Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[AnonyMint]

Spendulus, I think you're mistaking what the word falsify means with regard to the demarcation problem of science.

If you bothered to look it up, you'd see I'm stating that AGW claims are nothing more than psuedoscience and they need to make falsifiable statements in order for us to demarcate their claims as real science or cargo cult science. That's what falsify AGW means. It doesn't mean "disprove it" it means "make a statement that you can soundly claim with NEVER happen to support your theory".

Here's one from evolution: "We will never find modern day rabbit fossils embedded in pre-Cambrian rock."

AGW alarmists have yet to come up with one single falsifiable statement regarding man's impact on carbon. I don't doubt there is science to be had here, but it is not in making alarmist calls surrounding claims of few or several degrees temperature differences over periods of time. Instead, science is making bold claims, like "If X then Y" or "If X then not Z". Alarmists are unable to make such claims, so the only thing the rest of the scientific world can do is scratch their heads and shrug because there's not a damn thing to test or verify. This is the crux of the issue. You can't refute something that's not making scientific claims, which is why AGW alarmism has perpetuated itself for so damn long. Sure, they have a consensus in their little journals, but FFS the Vatican has a consensus on the virgin Mary! That a few individuals who choose to take the title "climatologist" decide to also be alarmist doesn't tell us anything. There weren't even degree programs for climatology as a standalone degree till 2001. It seems the required credentials for being a climatologist is that you have a degree in one of the following: physics, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, geology, entomology, microbiology, oceanography, astronomy, math, computer science, or statistics....

...

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that none of you know about the demarcation problem of science, and really have no business debating this from either angle. Falsification is what separates science from pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is rampant in this thread.

Bravo, but I said that last year (and 22 days before you did) in this thread:

What I am saying to you is that these are not science precisely because they can't be falsified.

It is no different in that respect than religion. Is denying religion because it can't be falsified irrational? That is why we call it faith and not science. Please learn the distinction.

It is modeling masturbation.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein.

Meaning we can make models that say exactly the opposite by making different assumptions. That is why it isn't science. Science is something real that can be tested and falsified. How can we falsify that soot from some place is causing ice to increase or decrease some place else? It is only a model and can never be tested. Statistical correlation does not warrant cause and effect. That is a basic tenet of statistical theory.

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

Well, they make falsifyable claims all the time.
"Burning of fossile fuel  --> more CO2 in the air"
"More CO2 --> more heat absorption"
"Higher temperatures --> increased melting of ice"
"Higher temperatures --> more water evaporation"
and so on

But none of those can falsify AGW. We can falsify some of those claims (ice in a laboratory for example but not cumulative polar ice because we can't isolate other variables), but we can't falsify the following:

• Those claimed effects are occurring, e.g. the warmists utterly failed on their temperature predictions.
• Those claimed effects are done exclusively by man, i.e. anthropogenic or the 'A' in 'AGW'.
• Those claimed effects even if done exclusively by man are causing global climate variation.

There is a discussion upthread between Spendulus and myself wherein it is explained why we can't falsify AGW, because we don't have a closed system to experiment with (we can't isolate all the variables). It is downthread from the above quoted posts. Perhaps someone else can find it and re-quote it in this context. I am out of free time to read further downthread from there.

[Wilikon]

This is how http://arstechnica.com/ pictures a "denier"



http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/journal-pulls-paper-due-to-legal-context-created-by-climate-contrarians/

Don't forget to check out their ARSeCoin
https://coins.arstechnica.com/store/

[AnonyMint]

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22609

I can keep this on topic about debt bubbles and emerging markets, because one of the reasons Rome collapsed is declining productivity of the farms, which was due to indiscriminate clearing, over intensive farming, etc which polluted and over taxed the irrigation, etc.. because there was a debt bubble that was causing too much oversupply in farming (as well as an ever increasing taxes forcing farmers to take on more debt and increase production to stay afloat). What you see in China's large cities is the same effect of too much debt, causing a misallocation of priorities. One of Professor Pettis's significant points has been the infrastructure exceeds the level of social capital development, i.e. they've moved too fast on industrialization and modern cities without first diversifying their education and skills. And now they will be forced to reprioritize, and then the environment will improve again too. I live in Davao and absolutely no problems with pollution here. I would guess most of China and developing countries are beautiful when you get outside the zones of too much debt infrastructure spending.

