Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

Chipotle stirred up the media and guacamole lovers with news that it could "suspend" guacamole from its menu due to global warming.
But a restaurant spokesman tells the Los Angeles Times: "This is way overblown."
The annual report from the restaurant chain warned:
"Increasing weather volatility or other long-term changes in global weather patterns, including any changes associated with global climate change, could have a significant impact on the price or availability of some of our ingredients. ...
"In the event of cost increases with respect to one or more of our raw ingredients, we may choose to temporarily suspend serving menu items, such as guacamole or one or more of our salsas, rather than paying the increased cost for the ingredients."

Chipotle's Chris Arnold told the L.A. Times on Wednesday morning that the disclosure was routine: "As a public company ... we are required to disclose any potential issues that could have potential impact on our business, and we do that very thoroughly."
So far, Chipotle is handling weather-related problems with ingredients just fine.
 As NPR points out, avocados seem to be in plentiful supply despite vagaries of climate change that resulted in "lemon-sized" Hass avocados.
"The sky is not falling," Arnold said. "We have guac in all of our restaurants."


http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-chipotle-guacamole-20140305,0,1040665.story#ixzz2v756nzr5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

[AnonyMint]

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Causes and implications of the pause

Dan's comments are always satirical:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394

I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first.

[Spendulus]

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Causes and implications of the pause

Dan's comments are always satirical:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394

I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first.

I guess the reason I am interested and post on this subject is that it is not a "complex" subject, but one in which chaotic behavior predominates, and in which people try to apply all their little rationalizations and prejudices to.

This from the article you posted from....

Here is my next prediction – and remember, I have been consistently right about these. The next phase of the comedy will feature increasingly frantic attempts to bolt epicycles onto the models. These epicycles will have names like “ENSO”, “standing wave” and “Atlantic Oscillation”.

....and my comment is that in the last several years, there have been numerous "climate skeptics" warn that these factors were being misunderestimated.

But they had to keep shutting the skeptics down.  Now warmers want to hijack the same arguments?

What say you to that, Reddit moderators?

[Wilikon]

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC's lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientists in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days -- CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as "out of the scientific mainstream" or backed by "oil and coal companies."

The networks were able to promote the myth that there is a scientific consensus for man-made, catastrophic climate change by including climate alarmists much more often than skeptical scientists and by challenging the credentials of the skeptics that they did include.

There are thousands of skeptical scientists, so it's not like the networks couldn't find any. Marc Morano, who runs the website Climate Depot, has published a special report listing more than 1,000 dissenting scientists worldwide who dispute man-made global warming claims made by the likes of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

CBS was the worst, ignoring skeptical scientists for 1,391 days, ever since the May 15, 2010, "Evening News." That night, CBS interviewed former NASA climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer during an extensive profile of alarmist meteorologist, and non-Ph.D., Dan Satterfield.

It was just 22 days ago, on Feb. 12, 2014, that CBS included an alarmist physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku on "This Morning." Kaku is a contributor to "This Morning" and that day he warned of the "heating up of the North Pole" which "could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions."

ABC last included a skeptical scientist 1,383 days ago. During the May 23, 2010, segment of "World News," ABC played a brief, 23-second clip of Princeton-educated Dr. Fred Singer expressing his skepticism over man-made climate change, along with clips of two alarmist scientists. Singer's was the only opposing view in that report and his views were actually taken from a much earlier interview aired on ABC March 23, 2008.

Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton professor, appeared on ABC "World News" Sept. 27, 2013, arguing that climate change is "bearing down on us," only 160 days ago.

NBC did a far better job than the other broadcast networks, but the last time they included a skeptical scientist was still a whopping 298 days ago. NBC's May 13, 2013, "Today" included Dr. Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute. Lehr criticized the supposed link between carbon dioxide and global temperatures.

An alarmist scientist appeared on NBC much more recently, however, only 115 days ago.  On Nov. 11, 2013, "Today" Dr. Raghu Murtugudde predicted the increase of high-intensity hurricanes during a segment on how global warming would make hurricanes more powerful.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cold-shoulder-abc-cbs-exclude-scientists-critical-global-warming-more-1300-days

[FiatKiller]

I did not read the 26 pages so far, but a few points:

IF Global Warming is happening, it has been shown that it actually can be a prelude to another Mini-IceAge
and this Winter certainly seems to point at that. This is what I think is happening.

