Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Anon136]

You know its funny. People like us are called conspiracy theorists simply for pointing out that climatologists have a very strong incentive to exaggerate the severity of AGW. But when you listen to true believers everything is part of some monolithic conspiracy to these guys. If you question their narrative they will actually accuse you of being paid by "the oil companies" or "the koch brothers". Literally if you make some hokey little low production value youtube video dissenting to their narrative than they will say you must have been paid by "the oil companies" to make that video. These true believers are some of the biggest conspiracy theorists on the planet. I don't say that to be mean, i believe in several conspiracies myself, the point i want to make is that main stream culture never marginalizes these people in the way it does other conspiracy theorists. Its interesting. It seems that the culture creation industry doesn't have anything against conspiracy theories on principle. It seems that it doesn't like particular conspiracy theories and so attempts to marginalize the proponents of those conspiracies by pretending as if there is a principle of conspiracies are invalid, but then as soon as its own pet conspiracies are brought to the fore... crickets...

Not really about warmies so much as it is about the culture creation industry in general, of which AGW is a part, but related at least, and interesting i think.

[tvbcof]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

I don't think that most of the mega-corp energy companies are really all that threatened by the global climate catastrophe shenanigans.  Energy is actually worth a fair amount more than we pay for it currently so the markets will be damaged to some extent by higher prices for sure, but far from destroyed.

And with change comes opportunity.  When the govt jacks up the price of fuels by 10% in order to 'save the planet', they can give enough of a kick-back in the form of corporate welfare to the mega-corps to make it worth their while.  That's why they have lobbyists.  Also they can tack on another couple percent and it will be blamed on the govt (and the greens making it a stupid policy politically) and generally lost in the noise.  It's getting generally more difficult to dig up energy anyway so alternate forms of revenue and probably quite welcome to the Exxon-Mobil's of the world.

I'm a reasonably well-off individual in a rich country.  Higher energy prices will be a nuisance, but not much more.  Other less fortunate souls will simply die in various poverty associated problems (disease, war, etc.)  This is not unlike denying food to a colony of bacteria in a petri dish.  If one reads the philosophies of some of the movers and shakers in the 'eco' sphere, this is pretty much what they are anticipating and in fact welcoming in order to 'save the planet.'

[sed]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

[Wilikon]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

[nsimmons]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.

[Wilikon]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.

"CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change"

Prove it.

[sed]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

Ok, if I change "where" to "were" then your sentence has a main verb and I can parse it, but I still don't understand it.

Subject: everybody x [relativeclause:  who x, [verbphrase: doubted as fact einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919]
Verb Phrase: were not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut

I can't tell if you're saying that they did or didn't keep their mouths shut.

My point was that if you don't accept the ground rules or framework of a conversation then you're probably not going to add anything useful.  For example, I don't accept the premise of God and so it would be strange for me to show up at a church and argue about how God expresses love for his creation or something like that.

[Spendulus]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.

These days even for computing the date and time of the next lunar eclipse, relativity calculations are one of the ingredients.

So you have basically said, nothing.

[Wilikon]

If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.

Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

Ok, if I change "where" to "were" then your sentence has a main verb and I can parse it, but I still don't understand it.

Subject: everybody x [relativeclause:  who x, [verbphrase: doubted as fact einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919]
Verb Phrase: were not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut

I can't tell if you're saying that they did or didn't keep their mouths shut.

My point was that if you don't accept the ground rules or framework of a conversation then you're probably not going to add anything useful.  For example, I don't accept the premise of God and so it would be strange for me to show up at a church and argue about how God expresses love for his creation or something like that.

Then everyone who does not believe in AGW is denying science. Is this what you believe?

At least you can express yourself in this thread, not being shut down for your belief. Ever. What a change!

[hdbuck]

Science by consensus.. for fun & profit




http://www.dividist.com/2009/12/university-of-east-anglia-climatic.html






http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/05/flowchart-the-scientific-method-then-and-now/

[Wilikon]

Science by consensus.. for fun & profit




http://www.dividist.com/2009/12/university-of-east-anglia-climatic.html






http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/05/flowchart-the-scientific-method-then-and-now/

... Yep.

[Beliathon]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think.

