Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about, either on droughts, global warming or religion.  You seem to think that anecdotal evidence (droughts) have greater attribution, but show no evidence and of course cannot.  You are against deniers, but I wager you can't even define what a denier is.  And then you rant on religion and faith.  Then you suggest something that's quite astonishing, "faith in science."

Well I'd like to see a clear, concise definition of denier.

We'll deal with the absolute lack of a need for faith in science later.

Frankly, you should look at context.  I was responding to anecdotal evidence with more anecdotal evidence.  Nothing more.

The fact that you don't see this, and use it as a reason to discredit me shows your overwhelming biases.  You fall into one of the categories that, frankly, are not worth having a discussion with.  You have just demonstrated you are not interested in truth.

Denier would be someone that denies that the Earth is warming up (using average global temperatures) due to man made reasons.

Really, is it that hard to go study the radiation and how different gasses absorb it ?  Convince yourself.  I don't think you guys even try to understand the basic principles behind it but oh damn you're experts.

No more responses from me.  Reddit has it right.  Disregard to babbling loonies in the corner and lets get on with progress if we are to have any hope.

I would have not brought religion up, but religion is a place where a lot of people go for morality and ethics.  Churches are ignoring global warming, so people continue on shitting on the future of their kids.

[Spendulus]

Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about, either on droughts, global warming or religion.  You seem to think that anecdotal evidence (droughts) have greater attribution, but show no evidence and of course cannot.  You are against deniers, but I wager you can't even define what a denier is.  And then you rant on religion and faith.  Then you suggest something that's quite astonishing, "faith in science."

Well I'd like to see a clear, concise definition of denier.

We'll deal with the absolute lack of a need for faith in science later.

Denier would be someone that denies that the Earth is warming up (using average global temperatures) due to man made reasons.arming, so people continue on shitting on the future

I distrust a great many of the alarmist style news on climate, but also a lot of the alarmist stuff that gets passed off as science.  You can go back in this thread and see some of that.  I also am skeptical of the ability, meaning or import of any sort of "global average temperature" as the planet has multiple phases of matter and unknown amounts of latent heat.

As far as whether the planet has warmed up over the last century or so, sure.  And it has many times in the past.  Now, is it in small part or large part due to man?

Why should that matter?  Isn't the nature of your concern really more about what happens to the planet if either for nature or man made reasons or a combination of them, there is an additional 3-5C average temperature over that of today?  In other words, the continuation of the trend.

Personally I think we should be worried about EMP pulses from solar flares or terrorist attacks, meteor impacts, and global cooling.  We're overdue for an ice age, you know.

[Schleicher]

Personally I think we should be worried about EMP pulses from solar flares or terrorist attacks, meteor impacts, and global cooling.  We're overdue for an ice age, you know.

A big EMP would be very bad.
The other threats are unlikely.
We will probably skip the next ice age cycle if the CO2 level continues to rise.

[dwma]

Personally I think we should be worried about EMP pulses from solar flares or terrorist attacks, meteor impacts, and global cooling.  We're overdue for an ice age, you know.

A big EMP would be very bad.
The other threats are unlikely.
We will probably skip the next ice age cycle if the CO2 level continues to rise.

The timeframe of ice ages is probably near pointless when considering humanity.  If you want to go this route, then compare the rate of warming vs historic trends.  Just not some simple faith based bullshit.  "Well we had ice ages in the past, so it is just a matter of time".   Go to a casino and see how the losers think their luck is due to turn around.  It is called faith.

He lists a lot of black swan events versus something that is currently happening.

He claims you can't measure the average temperature because there are "multiple phases of matter".  Such bullshit heaped in mounds of ignorance.  (Latent heat??? what?  What is "latent heat" and what would it have to do with incorrectly measuring of the atmospheric temperature being hotter than it is ?)

He denies that there is relevance to the cause of the warming.  (What???  Lets ignore mitigation?)

Why would anyone respond to such stupidity ? 

