Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Climate deniers are annoying to listen (or read) basically because the stream is moving the other way, but it's surprisingly dictator'ing to censor people based on their opinion if they haven't broken the rules of civilized conversation.

At least climate deniers like myself will not ban you from expressing your speech on my little thread. How refreshing it is to drink from that stream isn't it?  

However mired in drudgery and small thinking minds the "Famous Reddit Ban" may be, I for one would not be opposed to the occasional, Thor-like "lightning bolt from the blue" smashing to little bits a Warmie, after which we could all go back to welcoming an open intellectual discussion.

I mean, banning COULD be fun.  It could be a game.  There could be Bitcoin betting on who might get banned.  There could be a reward paid to the unfortunate Warmie who, upon vomiting the most objectionable combination of polar bears and Katrina and SUV, simply WON THE PRIZE.

That sounds like a full time job haha. I have to say banning people would be fun. But the best way, for me anyway, to make fun of a banner is to let him taste the full freedom of speech he steals from the people he crushed and let the world see it.

Also, if you want to know the heart of your nemesis, pour some honey on his tongue (don't google it. I just came up with this)

OKAY, so I went to reddit.com/r/climate.

SUMMARY:  threads are reposted excerpts from mostly far left environmental groups - media matters, grist, think progress, and so forth, the most rational being from the huffington post.  About 25-30% of posts are actual scientific articles or subject matter, rest are environmental - political - propaganda.  The two moderators are yep, of course, propagandists and make no apologies about it.  

9 users browsing, dropped to 2 while I was there, 1-13 comments on the posts.

Now let me compare that with reddit.com/r/bitcoin.  Comments on posts:

229, 107, 96, 38, 58, 74, 126...no need to continue.  Wait...how many people were browsing the bitcoin threads? 1062!

So, reddit.com/r/climate is a complete objective FAIL.  This thread itself although wide ranging is far more downright interesting that their threads (and this one thread has more comments than all of theirs combined, going way back).  The WHY is interesting.

Because, well....their threads read like propaganda....DULL!!!

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate/

Fascinating to know all those facts about reddit versus my little lonely thread. Thanks.

I would bet that, before the banning, they would have scored much much higher. But who want to see a boxing match with only one dude in a ring?

Your thread is more popular than ALL the reddit climate threads combined.

That is what happens when free speech is stifled in one place and encouraged in another.

Oh, and by the way, that dude in the boxing ring?  He ain't much of a boxer or much to look at...

http://tinyurl.com/l8bdcgb

[Wilikon]

Climate deniers are annoying to listen (or read) basically because the stream is moving the other way, but it's surprisingly dictator'ing to censor people based on their opinion if they haven't broken the rules of civilized conversation.

At least climate deniers like myself will not ban you from expressing your speech on my little thread. How refreshing it is to drink from that stream isn't it?  

However mired in drudgery and small thinking minds the "Famous Reddit Ban" may be, I for one would not be opposed to the occasional, Thor-like "lightning bolt from the blue" smashing to little bits a Warmie, after which we could all go back to welcoming an open intellectual discussion.

I mean, banning COULD be fun.  It could be a game.  There could be Bitcoin betting on who might get banned.  There could be a reward paid to the unfortunate Warmie who, upon vomiting the most objectionable combination of polar bears and Katrina and SUV, simply WON THE PRIZE.

That sounds like a full time job haha. I have to say banning people would be fun. But the best way, for me anyway, to make fun of a banner is to let him taste the full freedom of speech he steals from the people he crushed and let the world see it.

Also, if you want to know the heart of your nemesis, pour some honey on his tongue (don't google it. I just came up with this)

OKAY, so I went to reddit.com/r/climate.

SUMMARY:  threads are reposted excerpts from mostly far left environmental groups - media matters, grist, think progress, and so forth, the most rational being from the huffington post.  About 25-30% of posts are actual scientific articles or subject matter, rest are environmental - political - propaganda.  The two moderators are yep, of course, propagandists and make no apologies about it.  

9 users browsing, dropped to 2 while I was there, 1-13 comments on the posts.

Now let me compare that with reddit.com/r/bitcoin.  Comments on posts:

229, 107, 96, 38, 58, 74, 126...no need to continue.  Wait...how many people were browsing the bitcoin threads? 1062!

So, reddit.com/r/climate is a complete objective FAIL.  This thread itself although wide ranging is far more downright interesting that their threads (and this one thread has more comments than all of theirs combined, going way back).  The WHY is interesting.

Because, well....their threads read like propaganda....DULL!!!

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate/

Fascinating to know all those facts about reddit versus my little lonely thread. Thanks.

I would bet that, before the banning, they would have scored much much higher. But who want to see a boxing match with only one dude in a ring?

Your thread is more popular than ALL the reddit climate threads combined.

That is what happens when free speech is stifled in one place and encouraged in another.

Oh, and by the way, that dude in the boxing ring?  He ain't much of a boxer or much to look at...

http://tinyurl.com/l8bdcgb

I really had no idea. Not really into reddit.



