Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wipeout2097]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

You don't know what my points really are itt...

One is: why do people even try to come with apparently "high-minded" arguments to mask and hide their basic self-interest, in what often is a zero-sum game?  In my view, neither camp has much credibility, due to the conflict of interest involved. 2ºC hotter or 2ºC colder, means loss for some people and gains for others. So is reducing the dependency of oil. In the U.S., this drama  has to do with keeping the domestic oil industry and the petrodollar. In other regions, like Russia it's gas, oil, more arable land and access to Artic. In Europe, there's North winter/South summer divide, i.e. nobody wants colder winters and paralysis at North, while Southerners can't stand hotter summer and droughts. Global warming for already hot regions like Africa and Middle East is terrible, etc...

But it is not a zero-sum game. Billions are "invested" everyday in the fight for global warming and climate change. Crony capitalism and politicians who love taxing LOVE global warming. So it does matter to them to make sure by imposing a carbon tax they will reduce the temperature by 2ºC in 200 years, if you pay now to help for their reelection, for the funding of his friends' research for the next 20 years, etc, etc.

Of course the flip side is "Yes but you forget Exxon is paying for EVERY single denier's research. The dogma is settled and those poor souls can't seem to find the light, blinded by the factory smokestacks of their evil masters..."

Sorry if i did not know what your point was. I reply to an idea, not really to individuals.

You're probably right regarding attempts to taxing, yes. That doesn't invalidate the problem that humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component.
That opportunists take advantage and ride this bandwagon to push for taxes, is therefore a side point.

 otoh I don't know what Exxon did, but my previous post still stands. It's far from a dogma or conspiracy to admit that oil industry, countries, and those politicians/elites you mention, shill according to their best interest. The ones you oppose arent worse than the ones you defend.

[Wilikon]

So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

You don't know what my points really are itt...

One is: why do people even try to come with apparently "high-minded" arguments to mask and hide their basic self-interest, in what often is a zero-sum game?  In my view, neither camp has much credibility, due to the conflict of interest involved. 2ºC hotter or 2ºC colder, means loss for some people and gains for others. So is reducing the dependency of oil. In the U.S., this drama  has to do with keeping the domestic oil industry and the petrodollar. In other regions, like Russia it's gas, oil, more arable land and access to Artic. In Europe, there's North winter/South summer divide, i.e. nobody wants colder winters and paralysis at North, while Southerners can't stand hotter summer and droughts. Global warming for already hot regions like Africa and Middle East is terrible, etc...

But it is not a zero-sum game. Billions are "invested" everyday in the fight for global warming and climate change. Crony capitalism and politicians who love taxing LOVE global warming. So it does matter to them to make sure by imposing a carbon tax they will reduce the temperature by 2ºC in 200 years, if you pay now to help for their reelection, for the funding of his friends' research for the next 20 years, etc, etc.

Of course the flip side is "Yes but you forget Exxon is paying for EVERY single denier's research. The dogma is settled and those poor souls can't seem to find the light, blinded by the factory smokestacks of their evil masters..."

Sorry if i did not know what your point was. I reply to an idea, not really to individuals.

You're probably right regarding attempts to taxing, yes. That doesn't invalidate the problem that humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component.
That opportunists take advantage and ride this bandwagon to push for taxes, is therefore a side point.

 otoh I don't know what Exxon did, but my previous post still stands. It's far from a dogma or conspiracy to admit that oil industry, countries, and those politicians/elites you mention, shill according to their best interest. The ones you oppose arent worse than the ones you defend.

I am pointing out there maybe a strong possibility to push for shutting down the speech of those who do not agree with the doctrine. Does that mean I love to see all those plastic bags stuck in the tree facing my windows? Not at all.

[Wilikon]

The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.



The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.
At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires -- climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions;
raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent;
and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.
All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

[Spendulus]

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component. .....

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a paradise, where people live far longer and with higher quality of life than ever before in history.  Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that the changing of the planet into a paradise has a very strong human component....

[Spendulus]

....

This thread was about observing the pushing of banning beyond reddit. I am not a scientist but can anyone who is one remember the last time, any time, a theory was so much pushed as pure fact the partisans of that theory needed to shut the speech of those would not agree with?

