Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[TECSHARE]

Ironically, air conditioning could be the thing fueling future global warming

This is some irony.  What's more, it seems like it sets up a feedback loop, more global warming means more need for ac, which means ...

... a perpetual and infinite supply of horse manure from the mass media I guess. Let history always be our teacher.

Best of luck, g

So Freon is a greenhouse gas?

I have no idea. As you probably saw, I was just quoting some media whore crap. You´ll have to ask them - I guess. Or the psychos that give  them the script.

Freon is a CFC. It is purported that CFCs break apart the ozone layer, but more importantly they continue to react and do so over and over instead of being depleted. While IMO global warming is a red herring, I do believe we are damaging our ozone layer, and depleting it would be bad (like we can't go outside with exposed skin bad).

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html

[1714865462]

1714865462

[1714865462]

1714865462

[1714865462]

1714865462

[1714865462]

1714865462

[Spendulus]

Ironically, air conditioning could be the thing fueling future global warming

This is some irony.  What's more, it seems like it sets up a feedback loop, more global warming means more need for ac, which means ...

... a perpetual and infinite supply of horse manure from the mass media I guess. Let history always be our teacher.

Best of luck, g

So Freon is a greenhouse gas?

I have no idea. As you probably saw, I was just quoting some media whore crap. You´ll have to ask them - I guess. Or the psychos that give  them the script.

Freon is a CFC. It is purported that CFCs break apart the ozone layer, but more importantly they continue to react and do so over and over instead of being depleted. While IMO global warming is a red herring, I do believe we are damaging our ozone layer, and depleting it would be bad (like we can't go outside with exposed skin bad).

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html

Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments.  But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.

Same with the "asbestos threat."  And many other examples.

[TECSHARE]

Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments.  But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.

Same with the "asbestos threat."  And many other examples.

Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.

[Spendulus]

Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments.  But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.

Same with the "asbestos threat."  And many other examples.

Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.

I'm looking, and will find it.  It had to do with the actual in atmosphere CFC decomposition and resulting catalytic effect theory, this being the basis of the political arguments,  being disproved. 

In the meantime, here's an interesting perspective on the ozone scare.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a "win," and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.

Their next target -- perhaps the ideal target of CO2 -- was in their sights. Noise about global warming started in the late '80s, but it didn't really get much traction until the mid- to late '90s...right after the CFC ban was a done deal.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html#ixzz3bIZZhmvk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Wilikon]

Charlie Rose To Neil DeGrasse Tyson On Climate Change: “Do We Have Too Many Scientific Deniers?”…



On Monday’s Charlie Rose show, the host couldn’t get through a interview with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson without asking about climate change and what to do about all those “scientific deniers?”

When the host of StarTalk Radio stressed the importance of understanding science so people can “vote intelligently” on the issues the PBS host mentioned “climate change” and asked: “Do we have too many scientific deniers in our country or do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science?”

This prompted Tyson to launch into an attack on journalists who give “equal column space to all sides,” including “the Earth is flat” people.

Back in March, as MRC’s Scott Whitlock reported, Rose hyped Tyson in a 60 Minutes profile that never noted his fake quotes and errors. The MRC’s Mike Ciandella has noted there has been an ongoing effort by activists to bully the media into calling skeptics of climate change “deniers.”



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2015/05/26/charlie-rose-climate-change-do-we-have-too-many-scientific-deniers

[TECSHARE]

Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments.  But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.

Same with the "asbestos threat."  And many other examples.

Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.

I'm looking, and will find it.  It had to do with the actual in atmosphere CFC decomposition and resulting catalytic effect theory, this being the basis of the political arguments,  being disproved. 

In the meantime, here's an interesting perspective on the ozone scare.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a "win," and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.

