Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88607/monthlyanoms_gis_201607.gif

[protokol]

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88607/monthlyanoms_gis_201607.gif

I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.



Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title

I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this. Of course I understand that El Niño is very active this year, and also that there may be limitations to some of the data's accuracy. But it does seem to show an overwhelming trend.

[Spendulus]

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88607/monthlyanoms_gis_201607.gif

I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.



Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title

I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....

Sure.

If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.

[protokol]

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88607/monthlyanoms_gis_201607.gif

I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.



Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title

I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....

Sure.

If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.

I was hoping for a more detailed rebuttal, it's not as if this guy recorded all the data personally. The methods seem to be referenced quite thoroughly in the article; I haven't checked all the references tbh, but just saying "Gavin Schmidt is a liar" isn't a valid argument IMO.

[Spendulus]

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88607/monthlyanoms_gis_201607.gif

I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.



Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title

I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....

Sure.

If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.

I was hoping for a more detailed rebuttal, it's not as if this guy recorded all the data personally. The methods seem to be referenced quite thoroughly in the article; I haven't checked all the references tbh, but just saying "Gavin Schmidt is a liar" isn't a valid argument IMO.

Um, actually, it's a pretty good argument.

It's not like I wouldn't invite you to find alternative sources for a similar argument.  I'm serious about what I said.  There are some climate scientists who are alarmist, who are not honest. 

Some.  Not all.

[jamcrypt]

It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.

[Spendulus]

It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.

Very sound point of view you express.

In other words, Reddit errs by siding with eco fascists and alarmists whose nature is far more religious than scientific.

My impression is that the Reddit climate sub-reddit is a number of organized postings from one or two individuals, without hardly any reading or commenting on them.  In other words, the sub-reddit is dead.  This is likely a direct consequence of limiting and banning discussion.  This in turn implies poor judgement on the part of the moderators.  Which is circuituous logic since eco fascists and alarmists of course have poor judgement.

[hdbuck]

It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.

Very sound point of view you express.

In other words, Reddit errs by siding with eco fascists and alarmists whose nature is far more religious than scientific.

My impression is that the Reddit climate sub-reddit is a number of organized postings from one or two individuals, without hardly any reading or commenting on them.  In other words, the sub-reddit is dead.  This is likely a direct consequence of limiting and banning discussion.  This in turn implies poor judgement on the part of the moderators.  Which is circuituous logic since eco fascists and alarmists of course have poor judgement.

MIT reddit is a ground for goovy trolls to raise useful idiots that clearly has nothing else to do.

Its a propaganda tool to leverage teh masses and their inaptitudes for global democreepy shenanigans.

[dwma]

It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.

If you try to get the reasoning out of the skeptics, it is all grasping at straws with nonsensical logic. While they are not parroting what they see in the media, they have their own biases that prevent them from thinking in a systematic and correct way.

[Anon136]

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.

Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.

[tvbcof]

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.

Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.

An understanding of 'climate change' involves about 2% physical science with the remaining 98% being a combination of political science, economics, history, etc.

In my observation, the 'skeptics' or 'deniers' who focus on the traditional 'hard science' aspects make quite a good account of themselves.  They have an easier task in this because it is to their benefit to reduce and simplify which is a key to starting the process of understanding.  Their counterparts on the 'consensus' side need to obfuscate and confuse in order to achieve their goals and this puts them at a disadvantage in head-to-head conflicts which, increasingly, the 'consensus' crowd seeks to avoid.

[Spendulus]

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.

Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.

An understanding of 'climate change' involves about 2% physical science with the remaining 98% being a combination of political science, economics, history, etc.

In my observation, the 'skeptics' or 'deniers' who focus on the traditional 'hard science' aspects make quite a good account of themselves.  They have an easier task in this because it is to their benefit to reduce and simplify which is a key to starting the process of understanding.  Their counterparts on the 'consensus' side need to obfuscate and confuse in order to achieve their goals and this puts them at a disadvantage in head-to-head conflicts which, increasingly, the 'consensus' crowd seeks to avoid.

Well said.  I must fall into that 2%.

I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.

[tvbcof]

...

Well said.  I must fall into that 2%.

I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.

And I'd rather work with raw data and apply my own corrections rather than with 'homogenized' data where the 'corrections' are made by 'change agents' who have agendas and motivations which are blindingly obvious when viewed from a few steps back.

[Spendulus]

...

Well said.  I must fall into that 2%.

I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.

And I'd rather work with raw data and apply my own corrections rather than with 'homogenized' data where the 'corrections' are made by 'change agents' who have agendas and motivations which are blindingly obvious when viewed from a few steps back.

The scientific method does not support the hiding of data, nor the hiding of methods of processing data, such that one must believe on FAITH the edicts of Gavin Schmidt or others regarding current and past temperatures.

The scientific method certainly does support corrections, even (laughable, but true) homogeniziation, corrections, change agents WHEN the full algorithms are public and the results are independently verifiable.

Unfortunately, the latter is not the case.

[Saigon_Bitcoin]

There is no climate change due to global warming period. The earth receives its energy from the sun and its a real scientific fact that the sun is shrinking-no tankers come to top it off. The earth is slowly cooling. The fact that reddit has to suppress comments show that they arent interested in science...they are interested in perpetuating more propaganda-real science is objective and not close minded

[Spendulus]

North Atlantic is Cooling.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/the-north-atlantic-ground-zero-of-global-cooling/

The comments are of course, interesting...

[dwma]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

Very interesting read.

[Spendulus]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

Very interesting read.

Reads behind paywalls can be outright rejected, since they cannot be read.

I hereby reject your linky.

Not saying it is the crazy talk that the abstract appears to indicate, just saying that we cannot fully appreciate it's alarmist hyperbolic trajectory toward damnation of those other than the paid off tit suckers of Gore, without being able to READ your "Very Interesting Read."

lol...

[Spendulus]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/21/americans-tire-eco-panic-hillary-quietly-drops-climate-change-rhetoric/

[dwma]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

Very interesting read.

Reads behind paywalls can be outright rejected, since they cannot be read.

I hereby reject your linky.

Not saying it is the crazy talk that the abstract appears to indicate, just saying that we cannot fully appreciate it's alarmist hyperbolic trajectory toward damnation of those other than the paid off tit suckers of Gore, without being able to READ your "Very Interesting Read."

lol...

Not sure why it is a paywall for you?  Perhaps the site where it was referred to me opened it up, but I can read the article in entirety without paying or logging into anything.

It really is fascinating. It basically digs into the underlying biases of many of the people in this thread. At a meta level, it explains what is really going on in this thread. It proposes answers to my why?s which fits with my world view.

Here is the abstract.

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.