Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[roadbits]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

[Wilikon]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

Let's face it, real science is inconvenient... 


 
'One one-hundredth of a degree?' EPA's McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

[Spendulus]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

Let's face it, real science is inconvenient... 


 
'One one-hundredth of a degree?' EPA's McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

Well, which is it?

Do the rewards of the moment outweigh the possible future risk of that deadly one hundredth of a degree?

[Wilikon]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

Let's face it, real science is inconvenient... 


 
'One one-hundredth of a degree?' EPA's McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

Well, which is it?

Do the rewards of the moment outweigh the possible future risk of that deadly one hundredth of a degree?

Carbon taxing will be rewarding for those in charge of the pollution granted licencing delivery...

[Wilikon]

Obama Takes Air Force One Jet And Marine One Helicopter To Play Round Of Golf Less Than 48 Hours Before Today’s Big Climate Speech…

-------------------------
Optical illusion...

[Spendulus]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

Let's face it, real science is inconvenient... 


 
'One one-hundredth of a degree?' EPA's McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

Well, which is it?

Do the rewards of the moment outweigh the possible future risk of that deadly one hundredth of a degree?

Carbon taxing will be rewarding for those in charge of the pollution granted licencing delivery...

You mean by calling alarm on the deadly one hundredth, we make hundreds of very lively millionaires?

[Wilikon]

Let's face it, it's true everywhere. The reward of the moment always outweighs the possible future risks. That's why corporations don't want to do anything about global warming.

Let's face it, real science is inconvenient... 


 
'One one-hundredth of a degree?' EPA's McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

Well, which is it?

Do the rewards of the moment outweigh the possible future risk of that deadly one hundredth of a degree?

Carbon taxing will be rewarding for those in charge of the pollution granted licencing delivery...

You mean by calling alarm on the deadly one hundredth, we make hundreds of very lively millionaires?

We make sure the developing nations won't mess up the planet more, by using their own natural resources... Also a green millionaire is much more human than one from a poor nation.

Capitalism gives ovarian cancer to polar bears... By spreading the future wealth to today's green millionaires you help the planet. Free chemotherapy to kodiak bears too.

[Wilikon]

[Wilikon]

MSNBC Host Blames Climate Change For August Heat Forcing Obama Speech On Climate Change Inside…

'Mother nature may be making his point for him'




MSNBC host José Díaz-Balart called the decision Monday to move President Obama’s speech on climate change inside because of hot temperatures an example of “Mother Nature … making his point for him” on the issue.

The network made a move against left-wing programming by canceling three of its progressive commentary shows last week, but this was an example of editorializing on behalf of the White House showing up in an ostensibly straight newscast.

“A couple of hours from now, President Obama will unveil a new plan to slash greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy, all in an effort to fight climate change,” Díaz-Balart said. “In fact, it seems like Mother Nature may be making his point for him sometimes. Today’s event was supposed to be held outside, but with temperatures expected to be in the mid-90s, officials figured it was too hot, so they moved it to the East Room.”


http://freebeacon.com/issues/msnbc-host-blames-climate-change-for-august-heat-forcing-obama-speech-inside/

[Spendulus]

MSNBC Host Blames Climate Change For August Heat Forcing Obama Speech On Climate Change Inside…

'Mother nature may be making his point for him'




MSNBC host José Díaz-Balart called the decision Monday to move President Obama’s speech on climate change inside because of hot temperatures an example of “Mother Nature … making his point for him” on the issue.

The network made a move against left-wing programming by canceling three of its progressive commentary shows last week, but this was an example of editorializing on behalf of the White House showing up in an ostensibly straight newscast.

“A couple of hours from now, President Obama will unveil a new plan to slash greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy, all in an effort to fight climate change,” Díaz-Balart said. “In fact, it seems like Mother Nature may be making his point for him sometimes. Today’s event was supposed to be held outside, but with temperatures expected to be in the mid-90s, officials figured it was too hot, so they moved it to the East Room.”


http://freebeacon.com/issues/msnbc-host-blames-climate-change-for-august-heat-forcing-obama-speech-inside/

Wait, you mean they all LIKE AIRCONDITIONING?  That's a big contributer to GHG if you believe them liars...

