Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 06:25:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 216 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.  (Read 613693 times)
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 07:27:25 PM
 #1

[...]
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. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME


Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html

1508221541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508221541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508221541
Reply with quote  #2

1508221541
Report to moderator
1508221541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508221541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508221541
Reply with quote  #2

1508221541
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508221541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508221541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508221541
Reply with quote  #2

1508221541
Report to moderator
cryptasm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 979


Bitcoin Fintech cryptos


View Profile WWW
December 17, 2013, 08:20:54 PM
 #2

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 09:24:26 PM
 #3


So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
December 17, 2013, 09:32:33 PM
 #4

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

cryptasm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 979


Bitcoin Fintech cryptos


View Profile WWW
December 17, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
 #5

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?
No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 09:54:15 PM
 #6

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

That is perfectly fine. I agree. Reddit is private. Not sure about the second part: "...Why don’t all newspapers do the same?". The intention is to make sure there will be no places for "non believers" to express there views beyond reddit, and that is the real message there. Only vetted places should be allowed to filter for people who agree with each other.
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 09:57:55 PM
 #7

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?
No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.



THAT I could agree with. Banning should not be a solution.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 10:15:31 PM
 #8

Anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be a fabricated lie.

Also 33,000 scientists signed petition stating it is a hoax.

P.S. It is to get a carbon tax on everything, but that is irrelevant to the proven fact that it is junk non-science and fabricated data.

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. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

There is no science. I and others refuted it all.

Why should I bother to repeat when you retards are too stoopid.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
MaxwellsDemon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 187

Converting information into power since 1867


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
 #9

Anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be a fabricated lie.

... and this is why these people get banned.
If educated people want to have a serious scientific discussion, it's perfectly reasonable to have a few troll-free places for them to do so. I agree that a subreddit can be a private place.


By the way, climate change deniers always remind me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281

We're hunting for Leviathan, and Bitcoin is our harpoon.
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 10:56:27 PM
 #10

One word: Hockey stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
MaxwellsDemon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 187

Converting information into power since 1867


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 11:07:31 PM
 #11


Well, while we're at it:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-caught-warming-globe-to-increase-box-offic,2111/

We're hunting for Leviathan, and Bitcoin is our harpoon.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1549


Is it true? ®


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 11:15:30 PM
 #12

Three simple statements.

1. Reddit is private and therefore fully within their rights to censor content as they see fit.

2.  I personally have no real opinion on climate change, but do believe in free expression and speech.

3.  My opinion of reddit drops today.  Thoigh I support their right here, but find their position distasteful.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 17, 2013, 11:29:51 PM
 #13


Great video, I had not seen that for a while.  That was when climate dogs jumped the shark.

I tried discussing climate on internet forums, generally re estimates of climate sensitivity were too high.  That was my opinion based on reviews of basic raw data and analysis of it (background in numerical analysis, signal from noise, etc).  Try to sell that to a believer in AGW, good luck.  They are for the most part the rudest, blindest bunch of faith driven apostles you will ever run into.

Seems the latest IPCC report has proven me right.  No big deal, I would just like to use this as an example of how the religion-style belief patterns has corrupted science.

By the way, in general, so called "AGW deniers" largely hold this view - that the sensitivity is overstated, not that it is zero.  The very stereotyping of very intelligent and knowledgeable people is indicative of the problem I cite above.  

'Nuff said....

No, that's not enough said.  Re reading my above comment, the implication of Reddit's action is that after stereotyping me, they would have banned me, and thus the scientifically accurate statements I made would not have been in the discussion.

That's worth pondering a bit.  Along with the CERN Cloud data, and the somewhat worrisome sunspot lows, and something we really, really do not want... global cooling...
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 17, 2013, 11:46:11 PM
 #14


Great video, I had not seen that for a while.  That was when climate dogs jumped the shark.

I tried discussing climate on internet forums, generally re estimates of climate sensitivity were too high.  That was my opinion based on reviews of basic raw data and analysis of it (background in numerical analysis, signal from noise, etc).  Try to sell that to a believer in AGW, good luck.  They are for the most part the rudest, blindest bunch of faith driven apostles you will ever run into.

