Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[cp1]

Wow, are non-scientists still denying climate change?  I wonder what year it'll be when they learn what's up.  How long did it take until they accepted the world isn't flat?

[dwma]

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!

His post is interesting but a graph does not make a fact.  Do you seriously not understand that ?

I was actually going to thank him for his post, because even though it may be bullshit, it may not be.  Regardless it is a reference to evidence.  That is the first I have seen that in here.

No one BEGINS to argue why the basic science behind global warming is false.  NO ONE.   Why is it so hard ?

I like how a subreddit doesn't want to read the ravings of the lunatics, but the lunatics feel entitled to waste everyone's time.  You do little but prove the necessity of said rules.

As for the other loony tunes asking me how I've believed in global warming for 20 years.  The answer is that I've believed in the underlying causes and science.  Not everything has to be directly demonstrated to be believed.

The same loony who claims to be a professor (yea, and he was on gilligan's island ! ROFL)  wants to know logical fallacies... while everyone completely ignores my request for the fallacies in what we are discussing.... ie basic global warming.  

However, to start with in that post alone, you are appealing to your vague credentials in an unrelated argument.  "I am a professor therefore... "  that is a logical fallacy right there.  Appeal to authority.  I can pick apart the babbling nonsense from you guys all day, but really..  

It is better to just go about it like Reddit.  

[dwma]

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!

ROFL.  I just looked at that some more.  So the point is that we are at a peak temperature in a 100,000 year cycle.  I don't even see the relevance, except to show that yes the climate changes greatly in cycles that are literally off multiple orders of magnitude when compared to the effects of manmade global warming.

Honestly, I don't even know what the point of that graph is in relationship to what we are discussing.  I think it takes a special mentally ill brain full of weird biases that I can't understand because they're not based on logical thinking.   You are talking about changes occurring over 100,000 year cycles, when everyone else is talking about something on a 100 year scale.  The rate of change is not anywhere comparable except perhaps in direction... but it has to go in one of 2 directions, eh ?  

[Snorek]

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

[dwma]

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

If you can spare an hour for this, I would suggest following it up with reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and in particular the "Reception and Criticism" portion.

[hdbuck]

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





simple, neat, crystal clear..

Thought i might be posting this pic on every page of this thread.
THIS is scientific research. 

[Snorek]

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

If you can spare an hour for this, I would suggest following it up with reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and in particular the "Reception and Criticism" portion.

I read Reception and criticism and even if you take that under consideration there are still many other things that are presented in the movie, that gives you something to think about it. And Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence

[Schleicher]

Don't worry about global warming.
The earth is still kind of cool right now:

</irony>

[SgtMoth]

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

If you can spare an hour for this, I would suggest following it up with reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and in particular the "Reception and Criticism" portion.

wikipedia is one of the biggest piles of shit out there, Im not surprised your attracted to that site.  You can change the information like they do at the IPCC to meet your needs.  The purpose of the graph is to show you that humans arent responsible for spikes in temp and co2 because we werent here! What do you have to say about the IPCC getting caught faking data and colluding in emails.  If there is any kind of threat, why would they have to do this?  I bet you these scientist will gain from carbon taxes.

[Spendulus]

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





simple, neat, crystal clear..

Thought i might be posting this pic on every page of this thread.
THIS is scientific research. 

Yes it is.  And yes, it does show that the Earth was warm/warmer many times before the current events.  But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle.  You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".

Or something like that.  "This time it's sort of different."   "This time it's worse."

Against these arguments the Warmies have made the mistake of claiming "It's hotter than ever before" eg the so called Hockey Stick argument.  To do that they had to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age" - they had to get rid of obvious natural deviation.

Unfortunately, the last 20 years just have not warmed like they predicted....

[Spendulus]

.....how I've believed in global warming for 20 years.  The answer is that I've believed in the underlying causes and science.  Not everything has to be directly demonstrated to be believed.....

So even though for 20 years it has not warmed, you think it has?

[hdbuck]

But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle.  You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".

hmmokeee.. so what about scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such cycle?
im not denying there is pollution. but that comes with the package of progress and demographic's exponential growth i guess... ^^
and i'd be much more concerned about things you can actually see such as the nuclear disaster happening in Fukushima, trash islands or massive deforestation...
yet no one talks about em.. guess its just not profitable enough..



just fed up with those whining climate fanatics thats just cant come up with real scientific evidence other than that goofy claim about it being worse than evaaaa by looking at ice melting..
focus people, there is much much worse coming after us.. and if you are happy paying yet another (carbon) taxe... dayium you stupid little sheeps

[Wilikon]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63013

[Wilikon]

http://www.progressivestoday.com/left-wing-environmentalists-enlist-evangelical-scientist-as-ambassador-to-win-over-skeptical-christians/



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that make a Christian to become a polytheist if he starts believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming?