Their next target -- perhaps the ideal target of CO2 -- was in their sights. Noise about global warming started in the late '80s, but it didn't really get much traction until the mid- to late '90s...right after the CFC ban was a done deal.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html#ixzz3bIZZhmvk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I am a fan of American Thinker, but I am sorry that statement is just mostly bullshit. Yes the environmentalists love to blow things out of proportion and often use the public outcry for profit, but that doesn't make every initial complaint false. The best propaganda has a seed of truth at its core which keeps it alive. I am not supporting every reaction to these problems by environmentalists, but lets not pretend these things aren't issues at all and ignore potential harm reduction measures.

DDT: "In addition to more than two dozen studies documenting the presence of DDT in breast milk and human tissues, the petition cited three studies, published in 1968 and 1969, linking DDT to cancer. In one, DDT had been found to cause as many tumors in mice as did the known carcinogen aminotriazole.12 In the second study, successive generations of mice fed high doses of DDT showed increasing rates of leukemia and tumors.13 The last study, a human study, found that DDT levels were twice as high in people who had died of cancer compared with those who had suffered sudden or accidental deaths.14 The studies, the petitioners concluded, provided “clear evidence that DDT causes cancer in animals and provides very strong indications that it produces cancer in man.”15"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821864/


Pesticides: http://www.who.int/heli/risks/toxics/bibliographyikishi.pdf ,  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/aip/179691/


Acid Rain: http://folk.uio.no/rvogt/CV/Co-author/Larssen%20et%20al%201999.pdf

Cancer and EMF fields: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/12/S50.full.pdf

[hofor]

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Adding to the list.

A rather poor list.

Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.

Fraud on the part of those who reject the science doesn't exactly refute the science, I'm afraid.

Not after the hockey stick debacle, where McIntire showed that random data ran through the hockey stick programs would produce....a hockey stick.

The hockey stick has been verified multiple times by independent studies. McIntyre tried to refute it, but failed.

Not after the email releases.

Which ones, and how does it matter?

Not after twenty years of no warming.

This is false. There has indeed been warming in the past 20 years.

Not after the CLOUD experiment series by CERN

They do not refute the consensus. On the contrary. But I know this claim is being pushed by people who either misrepresent or do not understand the experiments.

Not after public warnings by groups of astrophysicists studying the sun on the possible consequences of the current period of low solar sunspots

What public warnings?

Not after several "surveys" using bogus methodology have attempted to "prove" that a scientific consensus exists, and after the errors in methodology of these surveys have been exposed

What does this have to do with the consensus on actual climate science? Never mind the fact that you are wrong. These surveys have not been refuted.

Not after the IPCC's admission of a lower climate sensitivity in their latest report, unless they are  also Deniers

There was no admission of a lower climate sensititivty. What they did was to adjust the range back to a previous range.

Not after the change by the propagandists from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", implicitly acknowledging the collapse of the "Global Warming Alarmist Paradigm."

Who made this change, and where? Even the latest report from the IPCC uses the term "Global Warming."

Not after decades of the propagandists pushing a theory of a "global temperature" which is against the laws of thermodynamics, then implicitly acknowledging their error but going to an equally flawed concept that the heat was going into the ocean. (which was part of which skeptics had been telling them all along)

How is an average global temperature against the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm not sure what you are saying about the ocean. Is energy going into the ocean or not? If it is, why is the concept of energy going into the ocean flawed?

Today there are several important contributions to our understanding of climate from skeptics or Deniers if you will.

The fact that the climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the first four IPCC reports indicated.

Actually, the latest report (AR5) adjusted the range back to what it was in previous reports. It was changed in AR4. And the change was far from "considerable."

The fact that there is a big influence on climate from the sun, and variability in excess of the variance in it's direct wattage impacting the surface

Yes, the sun influences the climate. Your point being? Do you even know what the science says about the sun's role?

The fact that solar particles and solar wind influence cloud formation

And?

The fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed
The fact that the Little Ice Age existed

How so?

There are many other demonstrable cases where Alarmists have attempted to cover up, repress or eliminate facts contrary to their vision.

Such as?

You do not have a valid argument in "consensus."

Actually, I do. The scientific consensus is the best way for regular people to know the current status of the science.