[tvbcof]

The thing the CDC whistleblower Thompson blew the whistle on was the study showing that young African American males are statistically more prone to autism associated with the MMR vaccine than other kids and the burying of that result by changing the study protocol.

Asthma is one of many autoimmune related disorders which has skyrocketed in the last decade or two (to the delight of pharma shareholders no doubt.)  It seems to me a workable hypothesis that whatever 'environmental' factors are at work here can affect people of African origin more than others.

[Spendulus]

The thing the CDC whistleblower Thompson blew the whistle on was the study showing that young African American males are statistically more prone to autism associated with the MMR vaccine than other kids and the burying of that result by changing the study protocol.

Asthma is one of many autoimmune related disorders which has skyrocketed in the last decade or two (to the delight of pharma shareholders no doubt.)  It seems to me a workable hypothesis that whatever 'environmental' factors are at work here can affect people of African origin more than others.

FYI, I'm not an anti-vaccine guy. 

But I'll take your workable hypothesis any day of the week over the assertion being made that our SUV carbon emissions causes those kids' asthma.

[Wilikon]

“To Save The Planet We Must Shrink The Economy; Curb White Population”

“Significant segments of our movement celebrate a “green new deal,” that will create an economic boom and new jobs while greening our economy. This is dangerous self-deception. Everyone needs living-wage jobs, but if the additional millions of job-holders produce more products and consume as the typical living-wage worker and their families do today, we’ll collectively emit even more carbon and make the problem worse.

Therefore we must couple the new green jobs with significantly reduced hours and substantially increased wages/salaries for all workers, including professionals. These workers and their families must spend their increased funds and free time in a manner that does not produce more greenhouse gases. This complex of interactions won’t work without careful planning and re-education. We’ll make no progress if we create more consumers taking part in the throw-away society.

Progressive environmental activists are also reluctant to talk about population. We believe in sharing the world’s resources more equitably, but don’t calculate what that means as the global population approaches eight billion. The issue of population control has racist roots and a history of unequal practice. In addition, five hundred million relatively affluent North American and Western European whites produce 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, while billions of people of color in the third world have tiny carbon footprints. While masses of people living in poverty are not responsible for global warming, increasing their level of consumption to that enjoyed in the “developed world” will have a profoundly negative impact on the world’s carbon footprint.”


http://peoplesworld.org/the-way-to-save-the-planet-shrink-the-economy/


-------------------------------------
Finally. Some honesty. Again, the ones proposing the cleansing seem to always forget themselves, their own family, and keep breeding more of their own... While pushing for the elimination of their neighbors...

[Pro_Crypto_Marty]

So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.

Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.

So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.

It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.

[Spendulus]

So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.

Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.

So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.

It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.

Nonsense.

In r/science, those presenting solid scientific evidence and peer reviewed articles supporting one or another of the antithesis of your global warming religion's creed were banned.  You know it, we all know it.

10 Images Show What Coastal Cities Will Look Like After Sea-Levels Rise

Let's look at some of your "solid scientific" reddit topics.

CALL TO ACTION  - Please take 3 minutes today to make an important phone call.

India blames heat wave deaths on climate change

Rap News does it again... Pope Francis: The 10 Climate Commandments (RAP NEWS 33)

15 Strangest Weather Events So Far in 2015

Western Heat Wave Enters History Books; At Least Six June Records Already Broken; All-Time Records Threatened

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

10 Images Show What Coastal Cities Will Look Like After Sea-Levels Rise

Climate Change is making me depressed

NOAA: Hottest first half of the year in Northern Hemisphere by stunning 0.36º Farenheit

World's most famous climate scientist outlines an alarming scenario for planet's future


To be fair, your closing paragraph (bolded) proposes "equal banning."  But who bans the banners?

Once you invoke the heavy hand of censorship in the guise of promoting the common good, you live with the consequences.  If you don't like the consequences, don't complain here.   The joke that is Reddit is being laughed at here.

Further, by your own logic your post should not be allowed.  I hereby ban you from all places where words are typed on keyboards and from using electrons to move imperfect and flawed ideas.  

[Spendulus]

So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.....It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.

