds and are more qualified to make this judgement than I.  In any event, I feel that we here on the other side of the globe have our own problems to deal with and our 'help' in foreign lands turns into a disaster as often as not.  Often by design I'll bet.

[galdur]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

Yepps, it will reverse its exponential growth at some point in the future which means that we can forget about it for now. Same goes for war. In the future constant warfare on false pretenses for corporate profits and economic benefit for the winners will not be tolerated by the public. But until that happens we can safely continue killing and maiming millions to spread democracy around the world read:create total basket cases here and there.

[notbatman]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

You're making the assumption that there's competition involved here.

I don't see how i am. I'm making the assumption that the scientists I've listened to were generally right about how much more energetic neuclear energy is. And im making assumptions that society will generally tend to move from less energy dense sources of fuel to more energy dense sources of fuel over the long term. That would even be in the interest of a monopolist.

The "monopolist" likes his dirty energy and the effects it has on his subjects. You're fooling yourself if you believe that he will allow any kind of clean cheap energy.

[galdur]

Back to those inconvenient exponential functions. Increase of 10%/year = doubling every seven years or so (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc). 14% = doubling every five years or so. Yeah, I guess it´ll be an insurmountable catastrophe sooner rather than later and not just for the Chinese.

 - unimage: http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bqyYnvlZLNoO_o9rEFWT2A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/443970297e3cd023400f6a706700bfec.jpg

BEIJING (Reuters) - Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.

On some days, acid rain-inducing sulphate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulphate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.

Cities like Los Angeles received at least an extra day of smog a year from nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide from China's export-dependent factories, it said.

"We've outsourced our manufacturing and much of our pollution, but some of it is blowing back across the Pacific to haunt us," co-author Steve Davis, a scientist at University of California Irvine, said.

Between 17 and 36 percent of various air pollutants in China in 2006 were related to the production of goods for export, according to the report, and a fifth of that specifically tied to U.S.-China trade.

China pollution wafting across Pacific to blanket U.S. : study
Reuters
January 21, 2014 11:27 AM

I live on the West Coast of N. America right across from China.  I live in a rural area, and when I'm not burning brush or something, the air is crystal clear.  Maybe there is some special wind stream which funnels all the pollution from China right to Los Angeles, but I doubt it.  The suggestion that sounds to me like yet another bullshit scare story for the consumption of non-thinking sheep to make them glad to pay their carbon taxes (in spite of the broken chain of reason which would argue that such a thing would help much before they run out the clock.)

I'm kind of inclined to leave it up to the Chinese where they would like to draw the line between industrialization/pollution and economic-backwardness/starvation-cannibalism.  Some of the older ones probably know both worlds and are more qualified to make this judgement than I.  In any event, I feel that we here on the other side of the globe have our own problems to deal with and our 'help' in foreign lands turns into a disaster as often as not.  Often by design I'll bet.

In any event, I feel that we here on the other side of the globe have our own problems to deal with and our 'help' in foreign lands turns into a disaster as often as not.  Often by design I'll bet.

And definitely for profit.

You know, The Pentagon has been desperately trying to get congress to stop pushing on them endless tanks. They say they´re up to their ears in bloody tanks already and then some and definitely don´t need extra costs maintaining what´s anyway obsolete in their modern warfare. Which is what they want the funds spent on obviously. But congressmen have lobbyists greasing their palms and armaments factories back in the districts. Money and jobs and votes. And wars for profits. The longer wars the better. The outcome ? Who cares ?