We don't need to invent Malthusian fiction and make plans for a global carbon tax in order to understand and fix the environment side-effects of the carry trade of ZIRP on the developing world.

Man-made global warming (AGW) can't be falsified, which is the fundamental requirement of the scientific method. Thus by definition it is not science. It is "pulling arbitrary models out of my arse" because there is no way to isolate all the variables and falsify the accusation of "man-made" global climate change. Btw, the warmers failed so miserably on their prediction of temperature rise, that they now changed the propaganda to "man-made made climate change" and trying to make models to show that our carbon emission are causing global cooling too. It is so ridiculous and obvious to see they are a fraud.

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22618

Add the environmental degradation due to overuse of debt leading to lower productivity is another symptom of the marginal-utility-of-debt going negative globally, which apparently occurred just recently or on tap for 2015 which is why the global economic implosion has begun with (initially retail to be followed by institutional) capital has started fleeing emerging markets (note there is a mini-deadcat bounce at the moment) rushing back into the safe haven currencies (of which they think Euro is still one, but this will be squashed when the IMF suggestion for 10% confiscation of EU deposits kicks in). In short, the global flash crash Minsky moment approaches 2016ish.

P.S. on the overtaxing issue, remember most of the West taxes above the Laffer limit. Westerners will not be able to adjust their pre-programmed mindset away from their belief in top-down planning and big government, e.g. how you are programmed to believe in the lie of resource constraints (which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). It is never about resource constraints, all limitations are due to lack of fitness. Energy is never created nor destroyed, remember your Physics. Constraints are impedance mismatches. Thus Asia will rule the global economy going forward because they have less government interference with entrepreneurialism.

[Spendulus]

I think climate change was only a theory when it was first presented via the media, back in the late 1970's or early 1980's(i think it was around that time).


There are still people who do not think that man ever went into outer space.

There are people who do not believe that man went to the moon, and they think that was all a hollywood con job.

There are people who still think the world is flat and not round.

Some how I consider all those in a different category than people that want to kill off or sit idly by while >90% of the world's population dies off.

But but but they do it for the good of the planet. 93.87% of the world population is overrated according to their calculation anyway...

You lost the argument about science and probabilities, so predictably you shift to fear mongering.

I wish the $150 trillion global debt bubble would hurry up and pop, so you useless individuals will lose your funny money and be relegated to arguing with yourself in the mirror.

I don't have time to re-read this entire thread, but if anyone can pinpoint which post I finally realized that Wilikon and Spendulus were employing satire and actually 'deniers' like me, I'd find that amusing.

Apologies to those two guys.  

hehehehe...

It gets even funnier, though, when you consider that in achieving the lofty goal of "banning deniers", reddit also banned all such satire in both directions....what idiots...i think the word is maroons....

[AnonyMint]

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22886

Give me a falsifiable statement (that can be tested scientific method) to support your statement that AGW is real? You can't, it is impossible, thus this is religion and not science. It is very similar to macro economics, which is very difficult to falsify. At least with macro economics we have the entire history of mankind to use as repeating patterns to support our arguments. AGW proponents ignore all the history of normal climate change and argue with non-falsifiable models (of which there are other choices for models which refute theirs) that every thing is suddenly different. And they've been caught fabricating data, and their predictions on temperature rise failed.

[Spendulus]

....and their predictions on temperature rise failed.

Not that a "global temperature" can even be logically conceptualized or calculated, given those pesky little laws of physics...

[Wilikon]

The death toll from this weekend’s mudslide through Oso, Wash., is still climbing, with more than 100 still listed as missing. [...]

One of the most well-forecast and consequential components of human-caused climate change is the tendency for rainstorms to become more intense as the planet warms. As the effect becomes more pronounced, that will make follow-on events like flooding and landslides more common.

