Bitcoin Forum
November 07, 2024, 08:11:52 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 52 53 54 55 ... 230 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.  (Read 636454 times)
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 19, 2013, 03:06:56 PM
 #81

It's simple really. Shine a light on a closed fish tank filled with air. Now put a little CO2 in the tank and watch the temp go up. It's 2nd.grade physics. You have to be willfully ignorant to not understand.  

Come on, now.  That's a convenient explanation rendered condescendingly.  But accurate, it is not.

Add some clouds to the fish tank, and watch the temperature not go up, maybe go down, etc.

Add a lot of hot air from religious Warmers, that'd make the fish tank temperature go up.  Put some hungry fish in the tank, temperature would go back down.

Anyway, where are you going to measure the global fish tank temperature?  Basic physics - there is no such thing.  Total heat capacity, yes.  Like a battery.  But that is not temperature, is it?

You been proved wrong.  That was quick.
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
December 19, 2013, 03:44:04 PM
 #82

It's simple really. Shine a light on a closed fish tank filled with air. Now put a little CO2 in the tank and watch the temp go up. It's 2nd.grade physics. You have to be willfully ignorant to not understand.  

Come on, now.  That's a convenient explanation rendered condescendingly.  But accurate, it is not.

Add some clouds to the fish tank, and watch the temperature not go up, maybe go down, etc.

Add a lot of hot air from religious Warmers, that'd make the fish tank temperature go up.  Put some hungry fish in the tank, temperature would go back down.

Anyway, where are you going to measure the global fish tank temperature?  Basic physics - there is no such thing.  Total heat capacity, yes.  Like a battery.  But that is not temperature, is it?

You been proved wrong.  That was quick.
I have done this experiment for many years. And although a simple model, it is a very accurate one. Add C02 to the atmosphere and the temp will rise. What branch of physics says otherwise?

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Free bitcoin in ? - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt!
globe-biz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 162
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 19, 2013, 05:32:01 PM
 #83

You  global warming people dont work on science...someone a few posts back stated millions of years of ice core ring evidence...and there is no such thing.The idea that CO2 is increasing temperatures sounds good but again there is no scientific evidence to support this just theories. Theories similar to the big bang and all the other lies and false theories made to support the evolution religion...in fact its the same elite luciferean/satanic forces that created the evolution lie and perpetuated it across the populations in all countries where their central banks control the govts.
The heat that is supposedly trapped in the atmosphere is radiated out into the cold of space every 12 hours when the earth is hidden from the sun. Heat is not accumulating....that is science
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 19, 2013, 06:06:05 PM
 #84

It's simple really. Shine a light on a closed fish tank filled with air. Now put a little CO2 in the tank and watch the temp go up. It's 2nd.grade physics. You have to be willfully ignorant to not understand.  

Come on, now.  That's a convenient explanation rendered condescendingly.  But accurate, it is not.

Add some clouds to the fish tank, and watch the temperature not go up, maybe go down, etc.

Add a lot of hot air from religious Warmers, that'd make the fish tank temperature go up.  Put some hungry fish in the tank, temperature would go back down.

Anyway, where are you going to measure the global fish tank temperature?  Basic physics - there is no such thing.  Total heat capacity, yes.  Like a battery.  But that is not temperature, is it?

You been proved wrong.  That was quick.
I have done this experiment for many years. And although a simple model, it is a very accurate one. Add C02 to the atmosphere and the temp will rise. What branch of physics says otherwise?
See bolded above.
I am curious, though.  What percentages CO2 were you using?  Were you able to replicate the logrhythmic decrease of the effect of increasing CO2, if so, at what levels?  Seems like there would be quite a few interesting variations to the 'simple experiment'.  Ever modify relative humidity to see effect?

One problem is that if the entire atmosphere did heat up, the gas envelope would expand, with resulting higher surface area for heat loss to space.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
December 19, 2013, 06:22:47 PM
 #85

I think it's obvious global warming is occurring

You would have to be a very ignorant fool to think otherwise, LOL.



There are two things being postulated:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Climate change is caused by humans

People who question B. but accept A. still get brushed as "climate change deniers".

There has been climate change even before humans existed. Yet humans and client change are automatically linked together, the first causes the last. No nuances are possible.

I see the same trick in other areas. People who oppose the European Union are "against Europe". So you're against a whole continent if you oppose the EU.

Most climate activists posit 7 things.

A) Climate change is happening
B) Climate is being effected by humans
C) The effect of humans on the climate is significant
D) Climate change is a problem
E) The problem can be corrected
F) The benefits of taking actions to correct it outweigh the costs of those actions
G) The force of the state should be utilized as part of the solution.

The leap to b is certainly true. The leap to C is probably a 50/50 in my mind. By the time you get down to D there is prob a 75% chance that you have made a mistake (there is more land mass trapped up in arctic deserts than equatorial deserts on planet earth so an increase in temperature would probably cause more presently uninhabitable land to become inhabitable than habitable land to become uninhabitable). Of course E is even less likely. By the time you get all the way to G the chances that you have not made an unwarranted leap are astronomically slim.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015


View Profile
December 19, 2013, 07:00:08 PM
 #86

Quote
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.