That dude in the boxing ring. I think  he is more useful outside as a

[Spendulus]

Climate deniers are annoying to listen (or read) basically because the stream is moving the other way, but it's surprisingly dictator'ing to censor people based on their opinion if they haven't broken the rules of civilized conversation.

At least climate deniers like myself will not ban you from expressing your speech on my little thread. How refreshing it is to drink from that stream isn't it?  

However mired in drudgery and small thinking minds the "Famous Reddit Ban" may be, I for one would not be opposed to the occasional, Thor-like "lightning bolt from the blue" smashing to little bits a Warmie, after which we could all go back to welcoming an open intellectual discussion.

I mean, banning COULD be fun.  It could be a game.  There could be Bitcoin betting on who might get banned.  There could be a reward paid to the unfortunate Warmie who, upon vomiting the most objectionable combination of polar bears and Katrina and SUV, simply WON THE PRIZE.

That sounds like a full time job haha. I have to say banning people would be fun. But the best way, for me anyway, to make fun of a banner is to let him taste the full freedom of speech he steals from the people he crushed and let the world see it.

Also, if you want to know the heart of your nemesis, pour some honey on his tongue (don't google it. I just came up with this)

OKAY, so I went to reddit.com/r/climate.

SUMMARY:  threads are reposted excerpts from mostly far left environmental groups - media matters, grist, think progress, and so forth, the most rational being from the huffington post.  About 25-30% of posts are actual scientific articles or subject matter, rest are environmental - political - propaganda.  The two moderators are yep, of course, propagandists and make no apologies about it.  

9 users browsing, dropped to 2 while I was there, 1-13 comments on the posts.

Now let me compare that with reddit.com/r/bitcoin.  Comments on posts:

229, 107, 96, 38, 58, 74, 126...no need to continue.  Wait...how many people were browsing the bitcoin threads? 1062!

So, reddit.com/r/climate is a complete objective FAIL.  This thread itself although wide ranging is far more downright interesting that their threads (and this one thread has more comments than all of theirs combined, going way back).  The WHY is interesting.

Because, well....their threads read like propaganda....DULL!!!

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate/

Fascinating to know all those facts about reddit versus my little lonely thread. Thanks.

I would bet that, before the banning, they would have scored much much higher. But who want to see a boxing match with only one dude in a ring?

Your thread is more popular than ALL the reddit climate threads combined.

That is what happens when free speech is stifled in one place and encouraged in another.

Oh, and by the way, that dude in the boxing ring?  He ain't much of a boxer or much to look at...

http://tinyurl.com/l8bdcgb

I really had no idea. Not really into reddit.



That dude in the boxing ring. I think  he is more useful outside as a

I'm actually curious now.  Given the seeming ability of pro and con GW people to get along here in this thread, where was the giant problem that Reddit moderators claim existed? 

The climate threads on Reddit now are cross posted from aggregation from other websites.  So the truth is not that there is minimal user inputs, but basically, nana.  They post to a ghost choir. 

Now by contrast, there has been some rather imaginative and creative contributions to this thread.

The difference on examination is frankly astonishing and a subject in it's own right.

[sgravina]

There is no such thing as climate.  It's all just a bunch of air and sunshine.

[Wilikon]

There is no such thing as climate.  It's all just a bunch of air and sunshine.

A bunch of hot air coming from where the sun never shines...

[Spendulus]

There is no such thing as climate.  It's all just a bunch of air and sunshine.

I must have reddit wrong.

[Wilikon]

NYT’s Friedman Compares Global Warming Deniers to Trotsky Marxists – Blames Global Warming for Syrian Revolution (Video)

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman sited a debunked study to compare global warming deniers to Trotsky Marxists – then blames the Syrian revolution on global warming, not on Bashir Assad’s brutality.

Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical… That’s what we saw in Syria. We saw a four-year drought in Syria’s mondern history that proceeded the revolution there. That produced a million refugees that basically led a predicate for that revolution.

http://youtu.be/ew4GR066GHE

[Spendulus]

NYT’s Friedman Compares Global Warming Deniers to Trotsky Marxists – Blames Global Warming for Syrian Revolution (Video)

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman sited a debunked study to compare global warming deniers to Trotsky Marxists – then blames the Syrian revolution on global warming, not on Bashir Assad’s brutality.

Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical… That’s what we saw in Syria. We saw a four-year drought in Syria’s mondern history that proceeded the revolution there. That produced a million refugees that basically led a predicate for that revolution.

http://youtu.be/ew4GR066GHE

I'm having trouble making any sense of that.

[Wilikon]

NYT’s Friedman Compares Global Warming Deniers to Trotsky Marxists – Blames Global Warming for Syrian Revolution (Video)

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman sited a debunked study to compare global warming deniers to Trotsky Marxists – then blames the Syrian revolution on global warming, not on Bashir Assad’s brutality.

Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical… That’s what we saw in Syria. We saw a four-year drought in Syria’s mondern history that proceeded the revolution there. That produced a million refugees that basically led a predicate for that revolution.

http://youtu.be/ew4GR066GHE

I'm having trouble making any sense of that.

Everything he says makes perfect sense according to his Pulitzer Prize....

