Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it.  They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait.  No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant.  Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues.  Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong.  But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming?  Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

As far as insulting.. You're #1 on the list. See "climate preacher boy" because you didn't know that your spell checker fails due to simple education + observation.  You have yet to explain yourself. You also lied about not being able to read a paper I posted when it is plainly available to anyone who tries.  Keep trying to paint a different view of reality.. I'm sure some other fellow lunatics will buy into it.

[Spendulus]

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it.  They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait.  No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant.  Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues.  Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong.  But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming?  Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

Please note my comment.

Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

Care to discuss them?  It might be enlightening.

[Winter1986]

I do not advocate bans of something especially in science. Must be able to convince their opponents. If you can't convince someone, then not the fact that your theory is correct.

[dwma]

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it.  They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait.  No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant.  Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues.  Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong.  But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming?  Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

Please note my comment.

Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong.   All of them.

Care to discuss them?  It might be enlightening.

Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. I really don't care what the guy said. You guys hold up this bet as some big deal and it was just random variance. I get that, you need all the bullshit evidence you can muster.  One guy chose the wrong time and the economics of the time failed him. He could have just as well won and it would have been little evidence for his case. (See that I did? Thats being truthful and logically consistent)

Lets talk about how you guys love to go on about how proponents of climate change gain so much from their beliefs. THen you hold up the lone contrarian but never go to mention how he is treated as a real important guy by Republicans of the same ideological bend.  Without looking into this, I could not think of one person who is more famous over the subject than Cristy. Plucked out of obscure academia and onto the stage because he refuses to fix his data.  Of course logical inconsistencies don't bother you guys. You just dismiss them one at a time outside of any sort of context.

[dwma]

I do not advocate bans of something especially in science. Must be able to convince their opponents. If you can't convince someone, then not the fact that your theory is correct.

You think this until you come across mental illness and or severe addictions. Then you realize convincing etc doesn't work. They are people who are no longer rational.

You let those people do what they wish but also minimize their damage by keeping them away from your life.

This holds true for forums too. Luckily this forum is a bastion for free speech, but Reddit never claimed to be that.

[Iegion]

Good I never liked Reddit anyway. Just give me more reason not to use them. It's probably being run by a bunch of tree hugging democrats anyway. They can try to ban us but they can’t silent us.
Don’t get me wrong I still do my part in recycling whenever I can and I do support solar and wind energy. I just think the left blow this global warming thing way out of proportion in trying to fear and advancing their agenda.

[Berns]

The truth is born in dispute. Why deny your opponent? I am sure that such bans are harmful to science.

[notbatman]

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.



edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

[Spendulus]

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer.  Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

[dwma]

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer.  Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that.  (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit.  I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

[hdbuck]

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.



edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

[Spendulus]

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.



edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

Satellite weather balloons?

I have to think about that one...

[notbatman]

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.



edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

Satellite weather balloons?

I have to think about that one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite <--- This is the truth about geostationary satellites.

[SgtMoth]

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/


Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them

[Spendulus]

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer.  Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that.  (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit.  I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

It is quite easy to look at usable land, max theoretical food production, minimal and average needs for humans, and figure out the curves.  Erlich's complete and total failure should serve as a warning for anyone wanting to make apocalyptic claims about Warming or whatever.  Erlich's logical fallacy was presuming the continuation of observed linear and exponential trends in a mathematically chaotic environment.  To put it in common language, sort of like a gambler winning a couple of hands and thinking it'll continue.

That's the certain way to lose and lose hard.

[hdbuck]

VOX Poll: People are More Afraid of Clowns than Climate Change

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/21/vox-poll-people-are-more-afraid-of-clowns-than-climate-change/

[tvbcof]

VOX Poll: People are More Afraid of Clowns than Climate Change

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/21/vox-poll-people-are-more-afraid-of-clowns-than-climate-change/

Clowns (with graduate degrees) and 'climate change' are joined at the hip, and the former promulgate other 'problems' as well.  But higher up the food chain we do find the political and economic actors of corp/gov.

Through 'the wisdom of crowds' a fairly legitimate threat ranking seems to appear after all!

[iCEBREAKER]

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer.  Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that.  (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit.  I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

Wrong again.  Paul's wife Anne (also of Stanford) co-wrote the Population Bomb.  I know because I've read it (and the sequels).

The first time I read TPB I was a child and taken in by their catastrophism.  Later as a young adult aware of Julian Simon I reread it and found their "ZOMG TEH END OF TEH WORLD IS COMING SOOOON!!1!!!1" panic inducement to be quite hilarious.

The Ehrlichs and Simon are emblematic of the neomalthusian vs extropian conflict.  Their famous Bet is famous because it served as a microcosm of the widespread intellectual disagreement.  I love your sour grapes excuses for why Ehrlich lost and Simon won.  Such a sore loser you are.  Typical, but 20 years too late.   

You are trying to tell people who have studied and debated both sides of these issues for decades that your N00B ignorance makes your opinion superior.

Sorry my precious dear millennial snowflake, but that's not how it works.   

[Dizaster2015]

Why ignore the opposite direction? This is about science. Learn to convince your opponent. Don't know how then you are wrong.

[Spendulus]

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about?  You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer.  Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that.  (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit.  I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

Wrong again.  Paul's wife Anne (also of Stanford) co-wrote the Population Bomb.  I know because I've read it (and the sequels).

The first time I read TPB I was a child and taken in by their catastrophism.  Later as a young adult aware of Julian Simon I reread it and found their "ZOMG TEH END OF TEH WORLD IS COMING SOOOON!!1!!!1" panic inducement to be quite hilarious.

The Ehrlichs and Simon are emblematic of the neomalthusian vs extropian conflict.  Their famous Bet is famous because it served as a microcosm of the widespread intellectual disagreement.  I love your sour grapes excuses for why Ehrlich lost and Simon won.  Such a sore loser you are.  Typical, but 20 years too late.   

You are trying to tell people who have studied and debated both sides of these issues for decades that your N00B ignorance makes your opinion superior.

Sorry my precious dear millennial snowflake, but that's not how it works.   

That does not even touch upon the underlying scientific and philosophical debate which the Bet embodies.

Are resources limited, scarce?  Or nearly unlimited?  Is the planet fragile or robust?

Simons presented clear, convincing arguments as to why resources were nearly unlimited.  Erlich argued that resources were limited, and that this would result in massive near term starvation.  We know who was right, of course.

It's also true that many of Erlich's arguments are being repackaged in the form of Global Warming Hysteria.