Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

I, as an atheist and a skeptic, can probably produce a far more adequate set of hypotheses regarding the birth of Jesus than someone who is constrained by dogma, fear of excommunication, roasting in hell, losing one's friends and things to do on Sunday morning, etc.

...

For sure.  And I can too.  But my point is that those pastors or whatever aren't going to be interested in hypotheses which don't already assume some facts which atheists would call straight bullshit on.  I'm just trying to promote the idea that if people are denying the scientific method then a science forum probably isn't the place to do that.

I also hear you guys that some are arguing that it's the "warmists" not the "deniers" who are being unscientific.  You may be correct, I don't know.  I do know that politics has become so involved here that unless you're reading the research yourself, it's probably had to get to the bottom of any of this.

In my own life, I can merely report that I have seen evidence that on the whole, things are warmer than they were 20 years ago (snow caps on my local mountains nearly gone, large glaciers missing).  Of course there's that other debate about the cause of these observations (human behavior driven or natural world cycle driven).  I don't want to get into all that. ....

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

[Wilikon]

Earth has exceeded four of the nine limits for hospitable life, scientist claims

The 9 lives boundaries of planet Earth

Humanity has raced past four of the boundaries keeping it hospitable to life, and we're inching close to the remaining five, an Earth resilience strategist has found.

In a paper published in Science in January 2015, Johan Rockström argues that we've already screwed up with regards to climate change, extinction of species, addition of phosphorus and nitrogen to the world's ecosystems and deforestation.

We are well within the boundaries for ocean acidification and freshwater use meanwhile, but cutting it fine with regards to emission of poisonous aerosols and stratospheric ozone depletion.

"The planet has been our best friend by buffering our actions and showing its resilience," Rockström said. "But for the first time ever, we might shift the planet from friend to foe."



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-has-exceeded-four-of-the-nine-limits-for-hospitable-life-10111582.html

[tvbcof]

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

[sed]

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

I haven't watched it yet, but I have heard of a film a month or so ago which is some sort of documentary about denialism in general.  Some fellow got together with the folks who worked PR for the tobacco industry in the mid twentieth century and I guess, according to whatever blurb I was seeing about the film, there is suggestion that the same sorts of tactics are being deployed by energy companies today in order to prevent serious carbon-regulation from coming to pass.  Does anyone know the name of this film?  Now that I recall hearing of it, I may try to find it if I can find the name.

EDIT: Merchants of Doubt is the name.

[galdur]

Yeah, I was looking for Merchants of Doubt but it wasn´t on YT so I forgot about it.

This torrent is seeding well.Good luck, g

http://torrenthound.atthesinema.co.uk/hash/a95db027e343ebce5cf755b7666f53f2797c6091/torrent-info/Merchants-of-Doubt-DVDRIP-XVID-AC3-ACAB

[Wilikon]

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

I haven't watched it yet, but I have heard of a film a month or so ago which is some sort of documentary about denialism in general.  Some fellow got together with the folks who worked PR for the tobacco industry in the mid twentieth century and I guess, according to whatever blurb I was seeing about the film, there is suggestion that the same sorts of tactics are being deployed by energy companies today in order to prevent serious carbon-regulation from coming to pass.  Does anyone know the name of this film?  Now that I recall hearing of it, I may try to find it if I can find the name.

EDIT: Merchants of Doubt is the name.

That movie was mentioned in post #1831

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.msg10795016#msg10795016

[Spendulus]

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

That sounds like a reasonable analysis.  I've notice the repetition of this group of lies.  Of course it's just to justify things like banning them from Reddit, when in fact they are more knowledgeable than the Warmers.

Far as I know, wrong is wrong.  We've corrected some number of climate skeptics on particular points in this thread.  I'm too lazy to go back and find the posts, but they are there.  But the number of factual and logical errors by warmers posting in this thread outnumbers those by at least ten to one.

One thing that's a lot more troubling, though, which is somewhat at the heart of this entire matter.  Many of the "solutions" and "methods" and "mitigations" and "behavior changes" that are being shouted at you and I do not stand up to an examination at the eight grade math level.

This includes windmills, solar collectors, CFL lightbulbs, shorter showers, smaller cars, hybrid cars, electric cars,  three trashcans instead of one, and all the other crap embedded with mystical holiness of helping GAIA that you've been told.

Those are all lies.  Utterly and completely.

The only thing that would "Save the Planet" if in fact there was a serious problem with heat accumulation through a "Co2 blanket" is nuclear power.

And again, you don't need the ability to read and argue a dozen fields of science, poorly clumped together into something called "climatology" - to figure this out.  It's eighth grade math, folks.

