Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[retrend]

There is more than one government for a start, which brings your point into question. 

For me, essentially this argument is about big corporations not wanting to pay for externalities.  Sadly "big government" is so in the pockets of industry that they are managing to maintain this state of affairs despite a scientific consensus that calls for action.  Private capital takes all the profit, society takes all the risk.  Standard practice in this lovely form of socialism we have.  I don't know why you libertarians are so scared of large institutions abusing their power if they are governments but are perfectly happy for corporations to run roughshod over anything and everything in pursuit of private profits.

Even if global warming does prove to be some sort of big hoax, the efficient use of resources should be a priority.

[Schleicher]

This thread is an excellent example of why you lot got banned from reddit 

Why? Too much free speech kills free speech?

It's not free speech. It's called "denial of service attack"

[Wilikon]

There is more than one government for a start, which brings your point into question. 

For me, essentially this argument is about big corporations not wanting to pay for externalities.  Sadly "big government" is so in the pockets of industry that they are managing to maintain this state of affairs despite a scientific consensus that calls for action.  Private capital takes all the profit, society takes all the risk.  Standard practice in this lovely form of socialism we have.  I don't know why you libertarians are so scared of large institutions abusing their power if they are governments but are perfectly happy for corporations to run roughshod over anything and everything in pursuit of private profits.

Even if global warming does prove to be some sort of big hoax, the efficient use of resources should be a priority.

"despite a scientific consensus that calls for action"

This is not the case. A consensus was called to shut, kill the speech of those not following the dogma of REDDIT.

Your blind faith in a centralized power, a victim of big corporations according to your devout commitment is proof there is still room for scientists to have different opinions based on what they measure, not on political devotion.

[retrend]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

[Wilikon]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

I was never banned personally, but I understand your point.

You can come back anytime, 150 years from now, or the next global cooling cycle, whatever come first 

[Spendulus]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

I've tried to post from a number of angles why it is not even possible to define 'denier' and hence why banning them is ridiculous.  It means someone is banning essentially anyone that does not agree with his particular view however he chooses to define it at that moment.  And that's literally ridiculous - the discussion could be cap and trade, Katrina, Antarctica peninsula melt, bird migration, sea level rise, whatever.  Disagree with someone and he shouts "Denier!  You banned!"

Leave the discussion if you like, but you should be able to understand my point.  As for the ideologues, if you believe in a consensus then the number of ideologues on the warmie side vastly outnumbers the count on the non-warmie side.  Hence, those doing the banning are all ideologues.

Now a question.

Are ideologues okay if they are warmies, but not okay if they are deniers, which is not even definable?

Separate and non equal treatment by Reddit, right? 

Get it?

[Anon136]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

I've tried to post from a number of angles why it is not even possible to define 'denier' and hence why banning them is ridiculous.  It means someone is banning essentially anyone that does not agree with his particular view however he chooses to define it at that moment.  And that's literally ridiculous - the discussion could be cap and trade, Katrina, Antarctica peninsula melt, bird migration, sea level rise, whatever.  Disagree with someone and he shouts "Denier!  You banned!"

Leave the discussion if you like, but you should be able to understand my point.  As for the ideologues, if you believe in a consensus then the number of ideologues on the warmie side vastly outnumbers the count on the non-warmie side.  Hence, those doing the banning are all ideologues.

Now a question.

Are ideologues okay if they are warmies, but not okay if they are deniers, which is not even definable?

Separate and non equal treatment by Reddit, right? 

Get it?

I dont think it would be that hard to draw a box around a denier. Its probably something like a person who believes that expending resources to mitigate, prevent, or reverse the effects of anthropomorphic climate change would either not have the intended effect or perhaps would not have benefits that outweigh the costs.

[U1TRA_L0RD]

Is politics the same as religion, IMO, they both cause war and get in the way of morals.

[Spendulus]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

I've tried to post from a number of angles why it is not even possible to define 'denier' and hence why banning them is ridiculous.  It means someone is banning essentially anyone that does not agree with his particular view however he chooses to define it at that moment.  And that's literally ridiculous - the discussion could be cap and trade, Katrina, Antarctica peninsula melt, bird migration, sea level rise, whatever.  Disagree with someone and he shouts "Denier!  You banned!"

Leave the discussion if you like, but you should be able to understand my point.  As for the ideologues, if you believe in a consensus then the number of ideologues on the warmie side vastly outnumbers the count on the non-warmie side.  Hence, those doing the banning are all ideologues.

Now a question.

Are ideologues okay if they are warmies, but not okay if they are deniers, which is not even definable?

Separate and non equal treatment by Reddit, right?  

Get it?

I dont think it would be that hard to draw a box around a denier. Its probably something like a person who believes that expending resources to mitigate, prevent, or reverse the effects of anthropomorphic climate change would either not have the intended effect or perhaps would not have benefits that outweigh the costs.

I am surprised at that.  That would be people who objected to the 'political solutions' basically.  Wouldn't deniers be people that said stuff like global warming wasn't happening, or maybe it was not caused by man?

