Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet?

Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now.

In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights.

[dwma]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Yes, not terribly surprising.  Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here.  It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs.  Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top.

You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started.

Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers.

I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison.  (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense.  They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group.

A lot of the guys on here will never see a conspiracy they didn't like.

If most scientists are doing this for money, they're really going about getting rich in a stupid/inefficient way.  <scratches head>  

[Wilikon]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet?

Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now.

In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights.

20 years ago only the bourgeois had access to the internet through a paid portal like compuserve, via a paid land line. Now with a dumb phone and $10 prepaid card you have access to information, stupid facebook, etc. Why would anyone want this kind of elitism back among us?

No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. Yet you are so used to a life of servitude you cannot understand why a police officer can't help you not have the free will to not reply...

Strange, but...

[Wilikon]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Yes, not terribly surprising.  Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here.  It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs.  Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top.

You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started.

Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers.

I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison.  (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense.  They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group.

A lot of the guys on here will never see a conspiracy they didn't like.

If most scientists are doing this for money, they're really going about getting rich in a stupid/inefficient way.  <scratches head>  

What else is settled in science, like Global Warming, forever?

[dwma]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet?

Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now.

In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights.

20 years ago only the bourgeois had access to the internet through a paid portal like compuserve, via a paid land line. Now with a dumb phone and $10 prepaid card you have access to information, stupid facebook, etc. Why would anyone want this kind of elitism back among us?

No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. Yet you are so used to a life of servitude you cannot understand why a police officer can't help you not have the free will to not reply...

Strange, but...

I love it when they start projecting on others about their 'servitude etc'.  My internet access was through fraudulent university access and I borrowed my first modem. I prefer an internet full of the geekiest of the geeks and not others. The internet didn't appeal to those who were not driven out of curiosity.

There are reasons people like reddit etc with all their upvoting/censoring aka "curating". That reason is there is a ton of crap.

Seriously though, no idea what you mean by the rambling stuff about police officers, free will, and replying or not replying in this thread.

I replied to this thread quite a bit a couple years ago. I still remember some of the posters.  Wilikinson, Spendulus ... still going at it. I'll move on shortly.

I just like kicking and pissing on antbeds.

[Wilikon]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Should people voicing a different opinion than yours be banned from the internet?

Nope. I preferred the internet 20 years ago when it was very select, but there is no going back now.

In general I am against censoring, but people have a right to not have to read nonsense, just like many other rights.

20 years ago only the bourgeois had access to the internet through a paid portal like compuserve, via a paid land line. Now with a dumb phone and $10 prepaid card you have access to information, stupid facebook, etc. Why would anyone want this kind of elitism back among us?

No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. Yet you are so used to a life of servitude you cannot understand why a police officer can't help you not have the free will to not reply...

Strange, but...

I love it when they start projecting on others about their 'servitude etc'.  My internet access was through fraudulent university access and I borrowed my first modem. I prefer an internet full of the geekiest of the geeks and not others. The internet didn't appeal to those who were not driven out of curiosity.

There are reasons people like reddit etc with all their upvoting/censoring aka "curating". That reason is there is a ton of crap.

Seriously though, no idea what you mean by the rambling stuff about police officers, free will, and replying or not replying in this thread.

I replied to this thread quite a bit a couple years ago. I still remember some of the posters.  Wilikinson, Spendulus ... still going at it. I'll move on shortly.

I just like kicking and pissing on antbeds.

Who should do the curating of the internet? People like you?

[mOgliE]

Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend?
Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve...

Note to Warmunistas:  For maximum affect, just make sure you use the 'raw adjusted' data.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.msg14064015#msg14064015

Ahah yeah sure!
And keep ignoring what it means to adjust data xD
Couldn't you just read the whole explanation? Was it really too difficult?
Of course it's much easier to simply make a gif...

[dwma]

Who should do the curating of the internet? People like you?

You ask these unrelated random questions but I feel inclined to answer them, police officers and free will be dammed!
 
The 'internet' is a bunch of privately owned sites.  Policy should be up to whoever owns the site in question.

Reddit is good because there are so many communities, but I'd prefer a series of privately held forums.  

Reddit is good because it keeps you from having to read the worst postings.

Reddit is bad because it is rule by the majority.

While I believe in global warming, (lol duh) I don't believe in the majority subjugating the minority. You guys and the anti-vaccine crowd should be able to post your stuff somewhere just not wherever you desire. Bitcointalk is pretty cool in that regard and here we are.

[dwma]

Reading back a few pages this whole thread is more or less a series of strawmen laid out to try and justify an otherwise untenable position.

[mOgliE]

Who should do the curating of the internet? People like you?

You ask these unrelated random questions but I feel inclined to answer them, police officers and free will be dammed!
 