This is exactly the same as if someone argues the Earth is flat.  You might smile and nod in person, but you're going to clown on them behind their back.

[Spendulus]

Personally I think we should be worried about EMP pulses from solar flares or terrorist attacks, meteor impacts, and global cooling.  We're overdue for an ice age, you know.

A big EMP would be very bad.
The other threats are unlikely.
We will probably skip the next ice age cycle if the CO2 level continues to rise.

The timeframe of ice ages is probably near pointless when considering humanity.  If you want to go this route, then compare the rate of warming vs historic trends.  Just not some simple faith based bullshit.  "Well we had ice ages in the past, so it is just a matter of time".   Go to a casino and see how the losers think their luck is due to turn around.  It is called faith.

He lists a lot of black swan events versus something that is currently happening.
....

Hmm...why in the world would you think the timeframe of ice ages was pointless?  Not at all, mankind has suffered through and emerged from the last one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period


Black swan events are defined as statistically unlikely events that are world changers.  Over an extended period of time they are not unlikey, but LIKELY.  There is no shortage of rocks that could hit the planet, take a look at the Moon.  In fact the Taleb book which is basically the origion of the "black swan" concept suggests that such world changing events, although rare, should seriously be considered....and that the human fault and logical error would be in not considering them.

....
He claims you can't measure the average temperature because there are "multiple phases of matter".  Such bullshit heaped in mounds of ignorance.  (Latent heat??? what?  What is "latent heat" and what would it have to do with incorrectly measuring of the atmospheric temperature being hotter than it is ?) ....

Actually if you can't discuss the issue of heat content in a defined environment consisting of multiple phases of matter, you have no business making claims about "average temperature".   Air temperature is a very useful concept applied to weather and even climate on a regional basis - say the US Pacific coast, for example. But not when applied to the world, including the oceans, the poles, and the upper and lower atmosphere, all somehow lumped together.  

[Wilikon]

Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about, either on droughts, global warming or religion.  You seem to think that anecdotal evidence (droughts) have greater attribution, but show no evidence and of course cannot.  You are against deniers, but I wager you can't even define what a denier is.  And then you rant on religion and faith.  Then you suggest something that's quite astonishing, "faith in science."

Well I'd like to see a clear, concise definition of denier.

We'll deal with the absolute lack of a need for faith in science later.

Frankly, you should look at context.  I was responding to anecdotal evidence with more anecdotal evidence.  Nothing more.

The fact that you don't see this, and use it as a reason to discredit me shows your overwhelming biases.  You fall into one of the categories that, frankly, are not worth having a discussion with.  You have just demonstrated you are not interested in truth.

Denier would be someone that denies that the Earth is warming up (using average global temperatures) due to man made reasons.

Really, is it that hard to go study the radiation and how different gasses absorb it ?  Convince yourself.  I don't think you guys even try to understand the basic principles behind it but oh damn you're experts.

No more responses from me.  Reddit has it right.  Disregard to babbling loonies in the corner and lets get on with progress if we are to have any hope.

I would have not brought religion up, but religion is a place where a lot of people go for morality and ethics.  Churches are ignoring global warming, so people continue on shitting on the future of their kids.

I respect your position even if you believe I am not worth responding, being somewhat underneath you or something... 

[Schleicher]

Actually if you can't discuss the issue of heat content in a defined environment consisting of multiple phases of matter, you have no business making claims about "average temperature".   Air temperature is a very useful concept applied to weather and even climate on a regional basis - say the US Pacific coast, for example. But not when applied to the world, including the oceans, the poles, and the upper and lower atmosphere, all somehow lumped together.  

Yeah. That's why the scientists don't use "global average temperature" in their computer models when they try to predict the future.

[dwma]

I may have misused black swan slightly, but it fits close and was easy to type. Explaining things in depth to a lunatic not interested in the truth brings about a need for brevity.

You prepare for things that are likely to happen.  The smaller the chance, the less you prepare.  I don't think Taleb would disagree with that.  Nor would any rational person.