But we don’t have to wait for the future. This is already happening. Here’s an explainer, from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

As average global temperatures rise, the warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, about 4 percent more per degree Fahrenheit temperature increase. Thus, when storms occur there is more water vapor available in the atmosphere to fall as rain, snow or hail. Worldwide, water vapor over oceans has increased by about 4 percent since 1970 according to the 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, its most recent.

It only takes a small change in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to have a major effect. That’s because storms can draw upon water vapor from regions 10 to 25 times larger than the specific area where the rain or snow actually falls.

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) most recent report, scientists have observed less rain falling in light precipitation events and more rain falling in the heaviest precipitation events across the United States. From 1958 to 2007, the amount of rainfall in the heaviest 1 percent of storms increased 31 percent, on average, in the Midwest and 20 percent in the Southeast.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should never wait for the dead to be too cold to advance your agenda.

[Wilikon]

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

A draft of their report, seen by the news organisation AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.

Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.

“We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences … including the implications for security,” said Chris Field of the US’s Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming.

It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3C-4.8C this century, adding to roughly 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100. The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ipcc-to-deliver-darkest-draft-yet/story-e6frg6so-1226862631968

[Spendulus]

The death toll from this weekend’s mudslide through Oso, Wash., is still climbing, with more than 100 still listed as missing. [...]

One of the most well-forecast and consequential components of human-caused climate change is the tendency for rainstorms to become more intense......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should never wait for the dead to be too cold to advance your agenda.

So....more rain is good, right? 

We get better marihuana crops and they get mudslides.

 

[Wilikon]

IPCC runs from claims that global warming will cause mass extinctions

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/#ixzz2x5B1Rngy

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is distancing itself from past claims that global warming could cause mass extinctions.

A leaked IPCC draft report says that there is “very little confidence that the models currently predict accurately the risk of extinction.”

The leaked report, obtained by Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper, says that an “acute lack of data” have added to doubts over past claims made by climate scientists of mass extinctions in the future. biological findings have increased doubt over the expected species extinction,” says the IPCC.

In its 2007 climate assessment, the IPCC said that there was a “medium confidence” that 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species were at risk of going extinct if global temperatures rose between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. If temperatures rose by 3.5 degrees Celsius the IPCC predicted “significant extinctions” would occur — between 40 and 70 percent of species.

Environmental groups have also warned of mass extinctions due to global warming. The Nature Conservancy says that “one-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050 if the warming trend continues at its current rate.” The group adds that “polar bears may be gone from the planet in as little as 100 years and that several “U.S. states may even lose their official birds as they head for cooler climates — including the Baltimore oriole of Maryland, black-capped chickadee of Massachusetts, and the American goldfinch of Iowa.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/

[Spendulus]

IPCC runs from claims that global warming will cause mass extinctions

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/#ixzz2x5B1Rngy

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is distancing itself from past claims that global warming could cause mass extinctions.

A leaked IPCC draft report says that there is “very little confidence that the models currently predict accurately the risk of extinction.”

The leaked report, obtained by Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper, says that an “acute lack of data” have added to doubts over past claims made by climate scientists of mass extinctions in the future. biological findings have increased doubt over the expected species extinction,” says the IPCC.

In its 2007 climate assessment, the IPCC said that there was a “medium confidence” that 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species were at risk of going extinct if global temperatures rose between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. If temperatures rose by 3.5 degrees Celsius the IPCC predicted “significant extinctions” would occur — between 40 and 70 percent of species.

Environmental groups have also warned of mass extinctions due to global warming. The Nature Conservancy says that “one-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050 if the warming trend continues at its current rate.” The group adds that “polar bears may be gone from the planet in as little as 100 years and that several “U.S. states may even lose their official birds as they head for cooler climates — including the Baltimore oriole of Maryland, black-capped chickadee of Massachusetts, and the American goldfinch of Iowa.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/

It'd definitely be good if we insured there were no new species come in and take over and flourish while old species died.

Wait....none of us would be around then...