Seems the latest IPCC report has proven me right.  No big deal, I would just like to use this as an example of how the religion-style belief patterns has corrupted science.

By the way, in general, so called "AGW deniers" largely hold this view - that the sensitivity is overstated, not that it is zero.  The very stereotyping of very intelligent and knowledgable people is indicative of the problem I cite above. 

'Nuff said....

I was surprised to even see it still on youtube. Mr Mann asked youtube to bring it down, claiming his face was copyrighted and they did. This one must be a reload?
But this is not the first time the "good people" found a way to ban the opposite views, and not just because they were trolls, according to them.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 18, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
 #15


Great video, I had not seen that for a while.  That was when climate dogs jumped the shark.

I tried discussing climate on internet forums, generally re estimates of climate sensitivity were too high.  That was my opinion based on reviews of basic raw data and analysis of it (background in numerical analysis, signal from noise, etc).  Try to sell that to a believer in AGW, good luck.  They are for the most part the rudest, blindest bunch of faith driven apostles you will ever run into.

Seems the latest IPCC report has proven me right.  No big deal, I would just like to use this as an example of how the religion-style belief patterns has corrupted science.

By the way, in general, so called "AGW deniers" largely hold this view - that the sensitivity is overstated, not that it is zero.  The very stereotyping of very intelligent and knowledgable people is indicative of the problem I cite above.  

'Nuff said....

I was surprised to even see it still on youtube. Mr Mann asked youtube to bring it down, claiming his face was copyrighted and they did. This one must be a reload?
But this is not the first time the "good people" found a way to ban the opposite views, and not just because they were trolls, according to them.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

Thinking over my post above, I believe it is fair to say that if the mis labeled category "climate deniers" were banned from a discussion, all decisions and results from that discussion would be wrong, and thus the implemented policy would be useless.

Except for the great opportunities for graft and corruption.

Yeah, you illustrate the problem of which I speak.  Quoting from the link...

I published a piece that criticized and parodied the work of
well known climate denier Anthony Watts

Now, going to the actual views that Anthony has, which are quite moderate.

"Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors." He further avers that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."

It would take some very ignorant people to ban Watts from a Reddit forum.  But as he's been labeled a climate denier, obviously he is banned.  I can show the same issue with other major "climate deniers".  Their actual words and actual stated positions are not the MASSIVELY EVIL EXXON DRIVEN propaganda, quite the reverse.

The propaganda is all from the true believers.  And they must be getting pretty frustrated, since the planet isn't cooperating with their forecasts of doom.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile
December 18, 2013, 01:59:11 AM
 #16

Both sides of this debate are too fear driven.

Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1"

Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1"


Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.


The non-partisan facts appear to be:

Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.

Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.

As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).



So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.

Vires in numeris
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
December 18, 2013, 02:38:00 AM
 #17

Anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be a fabricated lie.

... and this is why these people get banned.
If educated people want to have a serious scientific discussion, it's perfectly reasonable to have a few troll-free places for them to do so. I agree that a subreddit can be a private place.


By the way, climate change deniers always remind me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281


I was waiting for a complete retard like you to stick your neck out so I can obliterate your ignorance with irrefutable facts.

Of course you are too stoopid to understand the facts presented below.

The carbon tax is all about a global Technocracy where the elite will track everything you do (e.g. Smart Electric meters...to save the earth of course!), and tax you into slavery.

This is what a carbon tax with the lie about man-made global warming is about.

Did your Exxon Attorny Daddy tell you that or do you honestly believe that firing millions of tons of fossile products has no impact on our climate? The only lie is the carbon tax which just helps greedy Exxon&Co to make more money. Bloody bastards!

I haven't spoken to my father since 2003. Before 2000, I hadn't spoken to him much since 1990 (when I was 25). So don't think my father and I see eye-to-eye on all issues. My father went much higher than West Coast division attorney at Exxon. I am not really clear how high up he went because that was after we stopped communicating. I recognize his intellect.

Any way, that is irrelevant to my views on ClimateGate and the other complete fraud of man-made global warming (read the 27 comments of "Shelby" on the linked page).