[dwma]

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

If you can spare an hour for this, I would suggest following it up with reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and in particular the "Reception and Criticism" portion.

wikipedia is one of the biggest piles of shit out there, Im not surprised your attracted to that site.  You can change the information like they do at the IPCC to meet your needs.  The purpose of the graph is to show you that humans arent responsible for spikes in temp and co2 because we werent here! What do you have to say about the IPCC getting caught faking data and colluding in emails.  If there is any kind of threat, why would they have to do this?  I bet you these scientist will gain from carbon taxes.

Utter loony rubbish.  Wikipedia has been repeatedly shown to be just as accurate as other sources of information.  You don't understand how the editors etc on Wikipedia work.  Seriously though, go google "wikipedia accuracy".  No 1 source is perfect, not sure why you would have an issue with wikipedia.  You sure as hell can't complain about reddit if you have issues with how wikipedia works.

The fact that there have been spikes in the past 100s of thousands of years, has nothing to do with the subject of manmade global warming which is far far far far more rapid.  Your point is nonsense.  One does not follow from the other.  I could explain with an analogy but the loony tunes around here still wouldn't get it.

I have no opinion on IPCC.  I remember something about this back when it happened, but it isn't particularly strong evidence that manmade global warming is no occurring.  If you say so tho, bub.

[dwma]

But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle.  You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".

hmmokeee.. so what about scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such cycle?
im not denying there is pollution. but that comes with the package of progress and demographic's exponential growth i guess... ^^
and i'd be much more concerned about things you can actually see such as the nuclear disaster happening in Fukushima, trash islands or massive deforestation...
yet no one talks about em.. guess its just not profitable enough..

Yea, we should all be worried about all the garbage laying about.

What would a "scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such a cycle" look like ?  Answer - You wouldn't ever find anything acceptable.  You want a level of proof that is not really possible in the domain.

You're already assuming it is a cycle, thereby showing your biases. Oh yea! because we know cycles happen every 100000 years, therefore this rapid climate change we see is not likely caused by man.  ROFL.

Next you'll tell me you're a professor !

I'll have to admit, I've learned a lot of ignorant thought processes in this thread, so even for me it has been quite educational.

[hdbuck]

But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle.  You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".

hmmokeee.. so what about scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such cycle?
im not denying there is pollution. but that comes with the package of progress and demographic's exponential growth i guess... ^^
and i'd be much more concerned about things you can actually see such as the nuclear disaster happening in Fukushima, trash islands or massive deforestation...
yet no one talks about em.. guess its just not profitable enough..

Yea, we should all be worried about all the garbage laying about.

What would a "scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such a cycle" look like ?  Answer - You wouldn't ever find anything acceptable.  You want a level of proof that is not really possible in the domain.

You're already assuming it is a cycle, thereby showing your biases. Oh yea! because we know cycles happen every 100000 years, therefore this rapid climate change we see is not likely caused by man. ROFL.

Next you'll tell me you're a professor !

I'll have to admit, I've learned a lot of ignorant thought processes in this thread, so even for me it has been quite educational.

what rapid climate change? ice melting? so you are assuming it never melted before? At what rate is it considered to be rapid vs slow? how do you link it to human CO2 rejections?

like i said, people should better start worrying about real short term environmental threats such as Fukushima or garbage disposal. not some loonie thesis that is unprovable. focus on facts first plz.

edit: plus, if anything changing the climate.. it would be chemtrails.. and its called geoengineering..

[dwma]

what rapid climate change? ice melting? so you are assuming it never melted before? At what rate is it considered to be rapid vs slow? how do you link it to human CO2 rejections?

like i said, people should better start worrying about real short term environmental threats such as Fukushima or garbage disposal. not some loonie thesis that is unprovable. focus on facts first plz.

edit: plus, if anything changing the climate.. it would be chemtrails.. and its called geoengineering..

Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data.  Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning.

Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades.  The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence.

If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you.

[hdbuck]

Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data.

so at least there is some actual material to start studying before interpreting.

Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning.

maybe one day you'll get it, its called logic and scientific rigor.

Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades.

such assertion, much argument

The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence.

so it never melted that way before?

If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you.

my posts are still worth thousands of yours and you should definitely starts worrying about your s**t.

[dwma]

Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data.

so at least there is some actual material to start studying before interpreting.

Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning.

maybe one day you'll get it, its called logic and scientific rigor.

Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades.

such assertion, much argument

The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence.

so it never melted that way before?

If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you.

my posts are still worth thousands of yours and you should definitely starts worrying about your s**t.

So I ask again, with all your knowledge of scientific rigor and logic, what would actually be "proof" that global warming is caused by man?

No matter what "proof" is presented it will be along the same lines as evolution.  The lunatic fringe will consistently pick it apart and find the weakest of arguments to repeat ad nauseum to "prove" it isn't true.  Not everything in science can be "proved" in the traditional sense.

Your holding up a graph that shows climate cycles of 100k years is a prime example.  It really has nothing to do with manmade global warming.

For instance if a flock of birds dies.  I say I suspect it is the poison lake that they're all sitting by dead.  You would find evidence of birds dying off elsewhere as proof that it has happened before and therefore my theory is invalid.  This is the type of logic you are working with.

Fortunately people who don't post to make .01 a post use logic correctly and in a way that advances human thought.