Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wipeout2097]

So, this thread became a circlejerk ...

[Wilikon]

So, this thread became a circlejerk ...

Hold my hand to keep that circle perfect, thank you....

[Spendulus]

Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.  

I wonder who is funding his court case?

...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html

.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.


IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....

Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit,  could be prosecuted.

[shogdite]

Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread

[Spendulus]

Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread

Mann's legal expenses are likely to be about $500k.

So who IS paying that bill?

Mark Steyn has no Koch brothers or Exxon paying his bills. 




Also it occurs to me that the comparison at the heart of the allegation of fraud:

“the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

But Penn State whitewashed, demonstrably, BOTH the investigation of Jerry Sandusky and of Michael Mann....

[Wilikon]

Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread

It will certainly protect you from climate change for sure. 

[Wilikon]

Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.  

I wonder who is funding his court case?

...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html

.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.


IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....

Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit,  could be prosecuted.

You are describing the process of discovery?

[Spendulus]

Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.  

I wonder who is funding his court case?

...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html

.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.


IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....

Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit,  could be prosecuted.

You are describing the process of discovery?

In this part ...

Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it. 

...yes, that would be part of discovery.  of course the prosecution could try to just ignore the request, and then it would be incumbent for the defense to get a court order.

Parallleling usage of "Denier" and "Sandusky" is my doing.  Michael Mann has used on numerous ocassions the word "Denier"....

[Wilikon]

For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason.

“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”

What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.

“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”

A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.

“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.

http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0

[Spendulus]

For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason.

“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”

What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.

“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”

A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.

“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.

http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0

You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet. 

[Wilikon]

For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason.

“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”

What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.

“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”

A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.

“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.

http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0

You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.  

Yes. The "yet" is very important. It's only February...

[Spendulus]

...

You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.  

Yes. The "yet" is very important. It's only February...

someone needs to ADD IT TO THE LIST!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

[Wilikon]

...

You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.  

Yes. The "yet" is very important. It's only February...

someone needs to ADD IT TO THE LIST!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

There is one link on the same subject already:
'Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'
http://www.sify.com/news/climate-change-leads-to-psychiatric-illness-news-national-jegnGhfjiha.html
The article is from 2008.

[Wilikon]

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:



The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

[Spendulus]

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:



The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

Clearly you are a Denier and should be banned. 

[Wilikon]

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:



The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

Clearly you are a Denier and should be banned. 

I am just a messenger of the pony express...

[Schleicher]

Let's assume that the numbers in the piechart are correct.
Leave aside everyone who makes no statement either way.
Now add the numbers:
Contra consensus:
44 natural factors
34 reject or doubt consensus

Pro consensus:
13 Explicit endorse ...
322 Implicit endorse ...

That's 19% contra and 81% pro consensus

[Wilikon]

On the heels of the Senate’s passage of a long-awaited farm bill, the Obama administration is to announce on Wednesday the creation of seven regional “climate hubs” aimed at helping farmers and rural communities respond to the risks of climate change, including drought, invasive pests, fires and floods.

White House officials describe the move as one of several executive actions that President Obama will take on climate change without action from Congress.

In substance, the creation of the climate hubs is a limited step, but it is part of a broader campaign by the administration to advance climate policy wherever possible with executive authority. The action is also part of a push to build political support for the administration’s more divisive moves on climate change – in particular, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on coal-fired power plants.

Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture and a former Iowa governor, is to announce the creation of the climate hubs at a White House briefing.

“For generations, America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges,” Mr. Vilsack is to say, according to prepared remarks. “Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation’s forests and our farmers’ bottom lines.”

The hubs will be located in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; Las Cruces, N.M.; and Davis, Calif.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/next-phase-of-obamas-executive-push-climate-hubs.html?_r=1

[Spendulus]

Let's assume that the numbers in the piechart are correct.
Leave aside everyone who makes no statement either way.
Now add the numbers:
Contra consensus:
44 natural factors
34 reject or doubt consensus

Pro consensus:
13 Explicit endorse ...
322 Implicit endorse ...

That's 19% contra and 81% pro consensus

If some group is ascribed to "implicitly endorse but focus on impacts (the 322)", why is it useful in any sense to try to torture the language to try to shoehorn them into a category that is described by different language ("pro consensus")  ?

I don't get it.

If you have to do this kind of thing to get to a "pro consensus" status,  that does not say much about the consensus builders....like they scrapping the bottom of barrels....

[RodeoX]

I'm starting to think that the "ban" applied only to two posters in this thread.