Note for readers: Arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google. The evidence paints a very clear picture, human beings are undeniably warming this planet. But these fuckwits are not interested in the truth, just anti-intellectual conspiracies that demonize the scientific community as profit-seekers while worshipping the fossil fuel industry.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

[Wilikon]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are some monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

[Beliathon]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

[SgtMoth]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

post links to your evidence or stfu

[Anon136]

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

Show us a single climate model that has had a reasonable amount of time to be tested empirically against real world data which has made accurate predictions about the future. Go on. Produce it. You cant because nothing of the sort exists. But i mean who needs any of those things when you can just insult people and appeal to authority and appeal to population. We aren't propagandized by fox news. I would be extremely surprised to learn that any of the frequent contributors to this thread watch fox news even semi regularly. We just reject bullshit fallacious arguments. You cant come up to us and try to emotionally manipulate us by saying things like "The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists" because we know that's a logically fallacious argument. You on the other hand don't seem to be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies read it. familiarize yourself with it.

[tvbcof]

I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

Show us a single climate model that has had a reasonable amount of time to be tested empirically against real world data which has made accurate predictions about the future. Go on. Produce it. You cant because nothing of the sort exists. But i mean who needs any of those things when you can just wave a magic wand that craps out buzz words and insults.

To be fair, in the ubiquitous spaghetti graphs showing how laughably fucked up the (very highly funded) climate models are, there are several outliers which are not that far off at present time.  A valuable analysis which I've not seen would be to trace the origins of these.  The origins of Dr. Mann's 'hockey stick', in contrast, have been traced to death...and paint a pretty sorry picture.

I have noticed that the Warmistas are trying to claim that their models are doing a great job at the prediction climate behavior which happened before the code was written.  Sadly that will have an impact on most people, but that speaks more to the gullibility of people who listen exclusively to NPR than it does to any particular viability of the science of climate modeling.  I mean, a fair fraction of folks in the Caribbean islands believe in voodoo but it doesn't necessarily substantiate the effectiveness of sticking pins in voodoo dolls.

[Valta Crypto]

Is geoengineering a bad idea?

“The geoengineering clique is taking advantage of this situation
to promote their planetary technological manipulations.
Some of the most avid promoters of geoengineering have
links to the fossil fuel industries and to institutions that
have backed climate denial.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/11/is-geoengineering-a-bad-idea-climate-change

[hdbuck]

Is geoengineering a bad idea?

“The geoengineering clique is taking advantage of this situation
to promote their planetary technological manipulations.
Some of the most avid promoters of geoengineering have
links to the fossil fuel industries and to institutions that
have backed climate denial.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/11/is-geoengineering-a-bad-idea-climate-change

meh.. kind of the cherry on top of the climate fuge cake: http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369


amusingly in my country now, mass media starts 'hinting' pieces of propaganda articles talking about the 'benefits' of geoingeneering: a/ for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere b/ for directly impact the weather (whilst spraying shit above our poor heads)

france main news show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpY_I-mEtGA
france (socialist) newspaper: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/sciences/20150211.OBS2204/des-nuages-artificiels-pour-sauver-la-terre-du-rechauffement-climatique.html

which literally says: "artificial^TM clouds to save^TM the Earth from global warming^TM"

[tvbcof]

Is geoengineering a bad idea?

“The geoengineering clique is taking advantage of this situation
to promote their planetary technological manipulations.
Some of the most avid promoters of geoengineering have
links to the fossil fuel industries and to institutions that
have backed climate denial.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/11/is-geoengineering-a-bad-idea-climate-change

This is a classic example of those with big engineering capabilities stealing someone else's lunch.  The 'someone else' in this instance include the 'Warmistas' who want to leverage a panic to institute 'social justice' (with some dimes ending up in their own pockets to be sure) and the neo-Malthusians who want to rid the earth of the human pestilence and thus save the planet.  Both groups are as screwed up as the various religious fundies but both have also done the heavily lifting of propagandizing a generation of the population and now the corporatists are going to reap the spoils.  I'd find it even more amusing if the lunch money did not originate initially in my own pocket.

Generally speaking, I have only slightly more concern about the geo-engineers being able to substantially shape the planetary dynamics than I do about a modest increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels doing the same.

edit: sp