That is why it is important to realize it is man made - because it happening and not some miniscule chance of happening like the other silliness listed.

Ice ages happen every 1-10k years from what I read.  Global warming has been happening on a scale of 100 years and we're just now getting to the point where things are going to continue to be changing.  Bringing in ice-ages just dilutes the issue.  There is a magnitude of order difference in time frames easily, and they're still measure in 100s of generations, not 5.  Lets bring it up though to cloud the issue.

We would survive EMP easily.  Not even relevant.

I like how the one metric that everyone could see as being a useful metric is invalid because it clearly shows the lunacy of your average denier.  Oh average temperatures ?  Hogwash!  Scientifically impossible to measure with any accuracy !  Thermometers ?  Thats old technology!  Not relevant here because the world is not the same in every place !

(Duh, thats why it is an average)

Please, please, ignore the raving lunatic in the corner.  Much like I should.  Reddit did the right thing.  A stupid man with a little bit of education can be a dangerous thing..... and in the end... they're still wrong.

[Wilikon]

I may have misused black swan slightly, but it fits close and was easy to type. Explaining things in depth to a lunatic not interested in the truth brings about a need for brevity.

You prepare for things that are likely to happen.  The smaller the chance, the less you prepare.  I don't think Taleb would disagree with that.  Nor would any rational person.

That is why it is important to realize it is man made - because it happening and not some miniscule chance of happening like the other silliness listed.

Ice ages happen every 1-10k years from what I read.  Global warming has been happening on a scale of 100 years and we're just now getting to the point where things are going to continue to be changing.  Bringing in ice-ages just dilutes the issue.  There is a magnitude of order difference in time frames easily, and they're still measure in 100s of generations, not 5.  Lets bring it up though to cloud the issue.

We would survive EMP easily.  Not even relevant.

I like how the one metric that everyone could see as being a useful metric is invalid because it clearly shows the lunacy of your average denier.  Oh average temperatures ?  Hogwash!  Scientifically impossible to measure with any accuracy !  Thermometers ?  Thats old technology!  Not relevant here because the world is not the same in every place !

(Duh, thats why it is an average)

Please, please, ignore the raving lunatic in the corner.  Much like I should.  Reddit did the right thing.  A stupid man with a little bit of education can be a dangerous thing..... and in the end... they're still wrong.

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) wrote 'An Essay on Criticism' in 1709. In it he wrote:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
The modern meaning translates to mean that people with a small amount of knowledge often think that they have more 'expertise' than they really do. Sometimes, when this perceived 'expertise' translates into action, it can result in unpredictable, or even tragic consequences.

That is why it is important for people like you to forbid people who do not believe what you believe to speak up...

[Spendulus]

Actually if you can't discuss the issue of heat content in a defined environment consisting of multiple phases of matter, you have no business making claims about "average temperature".   Air temperature is a very useful concept applied to weather and even climate on a regional basis - say the US Pacific coast, for example. But not when applied to the world, including the oceans, the poles, and the upper and lower atmosphere, all somehow lumped together.  

Yeah. That's why the scientists don't use "global average temperature" in their computer models when they try to predict the future.

True.  Even the old "slab ocean" model did not use some wacko global temperature.

[dwma]

I haven't seen anyone actually arguing global average temperature is to be used in modeling the atmosphere. 

Nice attempt at completely misrepresenting arguments.

Are you guys paid to be evil ignorant ?

[Spendulus]

I may have misused black swan slightly, but it fits close and was easy to type. Explaining things in depth to a lunatic not interested in the truth brings about a need for brevity.

You prepare for things that are likely to happen.  The smaller the chance, the less you prepare.  I don't think Taleb would disagree with that.  Nor would any rational person.

No, you evidence the problem of which Taleb suggested the solution was to watch for the black swans, given the certainty of their occurance.

Ice ages happen every 1-10k years from what I read.  Global warming has been happening on a scale of 100 years and we're just now getting to the point where things are going to continue to be changing.  Bringing in ice-ages just dilutes the issue.  There is a magnitude of order difference in time frames easily, and they're still measure in 100s of generations, not 5.  Lets bring it up though to cloud the issue.