[Wilikon]

IPCC runs from claims that global warming will cause mass extinctions

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/#ixzz2x5B1Rngy

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is distancing itself from past claims that global warming could cause mass extinctions.

A leaked IPCC draft report says that there is “very little confidence that the models currently predict accurately the risk of extinction.”

The leaked report, obtained by Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper, says that an “acute lack of data” have added to doubts over past claims made by climate scientists of mass extinctions in the future. biological findings have increased doubt over the expected species extinction,” says the IPCC.

In its 2007 climate assessment, the IPCC said that there was a “medium confidence” that 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species were at risk of going extinct if global temperatures rose between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. If temperatures rose by 3.5 degrees Celsius the IPCC predicted “significant extinctions” would occur — between 40 and 70 percent of species.

Environmental groups have also warned of mass extinctions due to global warming. The Nature Conservancy says that “one-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050 if the warming trend continues at its current rate.” The group adds that “polar bears may be gone from the planet in as little as 100 years and that several “U.S. states may even lose their official birds as they head for cooler climates — including the Baltimore oriole of Maryland, black-capped chickadee of Massachusetts, and the American goldfinch of Iowa.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-mass-extinctions/

It'd definitely be good if we insured there were no new species come in and take over and flourish while old species died.

Wait....none of us would be around then...

And that is why the UN should find a way to strongly stop Evolution and Plate tectonics...

[AnonyMint]

It'd definitely be good if we insured there were no new species come in and take over and flourish while old species died.

Wait....none of us would be around then...

I'm awaiting a CO2 tax effectively banning breathing and a consumer protection law banning death.

Heck let's just ban everything. Let's ban banning. Let's ban banning banning. And ban banning banning banning banning banning. Do you see now my theory of everything w.r.t. unbounded recursion.

[AnonyMint]

this statement is false

[Wilikon]

UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects

Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change
Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change



A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.

Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.

His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.

Previous IPCC reports on climate impact have been plagued by errors that damaged the body’s credibility.

Most famously, it said in 2007 that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, a claim it has since withdrawn.

Scientists are meeting in Japan this week to agree the wording of the final document, which will be used to inform policy decisions of governments around the world.

Leaked drafts of the report predict that by the end of the century man-made global warming will have done serious harm to the global economy, displaced hundreds of millions of people and created violent conflict. Chapters on flooding, water supply and agriculture estimate huge impacts.

Prof Tol, the lead co-ordinating author of the report’s chapter on economics, was involved in drafting the summary for policymakers – the key document that goes to governments and scientists. But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.

He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.

‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html

[Spendulus]

.....But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.

He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.

‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html

And what is the other thread here that is interesting?

Why do we hate environmentalists?

LOL...

[Wilikon]

It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for some unorthodox research projects, according to House Republicans.

This includes $700,000 in funding for a climate change musical.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a Thursday hearing over whether or not the National Science Foundation (NSF) should have to justify its use of taxpayer dollars to fund projects. Smith pointed out some examples of questionable projects the NSF has funded.

$700,000 on a climate change musical
$15,000 to study fishing practices around Lake Victoria in Africa
$340,000 to examine the “ecological consequences” of early human fires in New Zealand
$200,000 for a three-year study of the Bronze Age around the Mediterranean
$50,000 to survey archived 17th Century lawsuits in Peru
$20,00 to look at the causes of stress in Bolivia
“The Administration’s willful disregard for public accountability distracts from the important issues of how America can stay ahead of China, Russia, and other countries in the highly-competitive race for technological leadership,” said Smith, a Texas Republican.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/26/feds-spent-700000-on-a-climate-change-musical/

[Spendulus]

It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for some unorthodox research projects, according to House Republicans.

This includes $700,000 in funding for a climate change musical......

This is very, very wrong.

That money would have bought a lot....of beer....

[Spendulus]

.....
Man-made global warming can't be falsified.....

So, like, dude....it's not just right...

It's Righteous!

 

[Wilikon]

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”

“Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle were by far the largest emitters of [methane],” according to an EPA analysis charting greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xHqYITaT