Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

meh, photosynthesis is in the center of your stupid global warming problem. it is indeed a problem, just not the one you think.
You see, CO2 is the natural gaz vital for any vegetal to thrive (despite massive human deforestation) and it is such process that also allows us human to breath O2.
Hence, i want more CO2 as you blindly suggested "that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing".

now go away, its stupid people like you that are a threat to earth and mankind.

Well... I can't tell him/her to go away as this thread needs to never ban anyone, unlike the one on REDDIT. SHE/HE would ban us for sure, proof by calling anyone who does not agree with his/her superior brain stupid



To the contrary I say "Welcome to my little thread my dear Cum-In-Behind!"

After reading hdbuck's paragraph, if you can call it that.. and Wikkon supporting him. I'm done here, it's just going to be a waste of time debating with someone(s) who has the intelligence of a 3 year old, and even saying that is an insult to the smart 3 year olds out there, my apologies to them.

[hdbuck]

^Aaand there it is.. Egomaniac ad hominem attacks.

[SgtMoth]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

meh, photosynthesis is in the center of your stupid global warming problem. it is indeed a problem, just not the one you think.
You see, CO2 is the natural gaz vital for any vegetal to thrive (despite massive human deforestation) and it is such process that also allows us human to breath O2.
Hence, i want more CO2 as you blindly suggested "that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing".

now go away, its stupid people like you that are a threat to earth and mankind.

Well... I can't tell him/her to go away as this thread needs to never ban anyone, unlike the one on REDDIT. SHE/HE would ban us for sure, proof by calling anyone who does not agree with his/her superior brain stupid



To the contrary I say "Welcome to my little thread my dear Cum-In-Behind!"

After reading hdbuck's paragraph, if you can call it that.. and Wikkon supporting him. I'm done here, it's just going to be a waste of time debating with someone(s) who has the intelligence of a 3 year old, and even saying that is an insult to the smart 3 year olds out there, my apologies to them.

looks like you insulted him first...why do you have to bring insults into the debate?

[Wilikon]

GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY MADE BY BLOCKNET AND EQX DEV TO GET MORE BITCOINS

 IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME ASK SCIENTISTS. LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS SAID GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH BELIEVE THAT. IT'S A SCAM MADE BY EQX & BLOCKNET DEV!!!!!

All that red has triple the carbon footprint of this thread... 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Wilikon]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

lol such troll

ever heard of photosynthesis?

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities."

What exactly does Photosynthesis have do with this...We're talking about mankind's contribution to the problem of global warming...

Why are you so stupid?

meh, photosynthesis is in the center of your stupid global warming problem. it is indeed a problem, just not the one you think.
You see, CO2 is the natural gaz vital for any vegetal to thrive (despite massive human deforestation) and it is such process that also allows us human to breath O2.
Hence, i want more CO2 as you blindly suggested "that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing".

now go away, its stupid people like you that are a threat to earth and mankind.

Well... I can't tell him/her to go away as this thread needs to never ban anyone, unlike the one on REDDIT. SHE/HE would ban us for sure, proof by calling anyone who does not agree with his/her superior brain stupid



To the contrary I say "Welcome to my little thread my dear Cum-In-Behind!"

After reading hdbuck's paragraph, if you can call it that.. and Wikkon supporting him. I'm done here, it's just going to be a waste of time debating with someone(s) who has the intelligence of a 3 year old, and even saying that is an insult to the smart 3 year olds out there, my apologies to them.

Drop by anytime. Always welcome 

[Wilikon]

Maryland County To Churches: Preach Global Warming Propaganda To Your Parishioners And Get A Tax Break…


Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley made national news last year when he fought to pass and signed a tax bill that levied a tax on Marylanders, businesses and churches for the amount of “impervious surface” they have on their property.

Roofs, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots qualify for the “rainwater remediation fee” to “protect the Chesapeake Bay.”

Though the O’Malley administration calls it a “fee,” it is commonly called the “rain tax” throughout the state. It is wildly unpopular and the promise to fight to repeal the tax was a large factor in Maryland electing Republican Larry Hogan governor this month.