Lysenko.

[Anon136]

....

This thread was about observing the pushing of banning beyond reddit. I am not a scientist but can anyone who is one remember the last time, any time, a theory was so much pushed as pure fact the partisans of that theory needed to shut the speech of those would not agree with?

Lysenko.

I thought I was the only one who knew that word I've never once heard it said since the first time which is when I learned about it.

[Wilikon]

Lysenkoism


Lysenkoism (Russian: Лыcéнкoвщинa), or Lysenko-Michurinism was the centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was the director of the Soviet Union's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics that Lysenko named "Michurinism".[1] These theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance.
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]

[...]
In 1928, Trofim Lysenko, a previously unknown agronomist, claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature. While cold and moisture exposure are a normal part of the life cycle of fall-seeded winter cereals, the vernalization technique claimed to increase yields by increasing the intensity of exposure, in some cases planting soaked seeds directly into the snow cover of frozen fields. In reality, the technique was neither new (it had been known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised, although some increase in production did occur.

[...]
Isaak Izrailevich Prezent, a main Lysenko theorist, presented Lysenko in Soviet mass-media as a genius who had developed a new, revolutionary agricultural technique. In this period, Soviet propaganda often focused on inspirational stories of peasants who, through their own canny ability and intelligence, came up with solutions to practical problems. Lysenko's widespread popularity provided him a platform to denounce theoretical genetics and to promote his own agricultural practices. He was, in turn, supported by the Soviet propaganda machine, which overstated his successes and omitted mention of his failures. This was accompanied by fake experimental data supporting Lysenkoism from scientists seeking favor and the destruction of counter-evidence to Lysenko's theories. Instead of performing controlled experiments, Lysenko claimed that vernalization increased wheat yields by 15%, solely based upon questionnaires taken of farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

---------------------------------------------
I learn everyday.

[Spendulus]

Lysenkoism.....
I learn everyday.

.....Mannism

You heard it here.

First.

[u9y42]

Yeah, but this isn't Soviet Russia and Lysenko had a lot more scientists disagreeing with him, despite the state propaganda machine.

Out of about 16,000 peer reviewed articles relating to climate change, dating from 1991 to 2013, less than 30 reject human activity as the cause for global climate change. And as far as coverage of this issue goes, at least in American mainstream media like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, they spent a grand total of about 2 hours reporting it last year; that is, 2 hours in a whole year... and the coverage is pretty bad to begin with.

[Wipeout2097]

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component. .....

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a paradise, where people live far longer and with higher quality of life than ever before in history.  Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that the changing of the planet into a paradise has a very strong human component....

Huh? LOL!

[Spendulus]

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component. .....

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a paradise, where people live far longer and with higher quality of life than ever before in history.  Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that the changing of the planet into a paradise has a very strong human component....

Huh? LOL!

Actually, yes.   Objectively.  Measured.

[Spendulus]

Yeah, but this isn't Soviet Russia and Lysenko had a lot more scientists disagreeing with him, despite the state propaganda machine.

Out of about 16,000 peer reviewed articles relating to climate change, dating from 1991 to 2013, less than 30 reject human activity as the cause for global climate change. And as far as coverage of this issue goes, at least in American mainstream media like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, they spent a grand total of about 2 hours reporting it last year; that is, 2 hours in a whole year... and the coverage is pretty bad to begin with.

I have read many, many scientific articles.  Let's say tens of thousands.

As far as the area that you have mentioned, and the conclusion you have asserted, there are giant problems.

Scientific articles, of peer reviewed style, posit a narrowly defined hypothesis and then test and measure results against that.

What you are trying to do is construct a sort of meta-conclusion based on summaries and averages and interpretations of thousands of pieces of work.  But it's a strawman argument you presented, and that is a well understood logical fallacy.

I could as well say "out of 16,000 peer reviewed articles....less than 30 reject the sun as influencing climate".

It would be equally without meaning.

[u9y42]

No, sorry, it would be a fallacy only if the articles were at most tangentially related to climate change, which is not the case, or if anthropogenic climate change wasn't already the consensus view among scientists, which it is.

