Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round.




In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?



[...]
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years. …

The climate-change-consensus community points to such indirect evidence of warming as glaciers melting, coral being bleached, more droughts and stronger storms. Yet observations show that the warming of the deep atmosphere (the fundamental sign of carbon-dioxide-caused climate change, which is supposedly behind these natural phenomena) is not occurring at an alarming rate: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years (see graph).

[...]
“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

[AnonyMint]

Socialism at its best preventing cures for cancer:

http://www.nestmann.com/why-it-took-more-than-30-years-to-confirm-vitamin-c-fights-cancer

How many people die of cancer practicaldreamer?

I took a half hour to review the history of research on the injected-vC-fights-cancer issue, and I am not impressed.  My impression is that no, it does not fight cancer, shrink tumors, etc.

Are you sure a half-hour is sufficient inquiry? I don't have time to go research, yet that source has prided himself on being very resistant to spreading false information.

And I am not sure if I trust your opinion. Because you tried to claim that falsifying a greenhouse effect would falsify AGW. The oceans may release more carbon than man does when they warm. Let me know when you have a model of the earth that can predict all macro effects over eons. Then you need to test it for eons too. As you know curve fitting over part of the curve is cherry picking.

You apparently have more time than I do to dig into the details of these matters. Yet I am wary of trusting without also digging myself, which I don't have time to do.

I'll leave the vitamin C question aside, as it leans heavily toward Pauling having had a set belief pattern and being very persistent with that belief.  Some fraction of such beliefs turn out true, or more precisely, some particular version of the treatment series has merit in certain delineated circumstances.   Did Pauling prove it?  Nope.  Is the recent study conclusive enough to show him vindicated?  Nope.  Is the string of 'yes-men' in the church chorus helping Pauling?  Nope.

That is a more balanced summary of you appraisal of the evidence at this time. Thanks.

As for my comment about falsifying greenhouse effect falsifying AGW, that would falsify AGW as we know it.  As the greenies believe in it.  Ask any of them.  Take away the greenhouse effect, you'd have them bitching about what?  Soot?  Particulate emissions?   Tell ya what, their insistence on controlling your life wouldn't change one bit.  Probably go up, get even more strident.  That's why we're hearing it in the news now - temps go down or are stable, they start to panic a bit.

More precisely, I described, I believe in answer to your question, an experimental strategy that could falsify AGW.

That is a meta-theory of AGW, not a theory of AGW.

What if historically the oceans are releasing more carbon as they warm than estimates of current human releases, then your experiment can't falsify AGW rather maybe it can falsify the portion of GW due to carbon (but I didn't really think carefully about your experiment so I say "maybe").

When I considered this issue a few years ago, the best explanation I saw for the 600 - 1000 lag time of carbon rise trailing temperature rise on the ice core charts, was that the oceans release more carbon as they warm.

So then how to prove that the greenhouse effect is not an effect instead of a cause of GW?

Falsification requires a real world verification of the theory. This is why climate science is just cherry picking models to portions of the system. To falsify the earth's climate by definition would require a test that can change the variables and measure the results over thousands of years. Because the earth is a complex system that adapts to change. When they have a model that can predict all of the climate variables over 1000s of years into the future, then we can talk about the predictive power of a model. Predicting into the past is not prediction.

 Notice something humorous?  Yep.  All these scientists scurrying around trying to find a cause for the recent cooling.  AS LONG AS IT IGNORES SOLAR, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE LOWERING THE EXTENT OF THAT REQUIRED AGW.

Therefore, my experimental paradigm is obviously blasphemous.

So they scurry, and scurry, and come up with every even more un probable stretches of logic and reason.  And passively accept the corruption of science with government money and politics.

ALL HAIL!  THE SCIENCY METHOD!

Agreed they can move the goal posts at-will, because there was never falsifiable science w.r.t. to:

1. Does carbon cause global warming or vice versa
2. Does mankind cause global warming

The individual experiments they do are falsifiable w.r.t. to whether some meta-theoretical model of climate variables fits the meta outcome (often over very small times scales and more importantly in the past and not future predictive power, which is really just cherry picking models). But this is not the holistic (in all possible variables and causes and effects) direct theoretical falsification of the two items above. Such holistic, non-meta falsification is impossible, which is this will always be political bullshit junk science.

