Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  

Not sure why anyone but an idiot or a lunatic would take from that belief that I personally should know the current average temperature of the atmosphere.

I like how you guys continue to try to misrepresent my arguments.  

When you're a bunch of marginalized lunatics, what else are you going to do, but murmur bs to yourselves to avoid the obvious that you're all quite wrong.

BTW I haven't had an iphone since the first generation iphones.  Not an Apple fan.   (since you guys care so much)

... For anyone reading this, let me give you a good analogy...

Do meteorologists understand the weather?  A certain group of people would say meteorologists don't because they're so often wrong.  Others would understand that although meteorologists do understand weather better than just about everyone else, it doesn't mean meteorologists can perfectly simulate the weather and the billions of factors that go into play.  Yet, go somewhere with enough dumbasses and 100% you'll be able to find someone who will pontificate how the weathermen don't know anything.  Same basic thing going on here.

[Wilikon]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures. 

Not sure why anyone but an idiot or a lunatic would take from that belief that I personally should know the current average temperature of the atmosphere.

I like how you guys continue to try to misrepresent my arguments. 

When you're a bunch of marginalized lunatics, what else are you going to do, but murmur bs to yourselves to avoid the obvious that you're all quite wrong.

BTW I haven't had an iphone since the first generation iphones.  Not an Apple fan.   (since you guys care so much)

... For anyone reading this, let me give you a good analogy...

Do meteorologists understand the weather?  A certain group of people would say they don't say because they're so often wrong.  Others would understand that although meteorologists do understand weather better than just about everyone else, it doesn't mean they can simulate the weather and the billions of factors that go into play.  Yet, go somewhere with enough dumbasses and 100% you'll be able to find someone who will pontificate how the weathermen don't know anything.  Same basic thing going on here.

No one really cared if you owned an iphone or not, in case you were confused about that. We lunatics always forget smart people need to be "guided"on forum sometimes using codes like ""

Your analogy is interesting. So the weather is a science we lunatics should use to compare the changes in temperatures for 100s, 1000s, 10000s, 100000s of years. The weatherman uses data from the satellites and many other terrestrial sources. All that data is going to point to the same conclusion. This is how we can, us lunatics, know if it is going to rain in five days. So I would need to understand the precision of the weather is as good as the methodology used by people like you, or the other way around But for 100000s of years...

The thing is... satellite data does not provide any proof or corelation with any computer models, computer models all "true scientists" like you use all day long to insult people who point you to that obvious bizarre situation.

I could be wrong but true scientists would find a way to explain why it is the case, don't you think?

[SgtMoth]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  

Not sure why anyone but an idiot or a lunatic would take from that belief that I personally should know the current average temperature of the atmosphere.

I like how you guys continue to try to misrepresent my arguments.  

When you're a bunch of marginalized lunatics, what else are you going to do, but murmur bs to yourselves to avoid the obvious that you're all quite wrong.

BTW I haven't had an iphone since the first generation iphones.  Not an Apple fan.   (since you guys care so much)

... For anyone reading this, let me give you a good analogy...

Do meteorologists understand the weather?  A certain group of people would say meteorologists don't because they're so often wrong.  Others would understand that although meteorologists do understand weather better than just about everyone else, it doesn't mean meteorologists can perfectly simulate the weather and the billions of factors that go into play.  Yet, go somewhere with enough dumbasses and 100% you'll be able to find someone who will pontificate how the weathermen don't know anything.  Same basic thing going on here.

Calling people idiots and lunatic now?

[dwma]

The thing is... satellite data does not provide any proof or corelation with any computer models, computer models all "true scientists" like you use all day long to insult people who point you to that obvious bizarre situation.

I could be wrong but true scientists would find a way to explain why it is the case, don't you think?

I've never used the term true scientists.  You guys like to use scare quotes though.  Who are you quoting here ? 

Again, truthfulness is CLEARLY not your motive.

