Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Climate change is potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for bankers)

The current “green” industry is already around $1.5 Trillion a year. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England said he expects this to grow to $5-7 trillion.

http://business.financialpost.com/investing/climate-change-initiatives-a-7-trillion-funding-opportunity-for-capital-markets-carney





Follow the money heh.

And then we have...

Climate Change Contrarians Lose Big Betting Against Global Warming

Two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation academic advisory board have each lost [roughly $1,320 (1,000 British Pound)] betting that 2015 would not be warmer than 2008.

$1,320 against Trillions....


Hmmm....

And then we have ....

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4848b2d469bb

[Spendulus]

Experts Warn Climate Change Will Increase Incidences Of Stepping Into Puddle And Getting Whole Goddamn Foot Soaking Wet

http://www.theonion.com/article/experts-warn-climate-change-will-increase-incidenc-52819

[SgtMoth]

Eco-Nonsense Now Spreads To Beer As Eco-Friendly Brewing Becomes The Latest Marketing Fad

A climate scientist brought my attention to a recent article reporting how one site has identified 13 beers that are climatically and environmentally correct to drink. I’m pretty sure his main objective was to show just how nutty the movement has become.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/31/eco-nonsense-now-spreads-to-beer-as-eco-friendly-brewing-becomes-the-latest-marketing-fad/

[tvbcof]

Eco-Nonsense Now Spreads To Beer As Eco-Friendly Brewing Becomes The Latest Marketing Fad

A climate scientist brought my attention to a recent article reporting how one site has identified 13 beers that are climatically and environmentally correct to drink. I’m pretty sure his main objective was to show just how nutty the movement has become.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/31/eco-nonsense-now-spreads-to-beer-as-eco-friendly-brewing-becomes-the-latest-marketing-fad/

This has been going on for a while.  I first became aware of it here from 2014:

  https://www.nrdc.org/brewers-clean-water

I took it upon myself to write an e-mail promising to avoid buying beer from any brewer on the list and sent it to all of brewers of the craft beers that I endulge in...and I drink to much.

---

The EPA's push for increased control of 'water' and their WOTUS
stuff is not about 'clean water'.  It is about control of land,
and anyone who has researched this and read the various 'action
plans' understands the deal.  I think that one of the reasons
why there are few West Coast brewers on this list is that we on
the West Coast recognize this and how detrimental it will be to
our quality of life.

I, as someone who is fairly politically progressive and
environmentally aware, am quite conscious of this mainly
because Oregon's DEQ recently exercised flat-out straight-up
racketeering on me.  This got me researching the whole 'sustainability'
scam set up by the likes of Ken Lay of Enron fame and more recently
Hank Paulson of 'marshal law if no bailout' fame.

Maybe the waters East of the Rocky Mountain suck due to
agricultural run-off and that is why the brewers out there care
(or pretend to.)  Let's assume that and play it out.  What good
is it going to do to give the Federal authorities the legal
right to screw with everybody about their mud-puddle?  They
are not going to stop agriculture or everyone will starve.
Half of the higher-ups are going to do the revolving door thing
into big-ag an the other half the revolving door into the growing
eco-industrial complex.  Only Fed level politics will change
the ratios somewhat.  The grunts on the ground will play their
'petty tyrant' games acting as feeders to the more local
engineering and construction firms.  Ask me how I know this.

Back in the day (when I was a kid) the 'environmentalists' were,
as people, about the same as they are now.  I grew up among
them.  The big difference is they had something worthwhile to
do.  Like getting waters cleaned up that were actually filthy
and keeping nuclear plants from being built on top of faults
and so forth.  Now those who long for the good old days are
increasingly desperate because their problems have largely
vanished.  They are making crap up.  Funding is in abundance
because a great deal of the environmental movement is basically
driven by people who see the utility of 'inventory and control'
of all resources.

I happen to have a very sensitive and important river running
right through my property.  I take my responsibilities to
preserving it's health seriously.  My understandings of the
local ecology come from research and observations over 40
years and not some nebulous ramblings of some condo-dweller
who got his/her graduate degree out of a crackerjack box.  Any
old-school scientist who takes the time to actually reads the
East Anglia material (aka, 'climate-gate') rather than just
accept what the media says about it being no big deal should
be prepared to puke.  What these people pass off for 'science'
at this point is an utter joke and has made a mockery of 'peer
review' process an almost every other aspect of science.