If I have missed something, please correct me.

[Spendulus]

Socialism at its best preventing cures for cancer:

http://www.nestmann.com/why-it-took-more-than-30-years-to-confirm-vitamin-c-fights-cancer

How many people die of cancer practicaldreamer?

I took a half hour to review the history of research on the injected-vC-fights-cancer issue, and I am not impressed.  My impression is that no, it does not fight cancer, shrink tumors, etc.

Are you sure a half-hour is sufficient inquiry? I don't have time to go research, yet that source has prided himself on being very resistant to spreading false information.

And I am not sure if I trust your opinion. Because you tried to claim that falsifying a greenhouse effect would falsify AGW. The oceans may release more carbon than man does when they warm. Let me know when you have a model of the earth that can predict all macro effects over eons. Then you need to test it for eons too. As you know curve fitting over part of the curve is cherry picking.

You apparently have more time than I do to dig into the details of these matters. Yet I am wary of trusting without also digging myself, which I don't have time to do.

I'll leave the vitamin C question aside, as it leans heavily toward Pauling having had a set belief pattern and being very persistent with that belief.  Some fraction of such beliefs turn out true, or more precisely, some particular version of the treatment series has merit in certain delineated circumstances.   Did Pauling prove it?  Nope.  Is the recent study conclusive enough to show him vindicated?  Nope.  Is the string of 'yes-men' in the church chorus helping Pauling?  Nope.

That is a more balanced explanation of what you judge the evidence says at this time. Thanks.

As for my comment about falsifying greenhouse effect falsifying AGW, that would falsify AGW as we know it.  As the greenies believe in it.  Ask any of them.  Take away the greenhouse effect, you'd have them bitching about what?  Soot?  Particulate emissions?   Tell ya what, their insistence on controlling your life wouldn't change one bit.  Probably go up, get even more strident.  That's why we're hearing it in the news now - temps go down or are stable, they start to panic a bit.

More precisely, I described, I believe in answer to your question, an experimental strategy that could falsify AGW.

That is a meta-theory of AGW, not a theory of AGW.

What if historically the oceans are releasing more carbon as they warm than estimates of current human releases, then your experiment can't falsify AGW rather maybe it can falsify GW due to carbon (but I didn't really think carefully about your experiment so I say "maybe").

When I considered this issue a few years ago, the best explanation I saw for the 600 - 1000 lag time of carbon rise trailing temperature rise on the ice core charts, was that the oceans release more carbon as they warm.

So then how to prove that the greenhouse effect is not an effect instead of a cause of GW?

Falsification requires a real world verification of the theory. This is why climate science is just cherry picking models to portions of the system. To falsify the earth's climate by definition would require a test that can change the variables and measure the results over thousands of years. Because the earth is a complex system that adapts to change. When they have a model that can predict all of the climate variables over 1000s of years into the future, then we can talk about the predictive power of a model. Predicting into the past is not prediction.

 Notice something humorous?  Yep.  All these scientists scurrying around trying to find a cause for the recent cooling.  AS LONG AS IT IGNORES SOLAR, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE LOWERING THE EXTENT OF THAT REQUIRED AGW.

Therefore, my experimental paradigm is obviously blasphemous.

So they scurry, and scurry, and come up with every even more un probable stretches of logic and reason.  And passively accept the corruption of science with government money and politics.

ALL HAIL!  THE SCIENCY METHOD!

Agreed they can move the goal posts at-will, because there was never falsifiable science w.r.t. to:

1. Does carbon cause global warming or vice versa
2. Does mankind cause global warming

The individual experiments they do are falsifiable w.r.t. to whether some meta-theoretical model of climate variables fits the meta outcome (often over very small times scales and more importantly in the past and not future predictive power, which is really just cherry picking models). But this is not the holistic (in all possible variables and causes and effects) direct theoretical falsification of the two items above. Such holistic, non-meta falsification is impossible, which is this will always be political bullshit junk science.

If I have missed something, please correct me.

Ya, you have that right, in this fashion.  These warmies cannot understand the holistic, because as a global chaotic environment it is fundamentally not understandable.  But there is a different vantage point which merits use in this case.  Look up virial theorem, relating to stellar size and color temperature.  That is how we know A LOT about stars, though they quite literally be only points of light.  Similarly (and the theorem does apply to the earth's atmosphere, incidentally) we can look say a scenario of observing the earth from some distance.  The moon would do, probably.  Then we can measure IR and albedo day and night and rates of change and as these are aggregate measures, thermodynamic balance can be discussed reasonably.