I agree about correlation, but you miss the obvious.  The correlation is demonstrated by the underlying basic science and the well known fact that CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. (Other greenhouse gases are not, but are still introduced into the atmosphere via other means) 

So why don't you start with the most basics of this stuff instead of discrediting things you clearly do not understand.  Once you understand this, then you will understand why the  man-made correlation is not a jump in the least.

Here is a good starting point.  http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/16/251437395/global-warming-explained-in-about-a-minute

Please spare me that it is from NPR.  I'm sure you have an issue with that too...   If you want to complain about that, I can post something from another source that is not NPR.  My guess though is you will discredit anything as some sort of koolaid conspiracy.

[Spendulus]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather?  ....

When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather.  

In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know.  That's called the Internet.  

But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science.  You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average".  Trust me on that.  It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter.  You can say "but the scientists say..." or something.

[dwma]

Calling people idiots and lunatic now?

Yes, that is what is required at this point.  Worst case from being wrong is we conserve fossil fuels for future generations.  However, if we wait til act until it is so obvious that even the fringe has changed their minds, then it will have been far too late.

These deniers are basically the flat-earthers of the day, except their beliefs have very very very serious repercussions. 

With anything like this, you will have people who irrationally deny it.  If it is not something they can see with their own eyes or take in directly with their senses, then they will vehemently argue against it.  People need to realize this and move the discussion forward ignoring the lunatic fringe.  They will always exist.

If someone wants to have their feelings hurt because they're an idiot, then that really is not my problem. 

[dwma]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather?  ....

When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather.  

In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know.  That's called the Internet.  

But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science.  You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average".  Trust me on that.  It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter.  You can say "but the scientists say..." or something.

You don't use basic logic.  You start out your argument by some bullshit appeal to authority, over an argument we are not even having.

My point about weather was nothing more than an analogy to the basic thought process of you guys.  Again, you misrepresent what I say.  That alone says a ton about where you are coming from.

So why don't YOU explain to us why the basic reasoning behind greenhouse gases is not true ?  Do you think that light emitted from the sun and the radiation emitted from the matter on the Earth to be the same frequency ?  Do you think that all gases interact with all radiation the same way ?  Where does the most basic science fail?  If you are such a educated contrarian then you should at least be able to address this.  PLEASE.

I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years.  That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself.

[Wilikon]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather?  ....

When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather.  

In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know.  That's called the Internet.  

But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science.  You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average".  Trust me on that.  It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter.  You can say "but the scientists say..." or something.

You don't use basic logic.  You start out your argument by some bullshit appeal to authority, over an argument we are not even having.

My point about weather was nothing more than an analogy to the basic thought process of you guys.  Again, you misrepresent what I say.  That alone says a ton about where you are coming from.

So why don't YOU explain to us why the basic reasoning behind greenhouse gases is not true ?  Do you think that light emitted from the sun and the radiation emitted from the matter on the Earth to be the same frequency ?  Do you think that all gases interact with all radiation the same way ?  Where does the most basic science fail?  If you are such a educated contrarian then you should at least be able to address this.  PLEASE.

I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years.  That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself.

You've been a global warming believer for only 20 years? That's all? The average "age of reason" of a child is around 6, maybe 9 in your case so.... You should be around 31.

It is true you could not believe in anything else before... First because your were too young to be fully self conscious... Then because everything was pretty much about global cooling

A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970′s
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

No one is offended by your insults, rest assured. I understand your position.

[Spendulus]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather?  ....

When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather.  

In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know.  That's called the Internet.  

But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science.  You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average".  Trust me on that.  It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter.  You can say "but the scientists say..." or something.

You don't use basic logic.  You start out your argument by some bullshit appeal to authority, over an argument we are not even having.

My point about weather was nothing more than an analogy to the basic thought process of you guys.  Again, you misrepresent what I say.  That alone says a ton about where you are coming from.

So why don't YOU explain to us why the basic reasoning behind greenhouse gases is not true ?  Do you think that light emitted from the sun and the radiation emitted from the matter on the Earth to be the same frequency ?  Do you think that all gases interact with all radiation the same way ?  Where does the most basic science fail?  If you are such a educated contrarian then you should at least be able to address this.  PLEASE.