Just for fun let's look at one of the Reddit posts that's "not about opinion.  It's about science."

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalWarming/comments/3bd1v4/can_we_use_cactuses_to_stop_global_warming/

I live in the sonoran desert, (southern arizona) and for one, the co2 emitted from our vehicles is killing the saguaro cactus all along the highways in southern AZ. The closer they are to the road, the bigger the black rotting marks covering them. also I can't remember a good heavy monsoon season in the last 20 years or so. I'm just guessing, but I'm not sure a higher density of cacti could survive due to lack of water. I'm not an expert but I'm assuming if the desert could support more plant life, then it would lol. Had a dream last night that the presidential candidate I like was gonna try to pass a law where the roofs of all houses/buildings world wide would be painted white to help reflect the light/heat back into space to make up for the decreasing sq mileage of our polar ice caps. Strange dream in all, but I wonder if it would make any difference, it would surely take a lot of paint lol!


Gosh - I'm not finding any scientific evidence that supports the above assertions. 

Clearly the writer should have been banned but wasn't.  His rambling nonsense supports the Creed of the Warmers.

[Spendulus]

Another gem from Reddit refuting your statements.

AN ARTICLE FROM BLOOMBERG.  Last I heard, that wasn't peer reviewed science.  The article is feel good fancy graphics.  They are not even referenced.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Following is the ENTIRE 7 comments, in which the MOD admits to dominating the discussion - further - he admits just about nobody reads this crap.  And it's not scientific, not peer reviewed.  Let's ban the Moderator.

This thread is far more popular than the biased, ban-heavy, dogmatic, political junk science of reddit's Global Warming thread.   Likely because it's far less biased, does not ban, is not dogmatic, and allows all versions of real as well as political and junk science.  They do tend to sort themselves out.

Cheers.





************
all 7 comments
sorted by: best

[–]Fungus_Schmungus[M] 1 point 1 month ago

Those graphics are very, very well done. Thanks for the submission. It really helps boil an extremely complicated subject (radiative forcing ensemble) down into an accessible and intuitive visual.

    permalink

[–]V2Blast 1 point 1 month ago

...Is there a reason you distinguished this comment?

    permalinkparent

[–]Fungus_Schmungus 0 points 1 month ago

Because I was referring to the submission in an official capacity. Is that a problem?

    permalinkparent

[–]V2Blast 1 point 1 month ago

It didn't really seem like you were speaking about anything moderation- or rules-related. Too many mods in too many subreddits just distinguish unrelated posts to give their own submissions/comments more visibility among all the other posts (not saying that's what you're doing).

    permalinkparent

[–]Fungus_Schmungus 1 point 1 month ago

I'm speaking as the moderator of a sub that has less than 500 subscribers and that is very inactive in terms of comments. Had I not posted, the thread would be empty (like most of the threads from the past month) so I clearly don't gain anything in terms of competition. As a mod, I appreciated the valuable content, and I wanted to ensure that the user was aware that this was the case. In places as quiet as /r/GlobalWarming, I also think it helps that the mods show they're still around every once in a while. The rest of the moderation team has been inactive for weeks/months, so there's not much activity on that end either.

    permalinkparent

[–]Izakor 0 points 1 month ago

The next time I talk to someone who says Climate change is fake I'll tell him to look this up.

    permalink

[Wilikon]

So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.

Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.

So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.

It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.

Your religious belief is 'warmly' welcomed here... No ban for you. How refreshing? I know right.

 

[Spendulus]

So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.

Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.

So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.

It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.

Your religious belief is 'warmly' welcomed here... No ban for you. How refreshing? I know right.

 

Might be the reason your dreaded thread does not suffer from the misery of the Reddit Global Warming thread.  Let's see...we'll just check with the Reddit Overlord of Banning Deniers (Fungus_Schmungus[M]) and see what he says about why he must post, himself -

Had I not posted, the thread would be empty (like most of the threads from the past month)

Why our threads not empty?

[RodeoX]

I know all the humans are going to die. My hope is that some bacteria live. We are all just expressions of DNA, so who cares if humans survive? There is only one living creature on Earth and if part of it lives then it will bounce back in just a few million years.
It's all good.