Anyway, my vote for West Coast brew is more Willamette hops,
less fluoride, and less absurd bureaucratic totalitarianism and
hassles.  Feel free to publish my rant if it helps explain why
your brewery wasn't roped into this NRDC PR scam.

[Spendulus]

Eco-Nonsense Now Spreads To Beer As Eco-Friendly Brewing Becomes The Latest Marketing Fad

A climate scientist brought my attention to a recent article reporting how one site has identified 13 beers that are climatically and environmentally correct to drink. I’m pretty sure his main objective was to show just how nutty the movement has become.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/31/eco-nonsense-now-spreads-to-beer-as-eco-friendly-brewing-becomes-the-latest-marketing-fad/

Now, you wouldn't dare but imbide anything but real vegan beer, would you?

[valta4065]

Still writing nonsense about global warming aren't you boys?
It's incredible how you still waste time and energy denying reality.

But I guess as long as you're whining about a global conspiracy you're not trying to think about the consequences. No-one here would like to imagine what would happen if most of you is wrong and the rest of scientific world is right?

[Spendulus]

...Any
old-school scientist who takes the time to actually reads the
East Anglia material (aka, 'climate-gate') rather than just
accept what the media says about it being no big deal should
be prepared to puke.  What these people pass off for 'science'
at this point is an utter joke and has made a mockery of 'peer
review' process an almost every other aspect of science.

Anyway, my vote for West Coast brew is more Willamette hops,
less fluoride, and less absurd bureaucratic totalitarianism and
hassles.  Feel free to publish my rant if it helps explain why
your brewery wasn't roped into this NRDC PR scam.

Re the bolded above.

Did you mean BEER review?

[Samadur]

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

I'm familiar with the ice core studies.  I've read them.  Yes, Al Gore did a lot of lying, starting with his 1988 Senate hearings, where he and a friend vandalized the air conditioners so that it was very hot during those hearings on 'global warming'.  August, I think it was...

Here's one for you.   There is no "scientific hypothesis" of man made global warming.  There are a group of observations, predictions and premises.  There may be formulated dozens of area-specific scientific hypotheses, each of which can be tested.  But these are area, region or otherwise narrowly focused of necessity, otherwise they cannot be tested.

Here is a sample hypothesis.

Arctic ice melt is more influenced by soot accumulation from Asia than from increases in CO2.

Whatever you think about the matter, we could all likely agree that was a testable hypothesis....

Back up to the OP:  I really suspect that this post would not be allowed under the rules that Reddit now has, although to me it seems totally straightforward as a question...

Not good.

Why do you argue ?! You are right in their own way. It all boils down to the fact that the blame for global warming, are the people. More specifically, the activities of people, resulting in air pollution and the destruction of the planet Earth. It has long been known that if mankind does not stop killing planet Earth. Earth will kill mankind.

[valta4065]

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

I'm familiar with the ice core studies.  I've read them.  Yes, Al Gore did a lot of lying, starting with his 1988 Senate hearings, where he and a friend vandalized the air conditioners so that it was very hot during those hearings on 'global warming'.  August, I think it was...

Here's one for you.   There is no "scientific hypothesis" of man made global warming.  There are a group of observations, predictions and premises.  There may be formulated dozens of area-specific scientific hypotheses, each of which can be tested.  But these are area, region or otherwise narrowly focused of necessity, otherwise they cannot be tested.

Here is a sample hypothesis.

Arctic ice melt is more influenced by soot accumulation from Asia than from increases in CO2.

Whatever you think about the matter, we could all likely agree that was a testable hypothesis....

Back up to the OP:  I really suspect that this post would not be allowed under the rules that Reddit now has, although to me it seems totally straightforward as a question...

Not good.

Why do you argue ?! You are right in their own way. It all boils down to the fact that the blame for global warming, are the people. More specifically, the activities of people, resulting in air pollution and the destruction of the planet Earth. It has long been known that if mankind does not stop killing planet Earth. Earth will kill mankind.

They don't care. They don't care about water rising, about temperature increases. They don't care that each year we break new records on every domain. They're just too lazy to care about that...

