Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

[hdbuck]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

[Spendulus]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

THEY are coming from deep in the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGWG2_PB_Q

And the Carbon taxes won't save you.

[Wilikon]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

THEY are coming from deep in the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGWG2_PB_Q

And the Carbon taxes won't save you.

Somehow al gore would still blame an alien invasion on Global Warming...

[Spendulus]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

THEY are coming from deep in the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGWG2_PB_Q

And the Carbon taxes won't save you.

Somehow al gore would still blame an alien invasion on Global Warming...

Actually there are quite a few lakes that lose all their water, and then later fill back up.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/cn-sports
/article19513959.html

So I guess this news story is a FAKE.

[Wilikon]

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

THEY are coming from deep in the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGWG2_PB_Q

And the Carbon taxes won't save you.

Somehow al gore would still blame an alien invasion on Global Warming...

Actually there are quite a few lakes that lose all their water, and then later fill back up.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/cn-sports
/article19513959.html

So I guess this news story is a FAKE.

Another -FAKE to add on your list...

[galdur]

Thousands of fish dead? How can they report so casually, don´t they realize that many of those poor fishes were baby fishes with a whole life ahead of them and suddenly torn away from it all. Rest in peace.

[Wilikon]

Thousands of fish dead? How can they report so casually, don´t they realize that many of those poor fishes were baby fishes with a whole life ahead of them and suddenly torn away from it all. Rest in peace.

Sushimaggedon... 

[Wilikon]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered



We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists’ global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are “adjusted” numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world’s governments to the climate alarmists who serve government’s cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming-models-is-estimated-or-altered.php

[Spendulus]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered



We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists’ global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are “adjusted” numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world’s governments to the climate alarmists who serve government’s cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming-models-is-estimated-or-altered.php

US Temperature data -

FAKE

[Wilikon]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered



We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists’ global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are “adjusted” numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world’s governments to the climate alarmists who serve government’s cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming-models-is-estimated-or-altered.php

US Temperature data -

FAKE

You've created a never ending thread which sucks everything in, just like a b...

[Wilikon]

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says


After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference.

Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.

The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.

Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)

So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines?

Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road.

But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail.

And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish.

Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.

Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.

Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.


http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

[Wilikon]

9 in 10 scientists think climate change is real | 700 Non-climate scientists at Big Ten universities were surveyed 92% of scientists believe humans are to blame for global warming 94% of scientists "strongly agree" or "moderately agree" that climate science is credible


By the numbers

700

Non-climate scientists at Big Ten universities were surveyed

92%

of scientists believe humans are to blame for global warming

94%

of scientists "strongly agree" or "moderately agree" that climate science is credible


http://www.jconline.com/story/news/college/2015/09/28/9-10-scientists-think-climate-change-real/72969934/

[Spendulus]

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says


After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference.

Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.

The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.

Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)

So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines?

Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road.

But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail.

And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish.

Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.

Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.

Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.


http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

...comments...priceless...

[Wilikon]

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says


After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference.

Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.

The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.

Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)

So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines?

Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road.

But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail.

And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish.

Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.

Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.

Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.


http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

...comments...priceless...

Yep.

[hdbuck]

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says


After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference.

Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.

The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.

Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)

So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines?

Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road.

But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail.

And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish.

Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.

Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.

Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.


http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

...comments...priceless...

Yep.

top 3:

The ridiculous assumption that the complicated and ever changing climate of this planet rests upon the fallacy of a carbon dioxide induced greenhouse effect and the hysterical indictment of a single parameter of 0.04% (400ppm) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which amounts to nothing more than 1 molecule of CO2 out of every 2500 molecules that comprise the atmosphere, of which only .0016% (16ppm) or 4% of the total Atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human influence, which the Catastrophic Global Warming Fanatics and Lunatics would now have everyone believe precipitates Climate Change is not only absurdly implausible it is absolutely ludicrous!

It is obvious why they chose CO2, because humans exhale CO2, and the ultimate goal of these environmentalists is a 1 billion world population. At some point, if successful in their narrative, they will blame people for global warming and have a rationale (although false) for reducing the world population through limiting births or plain out killing folk to get to their goals. And if you don't think that these folk would go to that extreme, then you are kidding yourself.

Joseph Goebels:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[tvbcof]

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says
...
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

...comments...priceless...

Yep.

top 3:
...

Another one that I happened across.  Whoever this might be <grin> seems to have mirrored my research...

tvwweek • 2 hours ago
What is interesting is that the film 'Survival of Spaceship Earth' made to introduce a UN program at a big Stockholm conference (1972) already contained elements of 'man made global warming', but in a primitive way which relied on simplistic thermodynamics. It must have been clear fairly quickly that that that dog simply would not hunt scientifically. By the Earth Summit in Rio 20 years later the culprit for the same supposed catastrophe had become more sophisticated (and more useful.) By that time it had become CO2.

BTW, here is a vid of the mentioned propaganda film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Em9A_Alck

In my research I have found it fascinating and important to understand some of this historical context.

What pisses me off is that back then forty plus years ago we really did have genuine environmental problems here in the U.S.  I was there and I remember them.  We took things fairly seriously and did a damn good job of fixing them.  Instead of getting credit and getting these scumbags off our ass, these one-world eugenicist motherfuckers won't let them go because they are so politically useful and they are so invested in the milking the problems that they simply indoctrinated the kids into believing things which just are not there.  At least here in the U.S. and most of the West.

[Spendulus]

....
What pisses me off is that back then forty plus years ago we really did have genuine environmental problems here in the U.S.  I was there and I remember them.  We took things fairly seriously and did a damn good job of fixing them.  Instead of getting credit and getting these scumbags off our ass, these one-world eugenicist motherfuckers won't let them go because they are so politically useful and they are so invested in the milking the problems that they simply indoctrinated the kids into believing things which just are not there.  At least here in the U.S. and most of the West.

I had a nice car that the paint was basically ruined from "acid rain."

Right now, yes there are a lot of imaginary and mythical evil monsters being promulgated under the raised scepter of "settled science."

And there's no acid rain.

[vero]

A person can only explain so many times why an idea is not true- eventually to keep the page reasonable some have to be blocked. When I went on and on for hours repeating some nonsense as a kid my mother would finally have enough of it and slap me silly. Unfortunately we can't do the same for people on web sites so the next best thing is to block them

[Wilikon]

A person can only explain so many times why an idea is not true- eventually to keep the page reasonable some have to be blocked. When I went on and on for hours repeating some nonsense as a kid my mother would finally have enough of it and slap me silly. Unfortunately we can't do the same for people on web sites so the next best thing is to block them

What if you tell your mom over and over to stop smocking crack? Would she be right to slap you silly? The banning on reddit lacked the same perspective.