I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years.  That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself.

It's that you didn't know what I was saying.  N/S is basic math underlying computations for weather.  So it is the argument we were having, and it is the authority.

And that's my thought process.

Regarding your bolded section above, re emission is always at a lower frequency.  All material have emission and spectral absorption patterns which have been carefully measured.

Re "educated contrarian", I have no clue what you are talking about.

Someone who does not profess to understand science of one sort or another should not be so very certain about it.  And you have stated that you have "actually believed in global warming for 20 years".

So for the last two decades in which the planet was not warming, you've believed it was?

Still in favor of Reddit banning open discussion of ideas?

[dwma]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures.  .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather?  ....

When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather.  

In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know.  That's called the Internet.  

But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science.  You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average".  Trust me on that.  It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter.  You can say "but the scientists say..." or something.

You don't use basic logic.  You start out your argument by some bullshit appeal to authority, over an argument we are not even having.

My point about weather was nothing more than an analogy to the basic thought process of you guys.  Again, you misrepresent what I say.  That alone says a ton about where you are coming from.

So why don't YOU explain to us why the basic reasoning behind greenhouse gases is not true ?  Do you think that light emitted from the sun and the radiation emitted from the matter on the Earth to be the same frequency ?  Do you think that all gases interact with all radiation the same way ?  Where does the most basic science fail?  If you are such a educated contrarian then you should at least be able to address this.  PLEASE.

I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years.  That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself.

It's that you didn't know what I was saying.  N/S is basic math underlying computations for weather.  So it is the argument we were having, and it is the authority.

And that's my thought process.

Regarding your bolded section above, re emission is always at a lower frequency.  All material have emission and spectral absorption patterns which have been carefully measured.

Re "educated contrarian", I have no clue what you are talking about.

Someone who does not profess to understand science of one sort or another should not be so very certain about it.  And you have stated that you have "actually believed in global warming for 20 years".

So for the last two decades in which the planet was not warming, you've believed it was?

Still in favor of Reddit banning open discussion of ideas?

I would like to point out that you completely failed to address what is the basic fallacy in the explanation of global warming.

Completely failed to address it.

That is because your reasoning is not based on logic.

You and Wilky are a walking text book of logical fallacies.

You both are just ranting lunatics until you can point out precisely what is wrong with the basic explanation behind global warming.

To further defend why I say what I say to 2 incompetent lunatics would make me to be a raving lunatic myself.

Goodday


PS one other thing.  I'm pretty sure you can find a place on reddit to say what you wish.   There is no reason people should have to read it, though.  I'm sure this goes beyond you, but goodluck.  I'm sure you'll find your voice over there.  Just try /r/asylum
.

[hdbuck]

Vostok Ice Core samples show Global temperatures & CO2 cycling long before Humans..





simple, neat, crystal clear..

[SgtMoth]

How dare you bring scientific facts to this discussion.  Great, dwma's going to start calling you names now.  Hes got nothing to debunk that. Ya right, he already proven to be full of shit!

[Wilikon]

GLOBAL WARMING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF BOKO HARAM


The kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian school girls, and the massacre of as many as 300 civilians in the town of Gamboru Ngala, by the militant al-Qaeda affiliated group, Boko Haram, has shocked the world.

But while condemnations have rightly been forthcoming from a whole range of senior figures from celebrities to government officials, less attention has been paid to the roots of the crisis.

Instability in Nigeria, however, has been growing steadily over the last decade – and one reason is climate change. In 2009, a UK Department for International Development (Dfid) study warned that climate change could contribute to increasing resource shortages in the country due to land scarcity from desertification, water shortages, and mounting crop failures.

A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmed a “basic causal mechanism” that “links climate change with violence in Nigeria.” The report concludes:

“…poor responses to climatic shifts create shortages of resources such as land and water. Shortages are followed by negative secondary impacts, such as more sickness, hunger, and joblessness. Poor responses to these, in turn, open the door to conflict.”