This was part of a study which looked at about 16,000 peer reviewed articles that explicitly deal with climate change, and found that less than 30 either deny human activity is the cause for climate change or offer other explanations for the observations. Further, those 30 were barely cited by other articles, which leads to the next point: there no longer is a debate among scientists about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening; it is taken for granted and the majority of the remaining articles either explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus opinion.

To further prove this point, a similar study went one step further and asked the authors of the papers themselves to rate the paper's position on anthropogenic climate change. About 65% stated the paper took a position on this issue, with over 97% endorsing the consensus view.

I should probably also point this out:

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

For anyone interested in reading more about the studies I mentioned, look up James Lawrence Powell, and James Cook.
Also, http://www.skepticalscience.com is a pretty decent site, with a lot of information about climate science myths, such as those often used here.

[Wilikon]

http://beta.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e08-two-days-before-the-day-after-tomorrow

A Global Warming State is Emergency is declared in South Park as the world's largest beaver dam breaks and floods the adjacent town of Beaverton.

[Spendulus]

No, sorry, it would be a fallacy only if the articles were at most tangentially related to climate change, which is not the case, or if anthropogenic climate change wasn't already the consensus view among scientists, which it is.

This was part of a study which looked at about 16,000 peer reviewed articles that explicitly deal with climate change, and found that less than 30 either deny human activity is the cause for climate change or offer other explanations for the observations. Further, those 30 were barely cited by other articles, which leads to the next point: there no longer is a debate among scientists about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening; it is taken for granted and the majority of the remaining articles either explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus opinion.

To further prove this point, a similar study went one step further and asked the authors of the papers themselves to rate the paper's position on anthropogenic climate change. About 65% stated the paper took a position on this issue, with over 97% endorsing the consensus view.

I should probably also point this out:

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

....

In reading your post and reviewing my assertion, I think my comment was on very solid ground.  Here it is again:

What you are trying to do is construct a sort of meta-conclusion based on summaries and averages and interpretations of thousands of pieces of work.  But it's a strawman argument you presented, and that is a well understood logical fallacy.

Let's say the article in question concerns distribution pattern of ancient whale bones in the ocean between the N American continent and Greenland.  This has a rather interesting relation to climate change.

However, saying that the arthor did or did not reject climate change being caused by man and trying to draw conclusions from that is ridiculous.  It was an article on whale bone distribution patterns, and that only, and that is all that scientist knows about and is capable of commenting on.  In a scientific sense.

You make two other comments, bolded above, which are also completely inappropriate in the world of scientific inquiry.  Argument ad popularum.

Now I am through with your argument.  Let us take a brief look at Cook's.  A quick google search shows that others have discredited his method and his conclusions.

Shollenberger goes on:

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

Now let's move to something that's not a strawman.  Climate models.  Most of the climate alarmism is rooted in forcasts from these models.

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.

REF

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books

[Wilikon]

We all remember “Snowmageddon” in February of 2010. Even as Washington, D.C., saw 32 inches of snowfall for the month of February—more than it has seen in any February since 1899—conservatives decided to use the weather to mock global warming. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and his family even built an igloo on Capitol Hill and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Har har.

Yet at the same time, scientific voices were pointing out something seemingly counterintuitive, but in fact fairly simple to understand: Even as it raises temperatures on average, global warming may also lead to more intense individual snow events. It’s a lesson to keep in mind as the northeast braces for winter storm Janus—which is expected to deliver as much as a foot of snow in some regions—and we can expect conservatives to once again mock climate change.

To understand the relationship between climate change and intense snowfall, you first need to understand that global warming certainly doesn’t do away with winter or the seasons. So it’ll still be plenty cold enough for snow much of the time. Meanwhile, global warming loads the dice in favor of more intense precipitation through changes in atmospheric moisture content. “Warming things up means the atmosphere can and does hold more moisture,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “So in winter, when there is still plenty of cold air there’s a risk of bigger snows. With east coast storms, where the moisture comes from the ocean which is now warmer, this also applies.”