[Spendulus]

Warmers, as we affectionately warmly call them, have an excuse for why there has been no warming in about twenty years.  They say the heat is piling up deep in the ocean.  Through a curiosity of salt water, hotter water actually sinks, instead of rising.  Go figure.  This heat piling up way down in the ocean, these warmers say, is going to spring out and then we'll be in real big trouble.  So TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW!

Except...

 New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

[galdur]

Piling up deep in the ocean. Yeah, and eventually it will wake up Godzilla and it will lay waste to modern civilization. Good luck, g

[r0ach]

Whatever happened to science admitting that climate models were too complex to accurately model.  What happened to science in the 1970's claiming that a new ice age is coming?  What happened to renewed amounts of scientists claiming that again recently?  

Since insect size is a function of oxygen in the environment, and there were insects the size of cars running around at one point in time due to way higher c02 than now making plants produce more oxygen, why is less c02 than back then going to cause an apocalypse now?  If that's all it takes is a few degrees to cause some methane from the ocean floor to kill everyone on earth, a random cycle of nature would probably make that happen anyway regardless of what we do.

What happens when the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts any time now and creates nuclear winter?  Aren't things like that a bigger concern?  Or maybe World War III?  Isn't that more likely to blow up the planet first?

[Anon136]

Warmers, as we affectionately warmly call them, have an excuse for why there has been no warming in about twenty years.  They say the heat is piling up deep in the ocean.  Through a curiosity of salt water, hotter water actually sinks, instead of rising.  Go figure.  This heat piling up way down in the ocean, these warmers say, is going to spring out and then we'll be in real big trouble.  So TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW!

Except...

 New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

Thank god the natural trend happened to be going the way that it was going. It just as easily could have gone the other way. Can you imagine if it had? Can you imagine what it would mean if the government had been handed the amount of power that it wants? Which it might have if the natural trend had happened to be warming. The fact that it happened to go the direction that it did may have saved our species from extinction. If gods were real i would thank one of them.

[Schleicher]

Warmers, as we affectionately warmly call them, have an excuse for why there has been no warming in about twenty years.  They say the heat is piling up deep in the ocean.  Through a curiosity of salt water, hotter water actually sinks, instead of rising.  Go figure.  This heat piling up way down in the ocean, these warmers say, is going to spring out and then we'll be in real big trouble.  So TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW!

Except...

 New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

Yeah. Deep, as in, below 1000m. That's not the depth the scientists are talking about.
Quote from the paper:

the purpose of this present paper is not to defend or modify that estimate of the residual

So they try to stay neutral

[Spendulus]

Warmers, as we affectionately warmly call them, have an excuse for why there has been no warming in about twenty years.  They say the heat is piling up deep in the ocean.  Through a curiosity of salt water, hotter water actually sinks, instead of rising.  Go figure.  This heat piling up way down in the ocean, these warmers say, is going to spring out and then we'll be in real big trouble.  So TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW!

Except...

 New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

Yeah. Deep, as in, below 1000m. That's not the depth the scientists are talking about.
Quote from the paper:

the purpose of this present paper is not to defend or modify that estimate of the residual

So they try to stay neutral

Hmm....they suggest that there was no thermal equilibrium before the onset of "global warming", but instead a dynamic flux that had gone on for millions of years, and which had a long integration time of hundreds or thousands of years, changes the meaning of any residual heat content.  Note the "missing heat" which warmers claim may be in the deep oceans, may also simply not exist - it may have bled off to space, or never been there in the first place.  

I recall actually laughing when I first read Trenberth's ideas on the "missing heat", it was just like he was trying to chase it down - here, there, anywhere.  Planets certainly do have massive amounts of heat in their interior, that's why we have volcanos.  The idea of heat being buried in the deep oceans to me means it's gone forever, but I'm certainly not an expert in those fields - I guess I just think pressure + temperature = reactions - put heat down in the oceans, you get more solids on the ocean floor, that sort of thing.

Keep in mind that this sort of paper is followed by dozens others and usually five years later there is a clearer understanding of such an issue.  In changing the meaning of any residual heat content, this does provide evidence against an alarmist interpretation of danger from such thing.  I think that's a fair statement.  

Would you agree to that?

[tvbcof]

...
I recall actually laughing when I first read Trenberth's ideas on the "missing heat", it was just like he was trying to chase it down - here, there, anywhere. 
...

The search for the missing heat reminds me of some some other searches.  I'd like to see Trenberth's remake of this sketch:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4

[Spendulus]

...
I recall actually laughing when I first read Trenberth's ideas on the "missing heat", it was just like he was trying to chase it down - here, there, anywhere. 
...