I think someone could make a pretty good argument that living with climate change was smarter and cheaper and more efficient than trying to reverse a supposed atmospheric effect of co2 emissions by something like cap and trade plans.  Seems obvious that a 'political solution' to anything would be full of graft, corruption and inefficiency.

[Spendulus]

There is more than one government for a start, which brings your point into question. 

For me, essentially this argument is about big corporations not wanting to pay for externalities.  Sadly "big government" is so in the pockets of industry that they are managing to maintain this state of affairs despite a scientific consensus that calls for action.  Private capital takes all the profit, society takes all the risk.  Standard practice in this lovely form of socialism we have.  I don't know why you libertarians are so scared of large institutions abusing their power if they are governments but are perfectly happy for corporations to run roughshod over anything and everything in pursuit of private profits.

Even if global warming does prove to be some sort of big hoax, the efficient use of resources should be a priority.

I'm having trouble reconciling your comments of state vs/or in bed with industry --> externality problems with the reality of state=industry, eg communism and socialism.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/

[Wilikon]

There is more than one government for a start, which brings your point into question. 

For me, essentially this argument is about big corporations not wanting to pay for externalities.  Sadly "big government" is so in the pockets of industry that they are managing to maintain this state of affairs despite a scientific consensus that calls for action.  Private capital takes all the profit, society takes all the risk.  Standard practice in this lovely form of socialism we have.  I don't know why you libertarians are so scared of large institutions abusing their power if they are governments but are perfectly happy for corporations to run roughshod over anything and everything in pursuit of private profits.

Even if global warming does prove to be some sort of big hoax, the efficient use of resources should be a priority.

I'm having trouble reconciling your comments of state vs/or in bed with industry --> externality problems with the reality of state=industry, eg communism and socialism.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/

Bookmarked.

[Wilikon]

Sens. Sanders and Schatz are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter asserting that the shows are ignoring global warming.

Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.

It's unclear how many senators will ultimately sign the letter.

Sanders said lawmakers plan to send the letter within days. The amount of Sunday TV coverage is way out of whack with the topic's weight, he added.

"What [the networks] are saying is, climate change is a non-important issue, it is an irrelevant issue, and yet the scientific community tells us that it is the greatest crisis facing this planet," he said.

Democratic members of the new task force say they'll embark on a wide array of activities to raise the visibility of climate change.

Members' goals include battling GOP efforts to block federal carbon emissions standards for power plants, and, longer term, creating political space for major climate legislation that's currently going nowhere in Congress.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: when "real science" is in need, pump the political propaganda machine!

[Wilikon]

Senate Democrats launched a new effort Tuesday to reclaim the political initiative in the climate change debate and create a sense of urgency about mitigating the causes of the planet’s warming atmosphere.

The ultimate goal of Democrats on the Senate Climate Action Task Force is to shift the politics of climate change back in favor of legislating a price on greenhouse gas pollution — for the first time since legislation to cap carbon emissions collapsed in the Senate in late 2010.

Republicans, including a sizable group that rejects the scientific consensus that human activities are warming the planet, captured control of the House in midterm elections that year. Ever since, Democrats have been looking for a strategy to put climate change back on the congressional agenda.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, co-chairman of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, said the campaign will be coordinated with businesses, universities and other nongovernmental groups to counter fossil fuel industry opposition to taxing or capping carbon emissions.

“We’re very realistic politicians,” Boxer said Tuesday. “We understand that the makeup of Congress now is making it very difficult for us to pass climate change legislation, but we will not sit back and give up. … We will raise the visibility of this issue with the intent of changing minds around here.” [...]

“When you have a young demographic that sees this issue that way, clearly the denial strategy is doomed,” Whitehouse said. “And our job is to accelerate its collapse.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_democrats_aim_to_shift_politics_of_climate_change-230153-1.html?pg=1

[Spendulus]

....
"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said......

Follow that rule, there won't be anything discussed except Miles Cyrus....

Oh, wait... I see it now "What the establishment considers to be important"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsf_0otllc0

[Anon136]

Shows how little you understand about science if you think believing in a scientific consensus is "blind faith in a centralized power."

I won't be posting in this thread any more, I've expressed my point. It's futile to argue with ideologues, which is why you were banned from the discussion on reddit.  

I've tried to post from a number of angles why it is not even possible to define 'denier' and hence why banning them is ridiculous.  It means someone is banning essentially anyone that does not agree with his particular view however he chooses to define it at that moment.  And that's literally ridiculous - the discussion could be cap and trade, Katrina, Antarctica peninsula melt, bird migration, sea level rise, whatever.  Disagree with someone and he shouts "Denier!  You banned!"

Leave the discussion if you like, but you should be able to understand my point.  As for the ideologues, if you believe in a consensus then the number of ideologues on the warmie side vastly outnumbers the count on the non-warmie side.  Hence, those doing the banning are all ideologues.

Now a question.