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERYTHING is global warming.

[u9y42]

In reading your post and reviewing my assertion, I think my comment was on very solid ground [...]
[...]
saying that the arthor did or did not reject climate change being caused by man and trying to draw conclusions from that is ridiculous [...]

I see you didn't understand how these studies were conducted. Such a paper would be considered not to take a position on AGW, unless explicitly or implicitly supporting it; for example, by depending on AGW for what is being proposed. And this isn't gathered by just looking at the titles and abstracts, but also stated directly by the authors of the papers themselves; they know whether or not AGW is required for the paper to be relevant.

You make two other comments, bolded above, which are also completely inappropriate in the world of scientific inquiry.  Argument ad popularum.

You should brush up on your logical fallacies; that isn't argumentum ad populum, it's called scientific consensus.
Here is a quick overview of some of the differences, as seen in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Scientific_Consensus:

Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than dogma (or that which is taught in Sunday school) or popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.)

So the statement still stands:

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Now I am through with your argument.  Let us take a brief look at Cook's.  A quick google search shows that others have discredited his method and his conclusions.

Shollenberger goes on:

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper: Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

[...]

I fail to see how Shollenberger discredited the study, considering he completely ignored the other categories which explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW. So for example, he counted those that explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence; which is sloppy work at best. Further, he also conveniently ignored the second part of the study that had the authors of the papers themselves rate their own papers, based on the same categories, and which lead to the same results: that is, over 97% of the papers endorsed AGW.

Now let's move to something that's not a strawman.  Climate models.  Most of the climate alarmism is rooted in forcasts from these models.

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.

It's hard for me to comment on the study he's referring to as I found almost nothing about it, but feel free to share more details if you have them. That said, the models are constantly being updated to include new processes and rely on less approximations, but that is not to say they can't accurately predict long-term trends; they have been able to do so reasonably well for a long time (see the models proposed by James Hansen). In fact, current models are increasingly able to accurately predict not only long-term trends but also more short-term variations.

More information about current models:
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

[Spendulus]

....
So the statement still stands:

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Now I am through with your argument. ...

When I said I was through with your argument, I meant just that.  Your argument is not that of international scientific organizations, or of John Cook, or others.  Your argument is your interpretation and selection of information from those and other places.

And you've ignored my comment that you have a strawman argument.  Or perhaps you didn't understand what that means.  But let me explain it a bit.  The strawman argument is yours.  It is not the argument of scientists, except in rare occasions.  It is not the argument of scientific papers, either singly or in aggregate. 

You are also cruising along using other logical errors such as mis framing and mis representation to make your point of supposed importance.  That is very common but clouds the actuality and discredits any semblance of scientific discussion.  This is an important distinction, since strawmen, misframing are seen commonly in various forms of political speech but have no place in the world of science.

So what do you think you are doing?  Engaging in a political, or a scientific discussion?

More directly, who are you arguing against? 

Since you seem to want to argue the existence or non existence of "anthropogenic climate change"  I would imagine that you are arguing against someone in this thread that has the opposing view.  If that is so, please indicate who that person is and what he said that proves your assertion.  If that is not so, then please indicate how this argument of yours is even rational. 

This is why I have repeatedly noted that you have a strawman argument.

[Spendulus]

.... “Warming things up means the atmosphere can and does hold more moisture,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “So in winter, when there is still plenty of cold air there’s a risk of bigger snows. With east coast storms, where the moisture comes from the ocean which is now warmer, this also applies.”


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERYTHING is global warming.

Trenberth IIRC is the guy that is on record as advocating fabricating "scary stories" to influence public opinion on climate change.  He's also had some comments in private to other climate scientists about issues of models not forecasting right and the planet just not following the directions of the alarmists.

Oh wait....those comments were in Climategate emails that we all know about now...

[Spendulus]

...

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.


It's hard for me to comment on the study he's referring to as I found almost nothing about it, but feel free to share more details if you have them. That said, the models are constantly being updated .....

Why should you feel obliged to "comment"?

Just note what he's talking about.  It's quite accurate.  

Or are you saying that John Cook didn't provide a scripted answer for this one?