Also, haven't you seen the pics and videos of where some of the temp sensors are placed in cities? They should
not even be in a city to begin with, and often they are on the roof right next to an air conditioner heat exchanger!

I DO think it's all mostly the money/carbon tax as this is what drives everything. If we hurt our manufacturers,
we hurt our/your country because it causes you to lean on outside countries more and hurts your military
capacity.

[Wilikon]

I did not read the 26 pages so far, but a few points:

IF Global Warming is happening, it has been shown that it actually can be a prelude to another Mini-IceAge
and this Winter certainly seems to point at that. This is what I think is happening.

Also, haven't you seen the pics and videos of where some of the temp sensors are placed in cities? They should
not even be in a city to begin with, and often they are on the roof right next to an air conditioner heat exchanger!

I DO think it's all mostly the money/carbon tax as this is what drives everything. If we hurt our manufacturers,
we hurt our/your country because it causes you to lean on outside countries more and hurts your military
capacity.

Well that was a nice TL;DR, summing up parts of the ideas discussed among the 25+ pages.

[Spendulus]

I did not read the 26 pages so far, but a few points:

IF Global Warming is happening, it has been shown that it actually can be a prelude to another Mini-IceAge
and this Winter certainly seems to point at that. This is what I think is happening.
....

I read that argument a while back, it wasn't terribly impressive.  Looked like just something to rouse the alarmists and create hysteria.

Reality is that if we were concerned about another ice age coming, we'd ramp up the coal power plants and CO2 emissions and do every thing possible to stop that Ice Age in it's tracks.

Thus the Warmies arguments by nature must remain oriented toward the planet warming, or they lose their lynchpin and need to tax us all for not producing CO2.

I guess they could just generalize and tax us for CO2 regardless of whether our production was positive, negative or zero. 

[joulesbeef]

The problem isnt the denial.

the problem is they post shit from political blogs and then have a hissy fit when deleted and told to only post from peer reviewed journals or science articles that LINK to peer reviewed studies.

You cant just post a link to a some stupid blog saying scientists are too stupid to have known there were ice ages and periods of warmer times than now.

as well as posts like "OMG ICE HAS RECOVERED 63% SINCE LAST YEAR.. GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, NOW WE GOT TO WORRY ABOUT AN ICE AGE"

ignoring the  "recovery" was after an extreme record low, several degrees of significance below prediction and that this "recovery", only got us back  to PREDICTED DECLINING LEVELS.

It isnt that they deny.
IT IS HOW THEY DENY.
and how they flip the fuck out, when you point this out to them. They will give you death threats and all sorts of madness.(seriously climate scientists and reports that dare even say that most scientists agree.. GET DEATH THREATS)

r/science is perfectly fine with studies made by lindzen that were published in real journals.

they are also perfectly fine with the very real science (that often gets posted to /r/climateskeptics) that finds certain aspects of global warming to be less than predicted.(though most has been worse)

not a damn thing wrong with that.

THEY WOULD DO THE SAME THING IF I POSTED HELLO KITTY BLOGS.
it isnt science.
it isnt about deniers.
its about not posting science.

I have actually had scientific articles deleted because they didnt link back to the science.

and I have zero problem with that.

[Spendulus]

The problem isnt the denial.

the problem is they post shit from political blogs and then have a hissy fit when deleted and told to only post from peer reviewed journals or science articles that LINK to peer reviewed studies.

You cant just post a link to a some stupid blog saying scientists are too stupid to have known there were ice ages and periods of warmer times than now.

as well as posts like "OMG ICE HAS RECOVERED 63% SINCE LAST YEAR.. GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, NOW WE GOT TO WORRY ABOUT AN ICE AGE"

ignoring the  "recovery" was after an extreme record low, several degrees of significance below prediction and that this "recovery", only got us back  to PREDICTED DECLINING LEVELS.