But I'm just three fourths drunk and rambling here, making more sense than hyper religious snot faced warmers, yes, but still, very humble and limited in what I can even guess at.

[Wilikon]

This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”

This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”

CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).

CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.

“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.

What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.

The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.

Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”

“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.

While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.

The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.

The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.

The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/

[globe-biz]

There is no climate change...when I post on this thread facts exposing your climate change theory or exposing the religion of evolution some of you just glaze over and keep spouting propaganda...I dont know why you want to live like an Ostrich but its your problem if you want to believe the lucifereans and their United Nations Propaganda...If you want to be prepared for their pre Armageddon false reality....to bad for you

[Wilikon]

There is no climate change...when I post on this thread facts exposing your climate change theory or exposing the religion of evolution some of you just glaze over and keep spouting propaganda...I dont know why you want to live like an Ostrich but its your problem if you want to believe the lucifereans and their United Nations Propaganda...If you want to be prepared for their pre Armageddon false reality....to bad for you

Climate change does not exist? Of course it does. Do you have a window? Look outside.

Have you ever seen an ostrich's feet? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_ostriches_dinosaurs

How come UFOs, Bigfoot and the Chupacabra never meet with the Lucierians at the UN? Not enough parking space?

[globe-biz]

Yes there is climate change but educated people call it "seasons" not global warming.
Want to use bigfoot and ufos to setup a strawman type attack? Lucifereans control the Us govt because usa and the supposed democracy was formed by freemasons. Freemasons at the 30-33 levels openly worship lucifer and admit it in their own books(Albert Pike for one).

Now you know why America has 50 pentagrams on its flag and a giant pentagram designed into the street layout in washington DC with the tip of the pentagram pointing right on the white house.

And LOL if you get your truth from wiki answers...the geologic column doesnt exist anywhere on the earth and without that the whole idea of millions of years is nothing but a religion backed by the masons and their govts and media

1 john 5:19
"For we are children of GOD and we know that the whole world lies under the control of the evil one(satan)"

To be a fool is a pleasant ride for a fool....

[AnonyMint]

Lucifereans control the Us govt because usa and the supposed democracy was formed by freemasons. Freemasons at the 30-33 levels openly worship lucifer and admit it in their own books(Albert Pike for one).

Now you know why America has 50 pentagrams on its flag and a giant pentagram designed into the street layout in washington DC with the tip of the pentagram pointing right on the white house.

I propose two categories of AGW deniers.

• Those who deny for scientific reasons such as my point about impossible to falsify.
• Those due to hallucination who are unable to discern falsifiable fact from kooky conspiracies.

I further assume that all those in the first category wish to be disassociated with all those in the second.

[Wilikon]

Yes there is climate change but educated people call it "seasons" not global warming.
Want to use bigfoot and ufos to setup a strawman type attack? Lucifereans control the Us govt because usa and the supposed democracy was formed by freemasons. Freemasons at the 30-33 levels openly worship lucifer and admit it in their own books(Albert Pike for one).

Now you know why America has 50 pentagrams on its flag and a giant pentagram designed into the street layout in washington DC with the tip of the pentagram pointing right on the white house.

And LOL if you get your truth from wiki answers...the geologic column doesnt exist anywhere on the earth and without that the whole idea of millions of years is nothing but a religion backed by the masons and their govts and media

1 john 5:19
"For we are children of GOD and we know that the whole world lies under the control of the evil one(satan)"

To be a fool is a pleasant ride for a fool....

No, educated people believe in climate change and seasons. They know it is not the same. The purpose of this thread is how much of an impact humans have on it, a.k.a. http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory
This thread is about a group of people telling another group of people to shut up because "the science is settled". I am just a witness of all of this and trully remarkable scientists right here are saying that the studies are far from over. But everything is framed as "deniers love to eat garbage and swim in freshly breached tanker oiled oceans" or "warmists are making a figure 8 shape with their body, their head up their asses (Yes! many asses)".

Everyone loves our planet(mostly). People want to find a solution for growth while keeping our little blue ball as Exxon-Valdezless and droneless as possible.