[dwma]

No, they're not too stupid or anything like that. They just have crippling cognitive biases and this is one of the places where they can sit around the watercooler and say to themselves "they're all idiots" while patting each other on the back.

I like cryptocurrency people for their skepticism, but at some point you realize that their skepticism is all too often too far out there.

[tvbcof]

...Any
old-school scientist who takes the time to actually reads the
East Anglia material (aka, 'climate-gate') rather than just
accept what the media says about it being no big deal should
be prepared to puke.  What these people pass off for 'science'
at this point is an utter joke and has made a mockery of 'peer
review' process an almost every other aspect of science.

Anyway, my vote for West Coast brew is more Willamette hops,
less fluoride, and less absurd bureaucratic totalitarianism and
hassles.  Feel free to publish my rant if it helps explain why
your brewery wasn't roped into this NRDC PR scam.

Re the bolded above.

Did you mean BEER review?

Actually, for shits and giggles and to amuse, I did do a beer review of the offerings from the brewers who I sent the note to.  I trimmed that part for this post.  I used to buy Sierra Nevada from time to time and liked it well enough for it's class so it was a disapointment to have to put it on my no-buy list.  New Belgian I never cared much for so that was no great loss.

The reason for my note was mostly pre-emptive.  There are certain brewers who I would be severely disapointed to need to embargo and I wanted to catch them before they fell into the trap.

Looking through the list again just now, my other big disapointment is Lagunitas.  They do quite a good imperial stout which doesn't cost $10/bottle and imperial stout is my favorite so I am always on the lookout for it.  I like barelywine also but it is about the only substance on earth which can reliably give me a headache

[StingrayX]

" Occupying a country by army is dangerous... but the most dangerous is to make people believe that this army is here for their profits "

=> This is why most of efforts made on how to cover the event in media rather than finding a radical solution for it...

[dwma]

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/07/26/487457043/the-remarkable-inconsistency-of-climate-denial

[tvbcof]

I scanned the NPR article mostly because in my youth I gained a lot of information about the world through that channel and much of my family still does.  As expected, the content was a cacophony of exaggeration, misinformation, and gross logical errors.  I doubt that it was simply an accident on the part of the author.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that Dr. Salby (or his fans) have a new lecture out on youtube which might be of interest to some:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-M_uYkpT0
As with his recent lectures, the mathematics do not exceed the capabilities of those with a basic exposure to differential and integral calculus.

The main focus of this lecture seems to be an exploration of the very important residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.  As usual, Dr. Salby derives this value through multiple methods and compares the result.  As far as I can tell, 'popular' science has devolved to the point where this basic method is no longer even understood much less valued by the the practitioners of scientism.

The values Salby comes up with for residence time are vastly below those used by the 'modelers' and explain nicely the observation that the models are proving intensely invalid as the years drift by.

Salby's work in the current socio-political pseudo-science landscape also explains the desire on the part of the warmunistas like Dr. Mann to discontinue the use of data and lock the 'science' into a 'settled' state as well as the push to criminalize the activities of people like Dr. Salby using RICO statutes and the like.

[Spendulus]

I scanned the NPR article mostly because in my youth I gained a lot of information about the world through that channel and much of my family still does.  As expected, the content was a cacophony of exaggeration, misinformation, and gross logical errors.  I doubt that it was simply an accident on the part of the author.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that Dr. Salby (or his fans) have a new lecture out on youtube which might be of interest to some:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-M_uYkpT0
As with his recent lectures, the mathematics do not exceed the capabilities of those with a basic exposure to differential and integral calculus.

The main focus of this lecture seems to be an exploration of the very important residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.  As usual, Dr. Salby derives this value through multiple methods and compares the result.  As far as I can tell, 'popular' science has devolved to the point where this basic method is no longer even understood much less valued by the the practitioners of scientism.

The values Salby comes up with for residence time are vastly below those used by the 'modelers' and explain nicely the observation that the models are proving intensely invalid as the years drift by.

Salby's work in the current socio-political pseudo-science landscape also explains the desire on the part of the warmunistas like Dr. Mann to discontinue the use of data and lock the 'science' into a 'settled' state as well as the push to criminalize the activities of people like Dr. Salby using RICO statutes and the like.