But I would argue that hyping the concept of "scientific consensus" is bunko, because it has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of ideas as established by the scientific method, but instead the opinions of a group.

No, it has to do with the combined results of scientific research.

[hofor]

But you see, you do not have a valid argument in "consensus."  Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.  Not after the hockey stick debacle.  Not after the email releases.  And not after twenty years of no warming.

The scientific consensus is a perfectly valid argument to regular people who want to know what the science says. Can you mention any respected scientific organizations that reject global warming? If not, why not? Are respected groups like famous journal "Nature" taking part in a massive conspiracy?

What cases of fraud?

The hockey stick has been independently verified plenty of times.

What e-mails? The ones in the fake controversy "Climategate" where the science-opponents had to resort to fake quotes and such to create a fake controversy?

It has been warming in the past 20 years as well, sorry.

[hofor]

Indeed, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 Ph.Ds) with degrees in atmospheric Earth sciences, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science have signed a statement that reads: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” See here.  Some consensus.

Yes, it's the Oregon Petition again, where the likes of engineers and maths teachers are listed. Since when was an engineer considered to be a scientist?

Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?

18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made In 1970 On Earth Day

Great, but where are the published scientific papers with predictions? Your list seems to consist of things like random people making a comment or journalists writing an article. You don't measure the science by what is done outside of the scientific method.

You generally seem to have an issue. You seem to be listing all kinds of irrelevant things. The fake Oregon Petition, a list of predictions that aren't actual scientific predictions, etc.

A reminder for those who did not know...

“Earth Day Co-Founder Killed, Composted Girlfriend”…

Again, great, but what does this have to do with the actual science?

[hofor]

I have always found Anthony Watts to be credible.

Yes, he gained additional credibility back when he fully supported the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) project and promised to accept the results no matter what they showed... until the results didn't match his expectations and he quickly rejected them.

What a lovely and credible guy!

[tvbcof]

...
Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?

Isn't Bill Nye (the propaganda guy) an ME?  He spouts off regularly about climate and 'educates' a lot of mouth-breathers on the subject.

[Spendulus]

...
Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?

Isn't Bill Nye (the propaganda guy) an ME?  He spouts off regularly about climate and 'educates' a lot of mouth-breathers on the subject.

Actually, there exists no better way to evaluate problems and solutions than the engineering approach.  Scientists are not terribly good at this.

Engineers built spacecraft and their systems, scientists may design experiments for those systems.

With AGW, proposed "solutions" must pass tests devised using the engineering method.

[Spendulus]

But you see, you do not have a valid argument in "consensus."  Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.  Not after the hockey stick debacle.  Not after the email releases.  And not after twenty years of no warming.

The scientific consensus is a perfectly valid argument to regular people who want to know what the science says. Can you mention any respected scientific organizations that reject global warming? If not, why not? Are respected groups like famous journal "Nature" taking part in a massive conspiracy?

What cases of fraud?

The hockey stick has been independently verified plenty of times.

What e-mails? The ones in the fake controversy "Climategate" where the science-opponents had to resort to fake quotes and such to create a fake controversy?

It has been warming in the past 20 years as well, sorry.

Sounds like you are the Denier, now.

[galdur]

Goldman Sachs Is Our Best Bet Against Climate Change

Although it may not be the obvious hero, usually more Vampire Squid than White Knight, Goldman Sachs and its cohorts could be responsible for transitioning the renewables sector from a fragmented and esoteric industry to one of mainstream dominance. It’s facilitated the development of world-encompassing industries before and they will do it again.

In its 2014 Annual Report, Goldman compares the potential of the renewables market to that of the Internet, “Mass market adoption of any new, disruptive industry often takes a path of early enthusiasm followed by market rejection, volatility and ultimately, acceptance. This was true of the Internet, and evidence suggests a similar course when it comes to clean technology and renewable energy.” ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/26/goldman-sachs-is-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/

[Spendulus]

...
Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?

Isn't Bill Nye (the propaganda guy) an ME?  He spouts off regularly about climate and 'educates' a lot of mouth-breathers on the subject.