Whenever I see things like this written I respond with:

Quote
When 97 percent of bishops agree that the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus.

Consensus doesn't answer the question of falsifiability of the debate. Right now the global warming activist community simply presumes there is a problem with little detail as to what exactly will be affected and how we can record that impact as being directly contributed to by man.

Natural selection posited the theory that species were constantly changing, and that animals might have common ancestors. But it wasn't till Evolution was solidified that we had a way to falsify what had come from Natural Selection.

As Karl Popper has stated, the strength of a scientific theory isn't in what it predicts might happen but in what it can confirm will NOT happen. We have found no evidence of modern day rabbits in pre-Cambrian rock, therefore, our Evolutionary assessments seem to confirm Natural Selection is possible.

Global Warming needs it's Evolution theory. It needs something that can turn it from "this COULD happen" into "this CANNOT happen", and until it does, we have to assume it is presently straddling the line of pseudo-science, because right now nothing differentiates it from other forms of pseudo-science, or, as I mentioned with the quote about bishops believing in the virgin birth above, even a religion.
Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
December 19, 2013, 07:57:06 PM
 #87

I think it's obvious global warming is occurring

You would have to be a very ignorant fool to think otherwise, LOL.



There are two things being postulated:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Climate change is caused by humans

People who question B. but accept A. still get brushed as "climate change deniers".

There has been climate change even before humans existed. Yet humans and client change are automatically linked together, the first causes the last. No nuances are possible.

I see the same trick in other areas. People who oppose the European Union are "against Europe". So you're against a whole continent if you oppose the EU.

Most climate activists posit 7 things.

A) Climate change is happening
B) Climate is being effected by humans
C) The effect of humans on the climate is significant
D) Climate change is a problem
E) The problem can be corrected
F) The benefits of taking actions to correct it outweigh the costs of those actions
G) The force of the state should be utilized as part of the solution.

The leap to b is certainly true. The leap to C is probably a 50/50 in my mind. By the time you get down to D there is prob a 75% chance that you have made a mistake (there is more land mass trapped up in arctic deserts than equatorial deserts on planet earth so an increase in temperature would probably cause more presently uninhabitable land to become inhabitable than habitable land to become uninhabitable). Of course E is even less likely. By the time you get all the way to G the chances that you have not made an unwarranted leap are astronomically slim.

Good thoughts, and you get extra credit for the correct use of "effect" with an e as a verb.

Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
December 19, 2013, 08:00:12 PM
 #88

I have never met a scientist who is not deeply concerned about global warming,

That's a deeply flawed statement.  Not every scientist is qualified to comment on global warming - only scientists who actually specialize in this field.  The beliefs of other scientists carry just as much weight as those of the general public.

In the same way, someone who is an expert in climate science may not be an expert in public policy making.

tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501



View Profile
December 19, 2013, 08:36:45 PM
 #89

I have never met a scientist who is not deeply concerned about global warming,

That's a deeply flawed statement.  Not every scientist is qualified to comment on global warming - only scientists who actually specialize in this field.  The beliefs of other scientists carry just as much weight as those of the general public.

In the same way, someone who is an expert in climate science may not be an expert in public policy making.

The professor who proposed the death penalty for climate change denial is a musicologist. He is a scientist, so what he must say is right, right? All scientists are qualified in all fields of science because they are scientists. The only people who are more qualified than scientists and in fact all-knowing about everything are the politicians. Wink
Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
December 19, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
 #90

I have never met a scientist who is not deeply concerned about global warming,

That's a deeply flawed statement.  Not every scientist is qualified to comment on global warming - only scientists who actually specialize in this field.  The beliefs of other scientists carry just as much weight as those of the general public.

In the same way, someone who is an expert in climate science may not be an expert in public policy making.

The professor who proposed the death penalty for climate change denial is a musicologist.

I think I'm going to go die now.

Quote
He is a scientist, so what he must say is right, right? All scientists are qualified in all fields of science because they are scientists.

I think we should be ruled by these people.

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 19, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
 #91

....

The professor who proposed the death penalty for climate change denial is a musicologist.

I think I'm going to go die now.

Quote
He is a scientist, so what he must say is right, right? All scientists are qualified in all fields of science because they are scientists.
I think we should be ruled by these people.

James Cameron, hailing from the movie industry, said a very similar thing.

And then there's our friend Ted Turner...say's we're all going to be cannibals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

James Lovelock....world needs to kill off people to get down to less than 1b people....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUvZDSY2D0



Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
December 20, 2013, 12:26:24 AM
 #92

I have never met a scientist who is not deeply concerned about global warming,

That's a deeply flawed statement.  Not every scientist is qualified to comment on global warming - only scientists who actually specialize in this field.  The beliefs of other scientists carry just as much weight as those of the general public.

In the same way, someone who is an expert in climate science may not be an expert in public policy making.

and the irony here is that the ones who are qualified have HUGE incentive to be biased. moral of the story, don't appeal to any authority.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
globe-biz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 162
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 01:01:17 AM
 #93

Global warming and evolution both share one thing in common= they arent science they are theories
www.drdino.com
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 01:46:16 AM
 #94


#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

#2) Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#3) Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

#4) George W. Bush’s science advisor Paul Ehrlich….

“Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet.”

#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate”….

“No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation.”

#7) David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#8) Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

#10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

#11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

#15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer….

“So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

#16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs….

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”

#17) Mikhail Gorbachev….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

#18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London….

“The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka….

“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”

#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton….

“This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way.  The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add.”

#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff….

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

#22) The first of the “new 10 commandments” on the Georgia Guidestones….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/yes-they-really-do-want-to-reduce-the-population-22-shocking-population-control-quotes-from-the-global-elite-that-will-make-you-want-to-lose-your-lunch
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 20, 2013, 02:53:42 AM
 #95


#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief….
....
So what you are telling me....

Is that there are a lot of sick people haters jumping on the global warming bandwagon?

Well those people would go truly nuts if the planet didn't cooperate and decided to chill out instead.

Wait....those people are going truly nuts...
globe-biz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 162
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 03:54:42 AM
 #96

What you have already been told actually is that these sick people haters are the ones who imagined this false idea and have pushed it on the people for years the same way they push homosexuality and with the same intent-destruction.

The global warming scam is a luciferean/satanic ploy to cover up the mass murder the United Nations plans to release on the earth once they begin their New World Order- they plan to destroy all nations and create a one world govt (United Nations) and have a one world currency (btc?) and a one world religion where people pray to what they say.Its called the great tribulation in the Bible and it last 7 years then comes the end of the world.All sin oppressed people will laugh as that is your course until you are judged....or you become saved from your sins and what works in you due to your sins

What I say is a fact and if you research it you will find that the Freemasons plan on murdering the majority of the people on the earth (once the holy spirit stops restraining them after the rapture)  to reduce the global population to 500 million---look up the Georgia Guidestones where the elite state in 12 languages they want to murder 90% of the earth - they use their environmental scares as the reason to justify their slaughter.

All who support this global warming lie are blinded by their sins and the sins of their parents before them...without GOD the race will go mad as we near judgement day... Global Warming= the justification for mass murder by the Luciferan United Nations global govt period

Matthew 24:22
"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 20, 2013, 04:16:06 AM
 #97

What you have already been told actually is that these sick people haters are the ones who imagined this false idea and have pushed it on the people for years the same way they push homosexuality and with the same intent-destruction.... Global Warming= the justification for mass murder by the Luciferan United Nations global govt period
Now I'm confused.

What to have in the stash?

Bullets, beans, bullion, bibles, bandaids or bitcoins?
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 04:24:45 AM
 #98

Well, the majority of my professors actually talk against the global warming theory somewhat. They acknowledge that human activity is surely doing something, however historical average temperature charts from wayyyyy before people were influencing anything show a cycle fairly consistent to what is happening now. The chart that Al Gore used in, An Inconvient Truth, was a very small scaled graph that got everyone worked up. Look over the course of 1 billion years, and we are barely off of the bottom.






and the part that people freak out about, is that 1/10th of a centimeter upswing towards the end of the graphs.

Check out all of the neat graphs here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
globe-biz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 162
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 05:12:51 AM
 #99

How are you going to make a chart about what happened a billion years ago or a million years ago? The earth is 6000 years old so to setup your straw man with imaginary ideas...well that may make you feel smart or justified to live without GOD but you arent changing reality. How about a chart a trillion years ago your imagination is active you can do it.


Fact: the oldest reef on the earth is 4400 years old, the Oldest desert is around 4000 years old which is inline with what GODs word says...The earth is 6000 years old and 4400 years ago there was a global flood when GOD judged the cross eyed human race...like what we are nearing again now that the end of the world is coming again as the world prefers the TV to the Bible.

And to the majority of deceived blind souls Noahs Ark has been discovered- Look up Ron Wyatts discovery verified by the Turkish govt. Sure satans media and false churches have created other false sites to confuse the matter but the truth is out there.

Global warming doesnt exist except in the minds of oppressed and deluded human minds
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
December 20, 2013, 05:16:50 AM
 #100

How are you going to make a chart about what happened a billion years ago or a million years ago? The earth is 6000 years old so to setup your straw man with imaginary ideas...well that may make you feel smart or justified to live without GOD but you arent changing reality. How about a chart a trillion years ago your imagination is active you can do it.


Fact: the oldest reef on the earth is 4400 years old, the Oldest desert is around 4000 years old which is inline with what GODs word says...The earth is 6000 years old and 4400 years ago there was a global flood when GOD judged the cross eyed human race...like what we are nearing again now that the end of the world is coming again as the world prefers the TV to the Bible.

And to the majority of deceived blind souls Noahs Ark has been discovered- Look up Ron Wyatts discovery verified by the Turkish govt. Sure satans media and false churches have created other false sites to confuse the matter but the truth is out there.

Global warming doesnt exist except in the minds of oppressed and deluded human minds

If i also heard voices in my head and the voice in my head said that the earth was 7000 years old, why would the voice in your head be more of an authority on thse matters than the voice in my head?

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
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 52 53 54 55 ... 230 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!