Now Prince George’s Country is offering a way for churches to avoid paying the tax, which is estimated to be an average of $744 per year for them — preach “green” to their parishioners.

So far 30 pastors have agreed to begin “‘green’ ministries to maintain the improvements at their churches, and to preach environmentally focused sermons to educate their congregations” to avoid being hit with the tax, The Washington Post reports.

Prince George’s County’s Department of Environment director Adam Ortiz told WBAL Radio churches “don’t have to preach, per se,” that they could avoid the tax if they “provide educational programs to teach them (parishioners) about how to be more sustainable. And to help them engage in grant programs and other way that they can control the runoff from their property.”

Asked about the concern of government telling churches what to preach to their members, Ortiz said he had no concern over that. “It’s an opt-in. It’s up to them, if they want to help participate and help clean up the bay, they can opt-in to this program and we can all work together to clean up the bay.”

“All of us are part of the problem,” Ortiz said, “and we can also be part of the solution.”

Between 30 and 40 additional churches have filed applications to avoid the tax and participate in the program, according to Ortiz. “It’s completely voluntary,” he said, “and paying this fee is state law.”

Asked if businesses and private property owners could avail themselves of this program to avoid paying the tax, Ortiz said, “For businesses and private property owners the most important thing is the help control the pollution (rain water), keep it from going into the storm drain, cuz that goes directly into the rivers. So we have a series of grant programs that we’re happy to work with private owners on.”

Ortiz said those programs, particularly for businesses, do not involve talking to employees like churches are required to talk to congregants.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/19/maryland-county-to-churches-preach-environmentalism-and-get-a-tax-break/



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really surprising as religious teachings and global warming are both based on faith...

[kingscrown]

withotu humans doing what we are doing.. we would live in ICE age now imo.

[tvbcof]

Maryland County To Churches: Preach Global Warming Propaganda To Your Parishioners And Get A Tax Break…
...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/19/maryland-county-to-churches-preach-environmentalism-and-get-a-tax-break/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really surprising as religious teachings and global warming are both based on faith...

Sweet Jesus!

I am and always have been staunchly in favor of the separation of Church and State, but as much as anything it's to protect the church.  I adopted that possition when I heard some very bright church leader state it and explain his reasoning.

I noticed that the Bhai' Faith has as one of their stated goals 'Support of Agenda 21'.  In fact when I read that I was still unsure if it was some totally off-the-wall Alex Jones thing.  That piqued my interest in Agenda 21 enough to look into it a bit.  Shortly after that I got body-slammed (totally extorted) by my state's DEQ which really made me dive into the subject and I actually read the whole document.

(I was researching the Bahai' Faith since they are thick around Newtown CT and seem to pop up all over the Sandy Hook event.)

Recently I notice that the Episcopalians also embrace Agenda 21.  I have some relatives who are of that faith and they are exactly the kind of people I could see being into that sort of thing.  Utterly no evil intent as individuals, just prone to the brand of marketing which the U.N. settled on in order to promote the program.  I think I saw this news about the Episcopalians on democratsagainstunagenda21.com

[majakn]

GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY!!!!

[Spendulus]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong; ever hear of light pollution in cities? Yea, well the same goes for CO2 pollution http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Partly true, Water is also widely used. Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

[hdbuck]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

[hdbuck]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

i think we are on earth here.. at least i am

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

i think we are on earth here.. at least i am

You made this comment, " lmfao isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too? ", which obviously meant that you belive Venus being closer to the Sun is what makes is so hot, and then I proved you wrong in stating that Venu's being closer to the Sun isn't the primary reason for it being so hot, since it's hotter than Mercury, which is the closest planet to the sun.

Again, go back to school.

[Spendulus]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

You truly have no idea what you are talking about.  Upper atmosphere cloud layers of Venus are sulfer dioxide.  All that passes through them is long frequency IR (heat).

Your other 2 points have similar errors.

[Come-In-Behind]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

You truly have no idea what you are talking about.  Upper atmosphere cloud layers of Venus are sulfer dioxide.  All that passes through them is long frequency IR (heat).