Here is a sample comment:

Quote
@Bennet, can you read? I wasn’t arguing against GW (global warming vs. AGW which is anthropogenic, i.e. man-caused global warming).

I will ask you though if you passed a basic statistics course, because how can you draw any statistically meaningful conclusions of doom based on recent century or two, when then lag time for CO2 correlation is 600 – 1000 years, and they were farming grapes in the UK and then skating on the Thames within the past several hundred years.

Do you also believe in Peter Pan, Three Little Pigs, and peak oil.

Fear shuts down the pre-frontal cortex.


See also these links documenting the AGW fraud, such as how they fabricated temperature data, and even moved thermometers from shady locations to next to concrete mass in direct sunshine to falsify the data:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+AGW

http://blog.jim.com/category/global-warming



Since we've established above that knarzo thinks man-made carbon could influence the climate, when in fact the carbon produced by man is dwarfed in orders-of-magnitude by the carbon released from the oceans as they warm 600 - 1000 years after the warming begins! (as documented above), then we can consider his recent tirade in this context of his ignorance:...

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 18, 2013, 02:56:28 AM
 #18

Anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be a fabricated lie.

... and this is why these people get banned.
If educated people want to have a serious scientific discussion, it's perfectly reasonable to have a few troll-free places for them to do so. I agree that a subreddit can be a private place.


By the way, climate change deniers always remind me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281


I was waiting for a complete retard like you to stick your neck out so I can obliterate your ignorance with irrefutable facts.

Of course you are too stoopid to understand the facts presented below.

The carbon tax is all about a global Technocracy where the elite will track everything you do (e.g. Smart Electric meters...to save the earth of course!), and tax you into slavery.

This is what a carbon tax with the lie about man-made global warming is about.

Did your Exxon Attorny Daddy tell you that or do you honestly believe that firing millions of tons of fossile products has no impact on our climate? The only lie is the carbon tax which just helps greedy Exxon&Co to make more money. Bloody bastards!

I haven't spoken to my father since 2003. Before 2000, I hadn't spoken to him much since 1990 (when I was 25). So don't think my father and I see eye-to-eye on all issues. My father went much higher than West Coast division attorney at Exxon. I am not really clear how high up he went because that was after we stopped communicating. I recognize his intellect.

Any way, that is irrelevant to my views on ClimateGate and the other complete fraud of man-made global warming (read the 27 comments of "Shelby" on the linked page).

Here is a sample comment:

Quote
@Bennet, can you read? I wasn’t arguing against GW (global warming vs. AGW which is anthropogenic, i.e. man-caused global warming).

I will ask you though if you passed a basic statistics course, because how can you draw any statistically meaningful conclusions of doom based on recent century or two, when then lag time for CO2 correlation is 600 – 1000 years, and they were farming grapes in the UK and then skating on the Thames within the past several hundred years.

Do you also believe in Peter Pan, Three Little Pigs, and peak oil.

Fear shuts down the pre-frontal cortex.


See also these links documenting the AGW fraud, such as how they fabricated temperature data, and even moved thermometers from shady locations to next to concrete mass in direct sunshine to falsify the data:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+AGW

http://blog.jim.com/category/global-warming



Since we've established above that knarzo thinks man-made carbon could influence the climate, when in fact the carbon produced by man is dwarfed in orders-of-magnitude by the carbon released from the oceans as they warm 600 - 1000 years after the warming begins! (as documented above), then we can consider his recent tirade in this context of his ignorance:...
Well, let me ask you this.

How do you ban the so called 'climate denier' while also banning the hysterical fanatical warmer?  Or is one okay and the other not?

RE bolded above, of many things I could say here is my choice:  WHAT IS MAN CAPABLE OF 600-1000 years from now?  (and NO, your one liner does not adequately represent the science on this issue of long term climatic effects of ocean warmth, and please do not forget, nothing wrong with averting an ice age...)

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
December 18, 2013, 03:08:39 AM
 #19

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.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 18, 2013, 03:19:05 AM
 #20

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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 216 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!