The search for the missing heat reminds me of some some other searches.  I'd like to see Trenberth's remake of this sketch:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4

Well, when it ain't warmed for twenty years, and every year there more of them polar bears, and when them warmer boys are looking under every rock for that missing heat, you know it's the end times.  End times of that warmer stuff.  End of the easy money for kleptocapitalists working the solar and the windmill scams.

[Valta Crypto]

Arctic sea ice extent hits record low for winter

A recent study found that Arctic sea ice had thinned by 65% between 1975 and 2012.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31976749

[galdur]

Sounds serious. What to do ? Throw taxpayer money on more study of the problem.

The Northern Hemisphere's astronomical spring, which began at 22:45 UTC [GMT] on Friday March 20, is getting 30 seconds shorter each year due to the movement of the Earth's axis, which gives half a minute to summer each year, say researchers.

[Wilikon]

Pharrell brings "Happy" message on climate change to U.N.

UNITED NATIONS -- About 1,200 middle school children trudged through the latest snow storm to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday evening to hear hip hop singer and producer Pharrell Williams talk about climate change.

The U.N. sponsored the event, along the U.N. Foundation and MixRadio, to celebrate International Day of Happiness, established by the world organization in 2012. It transformed a normally conflict-focused, staid venue into a dramatically "happy" environment with a clear message: The next generation needs to pay attention to climate change.


"Protecting our planet is fundamental to the pursuit of human happiness," Pharrell said, telling the enthusiastic crowd, "We only have one home and there's climate change... If you don't (take) care of your home, you don't have a life, and we have to transition from climate change to climate action."

The event also served as the launch for the "World's Happiest Playlist" and a #HappySoundsLike Twitter campaign, which includes chair Cody Simpson, Stevie Wonder, Ed Sheeran, David Guetta, Rita Ora, John Legend and James Blunt. Environmentalists Philippe Cousteau and Sylvia Earle were on hand to show videos.

Just an hour before, Pharrell flipped the switch on the Empire State Building, turning the iconic building's lights yellow as part of the International Day of Happiness observance.

"The International Day of Happiness has provided an opportunity to open up a real conversation on how we take positive action to battle the real threat climate change," Robert Skinner, associate director of the U.N. Foundation's New York Office, told CBS News.

A young Brooklynite, Marquis Jamont, was there with his mom to see Pharrell, whom he described as a great person.

"Without Pharrell," Marquis said, "our planet would not survive."

A group of eight- and nine-year-olds from Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Scarsdale, N.Y., had their own messages.

"I'm from Seychelles and it's a small island, and I don't want it get flooded," said Giselle Ondieki.

Penelope Danielle Anastasia Latrique, the daughter of a U.N. staff member, goes to the Growing Up Green Charter School, which focuses on climate change.

"Pharrell is inspiring; he makes a happy day happy about the climate," she said.

Ahmad Alhendawi, the secretary-general's envoy on youth, told CBS, "What is happening in climate change is affecting young people's lives; this year is very important and the outreach that celebrities have is vital."

Although the plan was to have Pharrell speak and then dance in the General Assembly aisles, as soon as he finished, students went to the front to snap selfies with the new climate change czar and, of course, to change the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharrell-brings-happy-message-on-climate-change-to-u-n/

[Wilikon]

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.



I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.



http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

[Spendulus]

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

Well, here's the pitch from the reddit subform on climate. 

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate/top/

Interestingly, in this thread the Reddit forum has been defended multiple times along the lines of "Yeah, but if you are discussing science, you can't have those deniers coming in with all their political arguments.  They'll ruin a calm discussion of science."

You know what?

I'm not seeing a great deal of "science" in the propaganda repository called the reddit climate forum.  I'm seeing pro warmer propaganda with no intelligent debate ALLOWED.


 The good news is, that pressure is growing. In fact, that relentless climate movement is starting to win big, unprecedented victories around the world, victories which are quickly reshaping the consensus view – including among investors – about how fast a clean energy future could come. It’s a movement grounded in the streets and reaching for the photovoltaic rooftops, and its thinking can be easily summarised in a mantra: Fossil freeze. Solar thaw. Keep it in the ground.

Triumph is not certain – in fact, as the steadily rising toll of floods and droughts and melting glaciers makes clear, major losses are guaranteed. But for the first time in the quarter-century since global warming became a major public issue the advantage in this struggle has begun to tilt away from the Exxons and the BPs and towards the ragtag and spread-out fossil fuel resistance, which is led by indigenous people, young people, people breathing the impossible air in front-line communities. The fight won’t wait for Paris – the fight is on every day, and on every continent.