Your other 2 points have similar errors.

What's the main thing that differentiates Venus from Earth?

Now I know why you guys were banned from reddit's science forum, dumbest of the bunch eh...

[hdbuck]

I have a very, very hard time believing the OP is a scientist or meteorologist. If he was, he'd know that our oxygen supply is slowly, but surely decreasing in the atmosphere(which while natural is worrying(, while other gases continue to increase such as carbon dioxide. He'd know that our atmosphere protects us from most of the sun's rays, and without such protection, Earth would be inhabitable and would resemble it's sister, Venus(Which has temperatures regularly in the high hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit), and finally, he would know that humanity's use of things such as cars, nuclear plants, factories, basically any type of machine that doesn't run solely on electricity, is largely contributing to the degradation of our atmosphere.

Point in case? OP is an idiot and a liar about being a scientist.

Your conclusions are wrong because you have your premises, and your facts wrong.

1.  O2 supply going down is irrelevant.
2.  Dynamics of atmosphere and temperature of Venus is completely different than Earth.
3.  Machines that don't run solely on electricity are degrading our atmosphere?  Who sez?

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

1) Not irrelevant, ever thought that the pollution coming from us may speed up that process?
2) Venus's atmosphere is largely composed of Carbon Dioxide, a gas in which we are exceedingly good at polluting our world with, hence cars, factories, and the like, and which leads to increased global warming.
3) If they don't run on electricity, then they must run on something else right? Water is out of the equation, so that leaves gasoline...

1) No, pollution from man does not change the O2 concenteration.  This is a ridiculous assertion.  CO2 is a low energy state molecule, O2 fairly high.  O2 dynamically engages in many, many chemical reactions in both directions.
2) Venus's atmosphere characteristics are largely created by the sulfer dioxide cloud cover in the upper stratosphere of the planet.
3)  Most electricity is the product of burning fossil fuels.  You seem to think that can be ignored and that "electricity is good and carbon fuels are bad."

1) Entirely wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
2) It's because Venus lacks a magnetic field, and it can't shield itself from brute force of the sun's harmful rays
3) Electricity is most often generated at a power station by electromechanical generators, primarily driven by heat engines fueled by chemical combustion or nuclear fission but also by other means such as the kinetic energy of flowing water and wind. Other energy sources include solar photovoltaics and geothermal power.

I suggest you go study more on the matter at hand.

lmfao

isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too?

Go to school kid. Mercury is closest to the sun, yet not as hot as Venus.

i think we are on earth here.. at least i am

You made this comment, " lmfao isnt venus slightly closer to the sun too? ", which obviously meant that you belive Venus being closer to the Sun is what makes is so hot, and then I proved you wrong in stating that Venu's being closer to the Sun isn't the primary reason for it being so hot, since it's hotter than Mercury, which is the closest planet to the sun.

Again, go back to school.

... in comparaison to earth you dumb fuck. you come here spreading BS about global warming (on earth right??!) - and besides your pompous egomaniac ad hominem attacks.
seems you pricks ran out of arguments in relation to earth and now you talk about venus, which you also clearly fail to understand fully.
Next time you'd be talking about pluto i guess? bitch?

edit: mehh forget it plz dont even bother responding. *ignored

[Saltzman Alaric]

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

It is perfectly fine that Reddit bans science deniers.  It is a private organization.  It is kind of like Fox News banning intelligent and honest people from being guests on their shows.  Private companies can do what they want. 

[Saltzman Alaric]

And how about those Republicans?  Just today they decided to pass a bill so that when considering official government policy that “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.” Way to deny those scientist that spend their whole lives publishing in peer reviewed journals. American conservatives are just stupid.  This kind of ridiculousness doesn't happen anywhere else in the world.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

Also, as far as global warming goes, 97% of all journal articles that are peer reviewed agree that there is indeed global warming.

The debate in these journals is not weather the Earth is warming, all reasonable scientist believe that.  The debate is whether it is fast or slow and human caused or nature caused.  http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html