Unfortunately, a business-as-usual scenario sees Nigeria’s climate undergoing “growing shifts in temperature, rainfall, storms, and sea levels throughout the twenty-first century. Poor adaptive responses to these shifts could help fuel violent conflict in some areas of the country.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/09/behind-rise-nigeria-boko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion

[Schleicher]

Vostok Ice Core samples show Global temperatures & CO2 cycling long before Humans..
https://i.imgur.com/Evrymbk.jpg
simple, neat, crystal clear..

Nice graph.
There's only one thing missing:
Error bars

[tvbcof]

Vacuuming carbon from the atmosphere may be most realistic solution to climate change

Well, the esteemed scientists of the IPCC are now certifiably stupid.  (We already knew they were crazy.)

If someone ACTUALLY wanted to remove CO2 from the air you'd build a facility at the South Pole, where the air temps are such that chilling air another 20-30 degrees causes the Co2 to drop out as solid.

An idea I read about some time back was to develop nano-technology to the point where it could not only 'grab' CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also structurally arrange it into infrastructure.  So, for example, 'growing' a road made out of diamond (potentially literally) and thus with quite good wear characteristics.

One way or another, re-sequestering the carbon that has been liberated through human activity does seem to me to be an idea worth exploring, and particularly if that carbon is deemed with high probability to be causing a lot of problems.

Politically, my main concern about this is that the whole issue will be used as an excuse to justify continued military and political control over fossil fuel extraction and transfer corridors.  E.g., we (the U.S. and our minions) 'must' continue to occupy Afghanistan because we are saving the world by controlling the pipelines which pass through the region.

---

As for global climate disruption, for 30 years now it has seemed to me quite plausible that liberating millions of years worth of sequestered carbon in the span of a few centuries would be unlikely NOT to have some effects.

Another theory that seem sound is that entities who have capital at risk if there are changes to how various industrial efforts are undertaken are willing, able, and demonstrably engaged in propaganda efforts to minimize those risks.  Evidence of this abounds in my opinion.  The flip side is that there are people who are fundamentally against almost industrial development, and I've no doubt that they would seek to influence public sentiment around the issue to further their own goals as well.

[Spendulus]

Vacuuming carbon from the atmosphere may be most realistic solution to climate change

Well, the esteemed scientists of the IPCC are now certifiably stupid.  (We already knew they were crazy.)

If someone ACTUALLY wanted to remove CO2 from the air you'd build a facility at the South Pole, where the air temps are such that chilling air another 20-30 degrees causes the Co2 to drop out as solid.

An idea I read about some time back was to develop nano-technology to the point where it could not only 'grab' CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also structurally arrange it into infrastructure.  So, for example, 'growing' a road made out of diamond (potentially literally) and thus with quite good wear characteristics.

One way or another, re-sequestering the carbon that has been liberated through human activity does seem to me to be an idea worth exploring, and particularly if that carbon is deemed with high probability to be causing a lot of problems.

It is worth exploring, even though we may not have the technology yet to do it.  The immediate problem with this is that bad or terrible implementations get forced through political means.   Example, carbon sequest from coal power plants.  

What the problem is here is that the products of combustion is very stable molecule co2, and you have to put much energy back in to do anything with that molecule.  If you burned a fuel to get energy, then it is pointless to use energy to reconvert the co2.   There are a few exceptions which have to do with plausible solids with carbon coming directly out of the furnace.  But remember the molecule, CO2?  The O2 which was input to the furnace needs to go somewhere too....

This is why my simple idea of doing the job at the S Pole is the most energy efficient way to do the job.   In reality doing ANYTHING in Antarctica is extremely difficult or impossible. 

Another way to look at the problem is just re engineer grass and other natural plants; adding 1/10 of an inch of biomass to the areas on the planet where there is vegetation solves the entire problem.  Again, we don't quite know how to do this but it is a direction that would definitely work.

[Spendulus]

....
I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years.  That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself.

....
So for the last two decades in which the planet was not warming, you've believed it was?