The 'internet' is a bunch of privately owned sites.  Policy should be up to whoever owns the site in question.

Reddit is good because there are so many communities, but I'd prefer a series of privately held forums.  

Reddit is good because it keeps you from having to read the worst postings.

Reddit is bad because it is rule by the majority.

While I believe in global warming, (lol duh) I don't believe in the majority subjugating the minority. You guys and the anti-vaccine crowd should be able to post your stuff somewhere just not wherever you desire. Bitcointalk is pretty cool in that regard and here we are.

Perfectly, if they weren't free to talk about such things you couldn't know that they're just a bunch of idiots ^^

[mOgliE]

Reading back a few pages this whole thread is more or less a series of strawmen laid out to try and justify an otherwise untenable position.

Well, what else could it be? Those people are actually believing thousands of scientists all around the world are corrupted by the government to create the climate change problem to... Well I still don't know why but they do!

There isn't much difference between them and those believing the Earth is flat ^^

[Wilikon]

Who should do the curating of the internet? People like you?

You ask these unrelated random questions but I feel inclined to answer them, police officers and free will be dammed!
 
The 'internet' is a bunch of privately owned sites.  Policy should be up to whoever owns the site in question.

Reddit is good because there are so many communities, but I'd prefer a series of privately held forums.  

Reddit is good because it keeps you from having to read the worst postings.

Reddit is bad because it is rule by the majority.

While I believe in global warming, (lol duh) I don't believe in the majority subjugating the minority. You guys and the anti-vaccine crowd should be able to post your stuff somewhere just not wherever you desire. Bitcointalk is pretty cool in that regard and here we are.

The internet 1.0 is a protocol owned by no one. If internet 2.0 is a hit people will migrate to it and leave private facebook and others behind. VPN services were a niche business in the past. Now even Google (yeah right) gives it as an option. Nothing is written in stone and paradigm shifts happen all the time.

That makes bitcointalk better for both of us, better than reddit. We believe in something that's bigger than both of us

[hdbuck]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346


Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

no kidding, that's real science: photosynthesis.

YOu're wrong and that's what's interesting. Photosynthesis has nothing to do with science, it's a complete natural phenomenon  in which humans can't interfere willingly.
The article is intereting because it shows Nature is able to adapt itself faster than what we thought. But there was nothing obvious in the fact that higher CO2 concentration helps trees. The perfect contrary phenomenon has already been demonstrated. This article might prove that greening outweights asphyxion of plants, but even them are not sure of it. And will it be enough to stock the CO2? Even the authors of the article are sckeptical about that.

[Spendulus]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Yes, not terribly surprising.  Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here.  It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs.  Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top.

You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started.

Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers.

I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison.  (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense.  They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group.

A lot of the guys on here will never see a conspiracy they didn't like.

If most scientists are doing this for money, they're really going about getting rich in a stupid/inefficient way.  <scratches head>  

IIRC aren't you one of the several guys that are paid to put pro-AGW comments on the web?  Did you get your account settled or do they still owe you from last time?

[Spendulus]

The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming.  In lay terms, that means no trend.  Do you have any other exaggerations or mis representations of data to bring out to support your true faith and belief?

Because I've got news for you.  When a scientific controversy must be supported at all costs, and when that means it is necessary to use mis representation, denial, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks to support it, as far as science is concerned, it's over for those hypotheses.  But don't worry — you are NOT ALONE.  There appear to be quite a few people that would believe a fantasy over facts.



http://www.steynonline.com/7517/steyn-vs-the-big-climate-enforcers

Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend?
Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve...

The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.

Repeat that every night before bedtime.

If you still can't sleep, should we bring you some warm milk and cookies?

[notbatman]

Reading back a few pages this whole thread is more or less a series of strawmen laid out to try and justify an otherwise untenable position.

Well, what else could it be? Those people are actually believing thousands of scientists all around the world are corrupted by the government to create the climate change problem to... Well I still don't know why but they do!

There isn't much difference between them and those believing the Earth is flat ^^

^ globalist propaganda.

[Spendulus]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346


Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

no kidding, that's real science: photosynthesis.

YOu're wrong and that's what's interesting. Photosynthesis has nothing to do with science, it's a complete natural phenomenon  in which humans can't interfere willingly.
The article is intereting because it shows Nature is able to adapt itself faster than what we thought. But there was nothing obvious in the fact that higher CO2 concentration helps trees. The perfect contrary phenomenon has already been demonstrated. This article might prove that greening outweights asphyxion of plants, but even them are not sure of it. And will it be enough to stock the CO2? Even the authors of the article are sckeptical about that.