It isnt that they deny.
IT IS HOW THEY DENY.
and how they flip the fuck out, when you point this out to them. They will give you death threats and all sorts of madness.(seriously climate scientists and reports that dare even say that most scientists agree.. GET DEATH THREATS)

r/science is perfectly fine with studies made by lindzen that were published in real journals.

they are also perfectly fine with the very real science (that often gets posted to /r/climateskeptics) that finds certain aspects of global warming to be less than predicted.(though most has been worse)

not a damn thing wrong with that.

THEY WOULD DO THE SAME THING IF I POSTED HELLO KITTY BLOGS.
it isnt science.
it isnt about deniers.
its about not posting science.

I have actually had scientific articles deleted because they didnt link back to the science.

and I have zero problem with that.

I assume you are talking about the general topic of reddit banning deniers.

But why do make the claim that "it's about not posting science?"

That is your explanation.  But "banning deniers" is, well, "banning deniers".  It is not "banning those who derail topics" or "banning those who don't post linkys".

And by the way, banning people is different from deleting posts.

[AnonyMint]

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Causes and implications of the pause

Dan's comments are always satirical:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394

I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first.

I guess the reason I am interested and post on this subject is that it is not a "complex" subject, but one in which chaotic behavior predominates, and in which people try to apply all their little rationalizations and prejudices to.

Yeah is akin to playing Whac-A-Mole when you are drunk and reaction speed has slowed.  

Well that was a nice TL;DR, summing up parts of the ideas discussed among the 25+ pages.

But he missed all the satire which laid (pun intended) out those ideas.  

[Spendulus]

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Causes and implications of the pause

Dan's comments are always satirical:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394

I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first.

I guess the reason I am interested and post on this subject is that it is not a "complex" subject, but one in which chaotic behavior predominates, and in which people try to apply all their little rationalizations and prejudices to.

Yeah is akin to playing Whac-A-Mole when you are drunk and reaction speed has slowed.  

Well that was a nice TL;DR, summing up parts of the ideas discussed among the 25+ pages.

But he missed all the satire which laid (pun intended) out those ideas.  

Here is an assertion I am curious of opinions about.

The most serious threats to mankind for the next millennium are the possibility of global cooling, and the possibility of a meteor stike.

[Wilikon]

We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4

Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Causes and implications of the pause

Dan's comments are always satirical:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394

I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first.

I guess the reason I am interested and post on this subject is that it is not a "complex" subject, but one in which chaotic behavior predominates, and in which people try to apply all their little rationalizations and prejudices to.

Yeah is akin to playing Whac-A-Mole when you are drunk and reaction speed has slowed.  

Well that was a nice TL;DR, summing up parts of the ideas discussed among the 25+ pages.

But he missed all the satire which laid (pun intended) out those ideas.  

Here is an assertion I am curious of opinions about.

The most serious threats to mankind for the next millennium are the possibility of global cooling, and the possibility of a meteor stike.

OK. Now you did it. You are going way too far from the mainstream. I will ask you to join reddit, first,  so you can be properly banned after.

[Spendulus]

....
OK. Now you did it. You are going way too far from the mainstream. I will ask you to join reddit, first,  so you can be properly banned after.

Of course, you know that would happen.

But if you look at my words, the statement did not "deny global warming."

It is just an assertion regarding the "most serious threats."

I mean, it wasn't my intention to list all the threats.  For example, I don't consider Obama as serious a threat as an asteroid strike.

[tkbx]

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

Sure, they're allowed to tell people what to say and not to say on their own site, but it seems pointless to have discussions on discussion-oriented sites like reddit if you tell people what to converse about.

[Wilikon]

....
OK. Now you did it. You are going way too far from the mainstream. I will ask you to join reddit, first,  so you can be properly banned after.

Of course, you know that would happen.

But if you look at my words, the statement did not "deny global warming."

It is just an assertion regarding the "most serious threats."

I mean, it wasn't my intention to list all the threats.  For example, I don't consider Obama as serious a threat as an asteroid strike.