Not sure what issue bringing it up clouds.  It certainly does not cloud the issue of "climate change".  A lot of scientists think we are overdue for the onset of an ice age now.

We would survive EMP easily.  Not even relevant.

Might want to take another look at that opinion.  Basically depends on what you mean by "survive."  We could also say "we would survive AGW temperature increases of 5C easily".

Take a look at estimated death counts from EMP and we'll return to this subject.

Oh average temperatures ?  Hogwash!  Scientifically impossible to measure with any accuracy !  Thermometers ?  Thats old technology!  Not relevant here because the world is not the same in every place !(Duh, thats why it is an average)

Actually, no.  That's why you can't compute an "average".  Again, you might want to actually look at the science and try to understand it.

[Spendulus]

I haven't seen anyone actually arguing global average temperature is to be used in modeling the atmosphere. 

Nice attempt at completely misrepresenting arguments.

Are you guys paid to be evil ignorant ?

Actually, the "Global average temperature thing"....well, you seem to own it...

He claims you can't measure the average temperature because there are "multiple phases of matter".  Such bullshit heaped in mounds of ignorance.  (Latent heat??? what?  What is "latent heat" and what would it have to do with incorrectly measuring of the atmospheric temperature being hotter than it is ?

First year college chemistry or physics, take your pick.

[dwma]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

[counter]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

I'm always astonished by this discussion and admiringly a little creeped out..  One group is most likely flat out wrong but at the same time there seems to be a sense of surety none the less by both groups.  I don't believe in global warming, I could be wrong about that but one thing I'm sure I'm right about is the biggest contributes to global warming will essentially be let off the hook for the crimes.

[Spendulus]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

I'm always astonished by this discussion and admiringly a little creeped out..  One group is most likely flat out wrong but at the same time there seems to be a sense of surety none the less by both groups.  I don't believe in global warming, I could be wrong about that but one thing I'm sure I'm right about is the biggest contributes to global warming will essentially be let off the hook for the crimes.

You are on track for sure.  Yes, the tone is pretty darn creepy.  This particular guy, dwma, seems to be genuinely buying the kool aid.  Or maybe he's just trolling.

[Wilikon]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

What is the average temperature of planet Earth? I admit, I am a lunatic and do not know much about anything, but I know you should know the answer.

[Spendulus]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

What is the average temperature of planet Earth? I admit, I am a lunatic and do not know much about anything. but I know you should know the answer.

You want to include the core of the planet?  The atmosphere out to 100km?  Or something like the average temperature of the land mass 6' above the ground?  Or include temperatures 6' above the oceans?

That's at LEAST a six beer problem there.

[Wilikon]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

What is the average temperature of planet Earth? I admit, I am a lunatic and do not know much about anything. but I know you should know the answer.

You want to include the core of the planet?  The atmosphere out to 100km?  Or something like the average temperature of the land mass 6' above the ground?  Or include temperatures 6' above the oceans?

That's at LEAST a six beer problem there.

I was hoping him/her/it to ask Siri on his iPhone...

[Spendulus]

The lunatics win the battle by sheer persistence of ignorance, but they've already lost the war.

It is nice to know that calculating an average is an intractable problem.   <eyeroll>

First year engineering physics will also give you enough to understand the basic underlying principle of global warming, but you guys don't really want to hear that.

What is the average temperature of planet Earth? I admit, I am a lunatic and do not know much about anything. but I know you should know the answer.

You want to include the core of the planet?  The atmosphere out to 100km?  Or something like the average temperature of the land mass 6' above the ground?  Or include temperatures 6' above the oceans?

That's at LEAST a six beer problem there.

I was hoping him/her/it to ask Siri on his iPhone...

Worked pretty well when he asked Siri for definition of denier.  Didn't work so well for Black Swan, EMF, or asteroid impact...