I would like to point out that you completely failed to address what is the basic fallacy in the explanation of global warming.

Completely failed to address it.
That is because your reasoning is not based on logic.
You and Wilky are a walking text book of logical fallacies.
....

Just a side note you are talking to a guy that used to teach logic in college.
LOL...
So why don't you point out some of these logical fallacies?

I rather thought you might have exhibited one when you claimed you'd believed in global warming for the last 20 years during which it was not warming.  Perhaps you'd like to explain that?

[tvbcof]

...
What the problem is here is that the products of combustion is very stable molecule co2, and you have to put much energy back in to do anything with that molecule.  If you burned a fuel to get energy, then it is pointless to use energy to reconvert the co2.   There are a few exceptions which have to do with plausible solids with carbon coming directly out of the furnace.  But remember the molecule, CO2?  The O2 which was input to the furnace needs to go somewhere too....
...

Of course nanotech would need an energy source.  Solar comes to mind.  IIRC, the Krebs (Kerbs?) cycle is not very thermodynamicly efficient and less so than photovoltaics.  In a nanotech scenario the process would/could be done over a fairly broad area and arbitrarily long duration and in a location which had favorable solar flux.

Of course we are a long way from the technology (I think...sometimes such things are classified) but it is at the very least a kind of an interesting thought experiment.

 - edit: slight

[Spendulus]

...
What the problem is here is that the products of combustion is very stable molecule co2, and you have to put much energy back in to do anything with that molecule.  If you burned a fuel to get energy, then it is pointless to use energy to reconvert the co2.   There are a few exceptions which have to do with plausible solids with carbon coming directly out of the furnace.  But remember the molecule, CO2?  The O2 which was input to the furnace needs to go somewhere too....
...

Of course nanotech would need an energy source.  Solar comes to mind.  IIRC, the Krebs (Kerbs?) cycle is not very thermodynamicly efficient and less so than photovoltaics.  In a nanotech scenario the process would/could be done over a fairly broad area and arbitrarily long duration and in a location which had favorable solar flux.

Of course we are a long way from the technology (I think...sometimes such things are classified) but it is at the very least a kind of an interesting thought experiment.

 - edit: slight

Yes I understand but if you look at what I said about 1/10" additional biomass, this is basically a similar implementation.  Creating carbon compounds by taking co2 out of the air, putting them into dirt.  This is very efficient because (although it constitutes minor terraforming of terra) the entire green photosynthetic surface of the planet is used.

There are various versions of this concept.  Some make more sense and are more practical than others.  But IMHO these direct methods are smarter than things like windmills and solar power, where they do not compete economically with coal, natural gas or nuclear.  Some of the new nuclear reactors, such as those using thorium, also show great promise.

None of these actual, practical engineering or scientific concepts can be helped by alarmist hysteria about global warming, in fact they are all harmed by it.  Almost all of the government funding and/or penalties I have seen have had negative consequences, likely because the only things funded are those susceptible to graft and corruption.

[tvbcof]

Yes I understand but if you look at what I said about 1/10" additional biomass, this is basically a similar implementation.  Creating carbon compounds by taking co2 out of the air, putting them into dirt.  This is very efficient because (although it constitutes minor terraforming of terra) the entire green photosynthetic surface of the planet is used.
...

I like the idea of operating in the arctic regions where we are closer to the liquid phase of CO2 and just burying the shit somehow.  Nuclear enengy would seem to be logical to use for such an operation, though only the newer less risky designs.  I appreciate energy savings of leaving it in CO2 form of course.  If only we could get fusion going one of these days...

I'm dubious about the plant surface idea.  My suspicion is that if it were that easy then evolution would have more-or-less solved the problem.  Water supply would be an issue.  Getting some sort of green slime growing in the ocean seems like a more promising thing.  Lord knows what kind of management issues that might provoke however.  Also, most complex hydrocarbons created by plants are prone to getting eaten by animals and we get most of our problem right back again.

As always, these thought experiments are kind of entertaining.