[Wilikon]

The game is up for climate change believers
Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall (Quartet)






[...]
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).

These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.

[...]
The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world’s elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.

The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html

[EinsteiniumWisdom]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-future-of-the-earth-s-next-100-years-visualized?c=gasan1

[Wilikon]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-future-of-the-earth-s-next-100-years-visualized?c=gasan1

http://youtu.be/XG4UJt8Plwo

[Spendulus]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-future-of-the-earth-s-next-100-years-visualized?c=gasan1

hmm...yeah, that does not really do it for me, in terms of racketing up the guilt...

here...try this one...I'ts got a mean guy, a big train and a little innocent girl..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOi5FclEh_Q

If that's not good enough, let me know.  There are some that have teddy bears and puppies and babies.  Real tear jerkers.

[Wilikon]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-future-of-the-earth-s-next-100-years-visualized?c=gasan1

hmm...yeah, that does not really do it for me, in terms of racketing up the guilt...

here...try this one...I'ts got a mean guy, a big train and a little innocent girl..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOi5FclEh_Q

If that's not good enough, let me know.  There are some that have teddy bears and puppies and babies.  Real tear jerkers.

Well Sir, I shall see your teddy bears and raise you a suicidal pack of monkey, polar bear and locomotive loving kangaroo....

http://youtu.be/8PMtD9z4Eoo

[Wilikon]

Saving the planet from climate change is ‘beyond our ability’ and we should stop wasting time trying to tackle global warming, a leading scientist has claimed

James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become inhabitable.

Lovelock, who has just published his latest book A Rough Ride To The Future, claims we should be ‘strengthening our defences and making a sustainable retreat.’

“We’re reaching an age in history where you can no longer predict the future with any hope of success.

“We should give up vainglorious attempts to save the world.

“Britain is no longer a world power and we need to leave such schemes to the USA, Japan or China. We should spend out efforts adapting Britain to fight climate change.”

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to say the world will need a ‘Plan B’ because it is unlikely countries will reduce carbon emissions in time.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10752606/We-should-give-up-trying-to-save-the-world-from-climate-change-says-James-Lovelock.html

[Spendulus]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-future-of-the-earth-s-next-100-years-visualized?c=gasan1

hmm...yeah, that does not really do it for me, in terms of racketing up the guilt...

here...try this one...I'ts got a mean guy, a big train and a little innocent girl..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOi5FclEh_Q

If that's not good enough, let me know.  There are some that have teddy bears and puppies and babies.  Real tear jerkers.

Well Sir, I shall see your teddy bears and raise you a suicidal pack of monkey, polar bear and locomotive loving kangaroo....

http://youtu.be/8PMtD9z4Eoo

Hey, look....those monkeys and bears are like...stupid....

Here's a BABY, man.  It's like drowning, and the mom doesn't even care!  And it's your fault!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

And like, look dude....<<SATIRICALLY playing the bigoted self righteous warmie>> i know you think your right, but man...just listen to this guy, maybe you'll see...maybe you'll see how really serious all this is...like maybe wake up?  I mean, you can help save the planet too, just lay off on eating meat, driving cars and working out in the fracking fields for $115k a year...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

LOL...that guy stupider than your monkeys and bears...LOL...

[Wilikon]

Scientists seek climate-friendly cow of the future





http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/70637ed6-bece-11e3-a1bf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yKeQcLPE

[bryant.coleman]

Saving the planet from climate change is ‘beyond our ability’ and we should stop wasting time trying to tackle global warming, a leading scientist has claimed. James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become inhabitable.

Moonbats.

With technology advancing so much, we will be able to reverse the climate change in the near future. The idea of climate controlled cities is appalling. Who wants to live inside a cage?

[Spendulus]

Saving the planet from climate change is ‘beyond our ability’ and we should stop wasting time trying to tackle global warming, a leading scientist has claimed. James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become inhabitable.

Moonbats.

With technology advancing so much, we will be able to reverse the climate change in the near future. The idea of climate controlled cities is appalling. Who wants to live inside a cage?

Why, then, do you think there would be so much pressure to change peoples' behavior and to tax them for supposed 'pro environmental' projects at this time?

[Wilikon]

While mentioning changing peoples' behavior:






Report: British Schoolchildren Being “Brainwashed” With Global Warming Propaganda…



British schoolchildren are being brainwashed by a deep green environmental curriculum which fills their heads with “confusion, ignorance and fear”, says a new study by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The report, by science writer Andrew Montford and statistician John Shade, finds that “eco-activism” has been given free rein within schools for at least three decades. Children are being encouraged to become “little political activists” with a duty to “save the planet” not least by putting pressure on their parents.

This agenda can be found in teaching across the board – not just in obviously relevant subjects like science and geography but even in unrelated areas like French, Maths and English. It affects everything from field trips (often with an environmental theme, such as “sustainability”) to projects and film screenings (An Inconvenient Truth; The Age Of Stupid; The Day After Tomorrow) and even how well children perform in exams (with marks given automatically to children who “correctly” identify Carbon Dioxide as a major environmental threat).

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/04/Education-reducedportrait-5.pdf