Yes, he's a lowly bachelor level ME.  But you see, he is not to be trashed because he pushes the preferred narrative.  So you leave him alone.  Because he's right because the consensus of the few and fewer say so.

LOL....

[galdur]

Get me off this planet, because we have climate change zombies now

By Liz Core on 27 May 2015

Glaciers have long been the keepers of thousands of years’ worth of lost artifacts, trapped by thick layers of ice and permafrost. But thanks to decades of ice melt caused by climate change, those artifacts are now popping up all over the place. Among more humdrum bits like the occasional Roman coin and some old moss, melt is also exposing mummified bodies — both ancient and only a few decades old — perfectly preserved as the day they were locked in that (not quite) eternal ice vault.

Ice zombies yanked from the grave by climate change? You know you want to hear more. Here’s Smithsonian Magazine on what else has been discovered:

Take the soldiers who died during “The White War,” a years-long campaign in the Italian front of World War I, later fictionalized by Ernest Hemingway in A Farewell to Arms. This month marks a century since Italy joined the war, and bodies and artifacts from that time are now surfacing. …

The meltwater exposes bodies mummified by the cold as well, still wearing their uniforms. In September 2013, the local community of Peio found two young Austrian men. …

On the other side of the world, glaciers in the Argentinian Andes have relinquished their grip on a different set of bodies: Incan children sacrificed five hundred years ago, and a young pilot who crashed just a few decades ago.

A different plane carrying 52 passengers crashed into an Alaskan glacier in 1952. An Alaska National Guard helicopter crew found the wreckage in 2012.

Climate change zombies are as terrifying as they are incredibly cool — a combination that, quite reasonably, has researchers in a mad scramble for their pickaxes and microscopes.

Smithsonian also reports that scientists have surmised an even more frightening (but thankfully unlikely) theory: Melting permafrost could also release ancient viruses and pathogens that have been immobilized under the ice for thousands of years. Well, then.

Of the scary shit that climate change causes — including the (very rare!) possibility of ice-born mega-pathogens — the wave of ice zombies definitely has some romantic potential. By the way, scientists — make sure to watch out for the walking nightmares below.

http://grist.org/science/get-me-off-this-planet-because-we-have-climate-change-zombies-now/   

[tvbcof]

Speaking of Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy, a tab was still open to his wikipedia page from when I looked up his training.  On it I read the following:

  "Since 2014, Nye has shared time between the Encino neighborhood of Los Angeles and the Chelsea district of Manhattan, ..."

and

  "As of July 2007, Nye and environmental activist Ed Begley, Jr. are engaging in a friendly competition "to see who could have the lowest carbon footprint,""

LOL!  Sounds like the competition is fierce.  The hypocrisy of these climate alarmist types never fails to stun.

That reminds me of an awfully amusing suggestion by Mark Steyn that 'pistols at dawn' would be an efficient way to resolve the carbon footprint issue between the two.

[Wilikon]

----------------------------------------------
Not a word for the victims from this scientist. He could not wait to play the global warming card...

[Wilikon]

Arapahoe Basin extends ski season to at least June 14 after May snows


Ski season just got a little bit longer.

Arapahoe Basin announced on Wednesday that it will stay open until at least June 14 after nearly 50 inches of snow have fallen at the ski area this month.

The area initially planned to close on June 7 and is one of only three ski areas still open in North America and the only resort still open in Colorado.

Regular ski area operations will continue through June 7 and the resort will close from June 8 to 11 before reopening for the weekend on June 12.

Conditions will dictate which terrain will remain open, A-Basin says.

“With our snowy and cool spring weather, the skiing conditions are better than we have seen for years at this time in May,” Alan Henceroth, the area’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. “We will be re-opening for at least one more long weekend.”

Last season, the resort closed June 22.

The latest A-Basin has ever stayed open was August 10 in 1995.


http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_28197243/arapahoe-basin-extends-ski-season-at-least-june

[Wilikon]