Maybe you should 

1 - Google CEOs are big Obama fans and donors.
2 - Google said they are planning to mine asteroids.
3 - Obama Seeks $17.7 Billion for NASA to Lasso Asteroids
4 - Obama has the reversed Midas Touch.

5 - Asteroid strike.

[Spendulus]

....
OK. Now you did it. You are going way too far from the mainstream. I will ask you to join reddit, first,  so you can be properly banned after.

Of course, you know that would happen.

But if you look at my words, the statement did not "deny global warming."

It is just an assertion regarding the "most serious threats."

I mean, it wasn't my intention to list all the threats.  For example, I don't consider Obama as serious a threat as an asteroid strike.

Maybe you should 

1 - Google CEOs are big Obama fans and donors.
2 - Google said they are planning to mine asteroids.
3 - Obama Seeks $17.7 Billion for NASA to Lasso Asteroids
4 - Obama has the reversed Midas Touch.

5 - Asteroid strike.

ewwww.......

I'd druther be forced to have sex with Michelle than think that one out...

[Spendulus]

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

Sure, they're allowed to tell people what to say and not to say on their own site, but it seems pointless to have discussions on discussion-oriented sites like reddit if you tell people what to converse about.

Well not only that but everyone'd miss out on prime stuff like AnnoyMInt's


Hahaha

Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her...

[AnonyMint]

all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Obama should be proud of me that I integrated black slanglish into my vernacular. Political correctness is morphing from a harmony strategy to survival as it always does at times where Godwin's law applies.

We probably have (or could develop) the technology to deal with an Ice Age so I think the greater threat is collective man.

Preventing asteroid strikes require a collective effort because there is no individual profit motive, thus I doubt we can deal with them effectively. Fortunately they are long-tail events. We probably can mitigate this threat by populating other planets and space. Paradigm shifting the problem space is one of my favorite creative strategies for solving problems.

[Spendulus]

all d'juice done oozed outta her...

Obama should be proud of me that I integrated black slanglish into my vernacular. Political correctness is morphing from a harmony strategy to survival as it always does at times where Godwin's law applies.

We probably have (or could develop) the technology to deal with an Ice Age so I think the greater threat is collective man.

Preventing asteroid strikes require a collective effort because there is no individual profit motive, thus I doubt we can deal with them effectively. Fortunately they are long-tail events. We probably can mitigate this threat by populating other planets and space. Paradigm shifting the problem space is one of my favorite creative strategies for solving problems.

Both are certain events, given time.

Global warming is a maybe.

No doubt, though that the mix of instinctual patterns in man, which includes both collectivism and individuality, conspiratorial looniness and manic prancing, is one oriented toward species survival, the question being whether it is adequate for these longer range risks.

We probably can mitigate this threat by populating other planets and space. Paradigm shifting the problem space is one of my favorite creative strategies for solving problems.

So far, the evidence is we do not know how, but over some hundred or two of years, that could be.

[Wilikon]

CALIFORNIA is now in the midst of the third year of one of its worst droughts on record. As our planet gradually warms from our rampant burning of fossil fuels, it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change has played in California’s troubles.

The answer is this: At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.

The drought has many attributes of historical droughts over that region — in particular, a lack of storms and rainfall that would normally arrive from the Pacific Ocean with considerable frequency. It resembles the droughts that afflicted the state in 1976 and 1977. Those years were at least as dry as the last two years have been for the state as a whole.

In short, the drought gripping California has been observed before. And it has occurred principally because of a lack of rain, not principally because of warmer temperatures. Indeed, it should be quite familiar to anyone who lived in California in the mid-1970s, as I did. We can also say with high confidence that no appreciable trend toward either wetter or drier conditions has been observed for statewide average precipitation since 1895. This drought is not part of a long-term drift toward reduced precipitation over the state.

What’s different this time, however, is that the demand for water has greatly increased in the state, and it may very well be that the current stress created by the failed rains is more severe than for similar rainfall deficits 40 years ago. It is at least intuitive that growth patterns, population increases and the rising value of the state’s agricultural sector have increased California’s vulnerability to drought and reduced its resiliency — that is, the state’s ability to adapt and cope with less precipitation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/global-warming-not-always.html?ref=opinion&_r=1