Anyone that wants can look up co2 enhancement of plant growth, because it is a standard subject for anyone using greenhouses - either commercial farming or as a hobby.  Beyond a doubt the absolute DUMBEST people talking on a subject like this are Warmistas, because they have to try to make the facts fit their theories, that CO2 is bad. 

The simple facts are that the effects of increased Co2 on plant growth is well understood and is a commercial reality.

The attempt by Warmistas to talk to the contrary is a denial of science.

[Spendulus]

People involved in crypto-currencies are an interesting lot but they all have a huge bias against accepted reality. It is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. I'm not saying they're anymore 'wrong' than the average Joe, but their biases in this regard are far beyond the average Joe.

Finding a hive of climate science deniers on here should be of no surprise to anyone.

Yes, not terribly surprising.  Many of us here on the bitcointalk.org forum questioned and researched the highly propagandized 'understandings' of the fiat monetary systems and that is why we are here.  It is a proclivity which correlates to the questioning of other similarly propagandized 'understandings' implanted to achieve a designed effect among the plebs.  Usually associated with lining the pockets of a select few at the top.

You can look around and see many changes already in play from global warming and we're just getting started.

Critical thought and fighting against group think is an admiral and desired trait. That doesn't mean you can blindly apply it. Once you do that, you're no better than the group-thinkers.

I have yet to be aware of any sort of global conspiracy amongst actual scientists to refer to historically for comparison.  (Actual scientists = those who do science for the sake of furthering humanity's understanding) Scientists are the one group of people we can trust in a general sense.  They're aware of their own biases far more than any other group.
....

Well, let's see.  I have my handy textbook from the early 1900s with a complete chapter on Piltdown man.  I guess we can trust that, right?

And we can certainly trust all the progressive ideas from the 1920s and 1930s about Eugenics.

How about Lysenko?  Oh, you probably never heard of him.

Now go back to your condescending lecturing.  No, wait a minute.  

It just happens that ten years ago I was telling similar people with rocks for brains that the evidence seemed to indicate climate sensitivity was considerably lower than they thought science said it was.  They called me a Denier.  But I was right, and they were wrong.  So maybe you should STFU?

My experience is that people that make glossy, broad brush statements, particularly about "groups" as you do with your keen vision, in fact know very little, which is the reason they stick with broad statements.  If you would like to defend estimates of climate sensitivity from objective sources from 2006, be my guest.  However, I rather think you don't even know what the term means, how it is derived and used, or what relevance it has for the subject at hand.

Mild, diffuse forms of ad hominem are still ad hominem, and are still a way to lose the argument.

[mOgliE]

The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming.  In lay terms, that means no trend.  Do you have any other exaggerations or mis representations of data to bring out to support your true faith and belief?

Because I've got news for you.  When a scientific controversy must be supported at all costs, and when that means it is necessary to use mis representation, denial, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks to support it, as far as science is concerned, it's over for those hypotheses.  But don't worry — you are NOT ALONE.  There appear to be quite a few people that would believe a fantasy over facts.



http://www.steynonline.com/7517/steyn-vs-the-big-climate-enforcers

Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend?
Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve...

The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.

Repeat that every night before bedtime.

If you still can't sleep, should we bring you some warm milk and cookies?

Ahah! You know that repeating something doesn't make it true?
Wanna prove you're right? Easy enough, install Regressi and simply derivate the raw data of temperature increase. If derivate is positive, temperature goes up. If derivate is negative, it goes down. That's what NASA did and they found a positive one. If you want to prove them wrong it's fucking easy to do it.

[Spendulus]

The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming.  In lay terms, that means no trend.  Do you have any other exaggerations or mis representations of data to bring out to support your true faith and belief?

Because I've got news for you.  When a scientific controversy must be supported at all costs, and when that means it is necessary to use mis representation, denial, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks to support it, as far as science is concerned, it's over for those hypotheses.  But don't worry — you are NOT ALONE.  There appear to be quite a few people that would believe a fantasy over facts.



http://www.steynonline.com/7517/steyn-vs-the-big-climate-enforcers

Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend?
Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve...

The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.

Repeat that every night before bedtime.

If you still can't sleep, should we bring you some warm milk and cookies?

Ahah! You know that repeating something doesn't make it true?
Wanna prove you're right? Easy enough, install Regressi and simply derivate the raw data of temperature increase. If derivate is positive, temperature goes up. If derivate is negative, it goes down. That's what NASA did and they found a positive one. If you want to prove them wrong it's fucking easy to do it.

There's no need to install any special software to do linear regression.  The functions are built in in Excel.

One more time,

The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.

Do you refute this?  If so, please show your work.  Otherwise, please stop trying to slide around direct questions.  It does not advance the discussion.

Also please try to think carefully before you post so that things you post actually make sense.

Thanks.