The freemasons are pretty cool. I agree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuK4-YuWod0

[Spendulus]

...the geologic column doesnt exist anywhere on the earth and without that the whole idea of millions of years is nothing but a religion

geologic history is right on the surface on the moon, dude, and it says that surface shows a couple billion years of history.  A crater a hundred million years old is considered a "young" crater.

[Spendulus]

.....

This thread is about a group of people telling another group of people to shut up because "the science is settled". I am just a witness of all of this and trully remarkable scientists right here are saying that the studies are far from over. But everything is framed as "deniers love to eat garbage and swim in freshly breached tanker oiled oceans" or "warmists are making a figure 8 shape with their body, their head up their asses (Yes! many asses)".

I think you left out the most important part, which is that the warmies want to tell everyone else how to think, live and act.  Aside from that part I couldn't care less what they believe.

[AnonyMint]

See an acclaimed AGW proponent get shredded in Q&A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOK8JhgwmZ8

[Spendulus]

See an acclaimed AGW proponent get shredded in Q&A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOK8JhgwmZ8

Well, it's the nutcase of the week there.  I wonder how many of these so called "acclaimed experts" would shrink to sniveling wannabe great status if big green money wasn't acclaiming them for it's own financial reasons.

Suzuki isn't that smart, doesn't have brilliant ideas, and does not deserve hardly any one's time or attention.

[Anon136]

See an acclaimed AGW proponent get shredded in Q&A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOK8JhgwmZ8

omg. i have to quote this. so funny. here we go direct quote.

You know we can chary pick all sorts of stuff, chary pick infact the scientists that we want to listen to but lets.. uh.. listen to the ipcc

 

[Wilikon]

.....

This thread is about a group of people telling another group of people to shut up because "the science is settled". I am just a witness of all of this and trully remarkable scientists right here are saying that the studies are far from over. But everything is framed as "deniers love to eat garbage and swim in freshly breached tanker oiled oceans" or "warmists are making a figure 8 shape with their body, their head up their asses (Yes! many asses)".

I think you left out the most important part, which is that the warmies want to tell everyone else how to think, live and act.  Aside from that part I couldn't care less what they believe.

Don't forget I was directly replying to the dude saying satanists are in control of the UN. Not saying he is totally wrong but I had to keep my answer to him simple and to the point.

[ShawnLeary]

[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Remember the ozone layer hole?  Wasn't that caused directly by the human use of CFCs?   The atmosphere is tiny in comparison to the mass of the earth, I don't think people realize that and think since they can see more sky than they can land at any given moment.  The big issue, or where the debate really should be about, is how much of an impact we are having; both in causing acceleration with past habits and or how our changes are affecting that acceleration.  The earth has been warming long before the first factory was built, just look at sea levels over the past 20,000 years (120m rise!). I don't think banning anyone though is the right thing to do, IMHO.  We always need the voice of opposition.

[Lethn]

Please don't use the Daily Mail as a scientific source.

[Spendulus]

Remember the ozone layer hole?  Wasn't that caused directly by the human use of CFCs?   ....  We always need the voice of opposition.

Yes, you do need the voice of opposition, otherwise we WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND OUT THE OZONE HOLE THEORY WAS COMPLETELY WRONG!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/ozone-hole-theory-faces-lab-problems.html

lol....

[Spendulus]

...

Don't forget I was directly replying to the dude saying satanists are in control of the UN. Not saying he is totally wrong but I had to keep my answer to him simple and to the point.

He's wrong?

He asserted that satanists are in control of the UN, which is an "Irrefutable hypothesis".  You cannot prove him wrong, because obviously the satanists are invisible when they do their control ops and nobody can see them.

The reason I mention this is that much of the global warming/climate change nonsense is also based on Irrefutable Hypotheses.

For example, "The big ice storm was caused by Global Warming!".

Science works ONLY WITH Refutable Hypotheses.

[Wilikon]

The rundown for this Sunday's show



[...]
And there are some stories which do not have two sides.  The climate change debate is one of them.  Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.  This week NBC’s Meet the Press faced criticism for its debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.  We’ll talk to Michio Kaku from the City University of New York and CBS News as well as Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor at the Huffington Post.

http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/the-rundown-for-this-sundays-show-3/