Are ideologues okay if they are warmies, but not okay if they are deniers, which is not even definable?

Separate and non equal treatment by Reddit, right?  

Get it?

I dont think it would be that hard to draw a box around a denier. Its probably something like a person who believes that expending resources to mitigate, prevent, or reverse the effects of anthropomorphic climate change would either not have the intended effect or perhaps would not have benefits that outweigh the costs.

Wouldn't deniers be people that said stuff like global warming wasn't happening, or maybe it was not caused by man?

Ideally but I would think that people who believe that co2 emissions are having 0 impact what so ever on the climate are an extremely tiny group of people. I highly doubt that reddit would feel the need to enact a ban against like a half a dozen guys on the whole of planet earth. Since there is little to no friction there between the global warming alarmists and the global warming skeptics i think, inorder for the word to be useful, it has to apply more to peoples perception of the severity of the problem, and their beliefs about what sorts of countermeasures are warranted. How do we qualify peoples beliefs about the importance of something? how much money they are willing to spend on it of course. so thats just the basic thought process i used to arrive at my previous conclusion

[Spendulus]

Ideally but I would think that people who believe that co2 emissions are having 0 impact what so ever on the climate are an extremely tiny group of people. I highly doubt that reddit would feel the need to enact a ban against like a half a dozen guys on the whole of planet earth. Since there is little to no friction there between the global warming alarmists and the global warming skeptics i think, inorder for the word to be useful, it has to apply more to peoples perception of the severity of the problem, and their beliefs about what sorts of countermeasures are warranted. How do we qualify peoples beliefs about the importance of something? how much money they are willing to spend on it of course. so thats just the basic thought process i used to arrive at my previous conclusion

unfortunately that seems to give 'global warming alarmists'  the ability to censor anyone they might choose, for any reason, as being a 'denier'.

where i've seen the most anger and bitterness in discussion is when I called someone on obviously false or highly exaggerated claims they made such as...

• sea levels could rise ten to twenty feet in two or three decades
• katrina was caused by Bush's ignoring global warming
• Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow all melted due to global warming
• billions will die!
• save-the-planet legislation XYQ will cost a trillion dollars and only reduce carbon levels by 0.00001% in 20 years, hence it's totally worthless

So the result of saying someone is wrong, mistaken or outright lying is certain to get you called a denier.
[/list]

[Wilikon]

Christiana Figueres says $1 trillion a year is required for the transformation needed to stay within 2C of warming.


The United Nations climate chief has urged global financial institutions to triple their investments in clean energy to reach the $1 trillion a year mark that would help avert a climate catastrophe.

In an interview with the Guardian, the UN’s Christiana Figueres urged institutions to begin building the foundations of a clean energy economy by scaling up their investments.

Global investment in clean technologies is running at about $300bn a year – but that is nowhere where it needs to be, Figueres said.

“From where we are to where we need to be, we need to triple, and we need to do that – over the next five to 10 years would be best – but certainly by 2030,” she said.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/un-climate-chief-tripling-clean-energy-investment-christiana-figueres

[Spendulus]

Christiana Figueres says $1 trillion a year is required for the transformation needed to stay within 2C of warming......

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/un-climate-chief-tripling-clean-energy-investment-christiana-figueres

...and should we just believe her?

I like the way she waves her hands around.  Like a bad witch from Harry Potter.

[Anon136]

So the result of saying someone is wrong, mistaken or outright lying is certain to get you called a denier.

hence my argument for why denier (atleast how its used colloquially) certainly must mean more than strict adherence to the dogma that would be "man kind is having no impact on the climate what so ever". I doubt you would be called a denier if you stated that countermeasures should be taken just ones that are not quite so costly as what your opponent proposes. And i certainly do think that you would be called a denier for stating that man is effecting the climate, but that its not so severe, or the costs of countermeasures would be so great, that nothing ought to be done about it. So yea i stick by my original assessment. Believing that no action ought to be taken in response to mans effect on the climate is probably right about where that line, which upon crossing, would cause you to be labeled a denier.

[Spendulus]

So the result of saying someone is wrong, mistaken or outright lying is certain to get you called a denier.

hence my argument for why denier (atleast how its used colloquially) certainly must mean more than strict adherence to the dogma that would be "man kind is having no impact on the climate what so ever". I doubt you would be called a denier if you stated that countermeasures should be taken just ones that are not quite so costly as what your opponent proposes. And i certainly do think that you would be called a denier for stating that man is effecting the climate, but that its not so severe, or the costs of countermeasures would be so great, that nothing ought to be done about it. So yea i stick by my original assessment. Believing that no action ought to be taken in response to mans effect on the climate is probably right about where that line, which upon crossing, would cause you to be labeled a denier.

I would like to agree with you, but I talk from personal experience.

What gets you labeled as a denier, no matter how good your math or researched your position, is when you DISAGREE with the alarmist pushing a political controller type solution.  In fact, if you look at the prominent "Deniers" you will see that actually they all have quite reasonable positions such as in italics above of yours.