I am quite familiar with the issues of CO2 residence time in the atmosphere.  It is something of an interesting subject.  One fascinating thing about climate religioscience is that no actually interesting issues can be taught.

Such things would require examination of alternative explanations and views, which cannot be allowed.  They would require asking questions in the forbidden zones, the areas where Thinking Cannot Be Allowed.

I think this is why Warmers, even those who are actual scientists, tend to do very poorly in debates and discussion with climate skeptics.

[tvbcof]

...

I think this is why Warmers, even those who are actual scientists, tend to do very poorly in debates and discussion with climate skeptics.

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.

[Spendulus]

...

I think this is why Warmers, even those who are actual scientists, tend to do very poorly in debates and discussion with climate skeptics.

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.

Sadly, the blog writer linked to thinks nothing of lying in the pursuit of his cause.  I quote-

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity

Quite obviously, although any number of scientific articles can be dredged up to support it, if the planet is warming it would be only a fraction caused by human activity.  (See IPPC reports).

But then this "Adam Frank" does describe himself as a "science evangelist."

[mOgliE]

...

I think this is why Warmers, even those who are actual scientists, tend to do very poorly in debates and discussion with climate skeptics.

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.

Sadly, the blog writer linked to thinks nothing of lying in the pursuit of his cause.  I quote-

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity

Quite obviously, although any number of scientific articles can be dredged up to support it, if the planet is warming it would be only a fraction caused by human activity.  (See IPPC reports).

But then this "Adam Frank" does describe himself as a "science evangelist."

Well i guess  that at least agree on the first conclusion.

For the second conclusion... Well let's say that the corelation between human activity increase and CO2 increase is not a proof, but it would be an incredible coincidence no?

[tvbcof]

...
The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity

Well i guess  that at least agree on the first conclusion.

Yes, although with the observation that the most recent warming trend seems to have leveled off over the past 15 years or so.

For the second conclusion... Well let's say that the corelation between human activity increase and CO2 increase is not a proof, but it would be an incredible coincidence no?

The chances of a flatline in the concentration of this particular trace gas in the atmosphere are nearly nill.  The alternate is a binary.  It would be either increasing or decreasing in the absence of humans and our activities.  By no means is this an 'incredible coincidence.'

The pseudo-science 'consensus' as communicate by our friend Dr. (I assume) Frank is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is attibutable to our burning of fossil fuel.  One of the many troubles with this, as described in Dr. Salby's lecture, is that while the rate of release of anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels took an abrupt jump around 2000, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not.  This very simple observation alone blows the current theory of 'global warming' as presented to the plebs out of the water.

---

I actually do not doubt that humans and our activities have had a noticable impact on the atmosphere, but I suggest that the bulk of it occured many thousands of years ago when we mixed fire into our toolkit.  It initially seemed plausible to me that fossil fuels could be a problem until I knuckled down and studdied the subject a bit.  The more I do, the more ridiculous the suggestions about fossil fuels and CO2 become.  As for blaming a particular organsim for changing the atmosphic composition, humans are far behind such creatures as blue/green algea and shell forming molusks.  It is probably true that our impacts have been more abrupt than those of other species...but this is not to me a good excuse to kill most of us off as will be the effect of the policies that the Fabian death cult and associated weirdos are peddling with their 'green energy' bullshit.

[Spendulus]

...

I think this is why Warmers, even those who are actual scientists, tend to do very poorly in debates and discussion with climate skeptics.

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.

Sadly, the blog writer linked to thinks nothing of lying in the pursuit of his cause.  I quote-

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity

Quite obviously, although any number of scientific articles can be dredged up to support it, if the planet is warming it would be only a fraction caused by human activity.  (See IPPC reports).

But then this "Adam Frank" does describe himself as a "science evangelist."

Well i guess  that at least agree on the first conclusion.

For the second conclusion... Well let's say that the corelation between human activity increase and CO2 increase is not a proof, but it would be an incredible coincidence no?

It is completely unknown what percent of "recent warming" is due to human activities.  For purposes of discussion let's pick some numbers.  Say 10-40%. 

The writer states unambiguously "Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity."

He's a bald faced liar.

Any part of that not make sense?