Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

I would like to welcome any trolls paid to participate in this thread. You do not need to bring any facts as you get paid no matter what.

To justify your salary from al gore here are a couple of ready-to-eat-TV-dinner like phrases you could use to prove your point. Just copy paste them. No need to read them:



Are you getting your facts from Fox News? (that one is a classic! Please use this as often as possible!)


“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!


Thank you and enjoy your stay (you can even use that too!)

Rejoice!  The Cults of Death are nigh!

[1715359451]

1715359451

[1715359451]

1715359451

[1715359451]

1715359451

[1715359451]

1715359451

[1715359451]

1715359451

[Spendulus]

.....
As recently as the middle of this thread I was much more on the 'warmist' side.  You could see in my initial post here some time ago that I posited that corporate influence might have some effect on the science, and that whatever the case, the same old spam from the 'denier' side could get tedious and justify the ban.  What I did NOT do was to really take a side simply because I had not gotten around to studying the issue.  Since then I have, and the hypothesis that 'climate change' is part of a larger program of theft by a certain class of powerful people has remarkable explanatory power across a broad range of observations.

Most of my friends, family, and co-workers are greenies, and some of them fairly hard-core about it.  I know they are neither bad nor stupid people.  I think they've just been had.  Even the DEQ bitch who has been hassling me

Just curious, what is the DEQ which you mention?

[Spendulus]

.....

If this is your narrative, then your narrative sucks. 

Big conservative oil and gas money = pay tons of money for people not respected in the community to lie about facts and say what you want, and then accuse the other side of taking money and lying. 

BTW, you need not bother to reply.  Spending so much time just addressing just the mere fallacies in your openings is boring me now.  I am going to unwatch this thread.   

Yeah, give up while you are ahead.

By the way, you know nothing about "big oil and gas".  Zero.

As you describe it it is a very evil thing.  However, Saudi oil supports US greenie environmental operations, such as anti-fracking on US soil.  Saudi and other Middle East interests have a strategy to keep the US dependent on foreign oil.

Hey, support big spending on windmills and solar, instead of real energy like fracking and nuclear....keep the US dependent on Middle East oil.

Suckers...

[Spendulus]

I would like to welcome any trolls paid to participate in this thread. You do not need to bring any facts as you get paid no matter what.

To justify your salary from al gore here are a couple of ready-to-eat-TV-dinner like phrases you could use to prove your point. Just copy paste them. No need to read them:

I also welcome true believers and their underlings, the running dogs of deceit dragging in little baskets behind them, the paid trolls (and those who were supposed to be paid but never got their money).

We can even tell you what you should/will/are going to say before you say it.

[tvbcof]

...
Again, I am just going look at your opening and again assume that everything else that follows is formed with an equally flawed logic. 

What rigor you have their Prof!  You clearly did look at some of the stuff you clipped, and one presumes that you didn't have much of an answer.

For enjoyment I'll tell you a little bit more about lefties like myself.  I've a feeling that you are going to be running into a lot more of my type in the coming years so this might help you tune your message.

I've got no use for the Koch brothers types.  Philosophically, I believe that resources which are basically windfall at this point (found without sufficient property claim) should belong to the people of the country.  This is not 'pinko' as much as it is common sense.  Yes, we should pay private enterprise for their services in exploiting the resources, but right now I think that they are getting to much of a sweet deal through political machinations a lot of the time.

2nd, I think there is some validity to the left wing argument that many costs (we can reduce most examples to the term 'risk') are socialized while private interests privatize the profits, and I think it is wrong.  OTOH, I don't think that we on the left give enough credit to the quality-of-life enhancements that come along with some of these industrial activities.

I grew up amongst people who were active in environmental movement.  In the back shed there was a sign carried to protest a now decommissioned nuclear power plant which said 'I want a healthy baby.'  Back in those days the powers that be were trying to build nukes on fault zones, the rivers actually were genuinely polluted, and they were spraying agent orange on the place I now live (probably since the chemical companies were geared up to make it but it was to nasty to even spray on the Vietnamese who we were at war with.)  As humans, greenies then are about the same as greenies now, but back in the day they had something worthwhile to do.  Now many, and probably most, of the problems have been solved (thanks to their activities in large part) so they are in a panic and making up new shit out of whole cloth.

Even before I was 'radicalized' by being extorted by the DEQ personally, I was already becoming quite suspicious of the means of the environmental movement.  I have a nose for scams, and it is hard to ignore the odor emanating from that sector.  The greenies are on the cusp of destroying probably the most successful state forests in the nation near me, and they did it with the endangered species act which is by this time a completely transparent charade.

You seem hung up on 'money', and I think you are getting tunnel vision about it.  I can assure you that there are plenty of people who consider it a minor side-issue and a tool to lever others since they either have plenty of it already or have some other priorities.  'Control' is much more a factor than 'money', and if one has control they can always get as much money as they want.  I think that the greenies would do well to consider some of the people who were involved in constructing the environment which they inhabit.

 - M. Strong:  Key in coining the term 'sustainability'.  Made millions in oil and bought a large American aquifer which old-school enviros wrested from his hands.  Stepped down from his UN post after the 'oil for food' investigation turned up a sizable check with his name on it.  Now resides in Beijing.

 - Ken Lay:  Member of the inaugural 'presidents council on sustainability' of B. Clinton.  GHW Bush signed on at Rio, but didn't do much.  GHW bought his ranch in Paraguay rather than in the U.S. for some reason, and so did GW.

 - Hank Paulson:  GW's treasury secretary notable for threatening congress with marshal law if the bailout didn't pass.  Has turned into a nice fella and has just set up a 'think tank' to 'fund research and advocate for more aggressive environmental action.'

[Wilikon]

.....

If this is your narrative, then your narrative sucks. 

Big conservative oil and gas money = pay tons of money for people not respected in the community to lie about facts and say what you want, and then accuse the other side of taking money and lying. 

BTW, you need not bother to reply.  Spending so much time just addressing just the mere fallacies in your openings is boring me now.  I am going to unwatch this thread.   

Yeah, give up while you are ahead.

By the way, you know nothing about "big oil and gas".  Zero.

As you describe it it is a very evil thing.  However, Saudi oil supports US greenie environmental operations, such as anti-fracking on US soil.  Saudi and other Middle East interests have a strategy to keep the US dependent on foreign oil.

Hey, support big spending on windmills and solar, instead of real energy like fracking and nuclear....keep the US dependent on Middle East oil.

Suckers...

For those who do not know or want people to stay ignorant...



Matt Damon’s Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

A new film starring Matt Damon presents American oil and natural gas producers as money-grubbing villains purportedly poisoning rural American towns. It is therefore of particular note that it is financed in part by the royal family of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.

The creators of Promised Land have gone to absurd lengths to vilify oil and gas companies, as Scribe’s Michael Sandoval noted Wednesday. Since recent events have demonstrated the relative environmental soundness of hydraulic fracturing – a technique for extracting oil and gas from shale formations – Promised Land’s script has been altered to make doom-saying environmentalists the tools of oil companies attempting to discredit legitimate “fracking” concerns.

While left-leaning Hollywood often targets supposed environmental evildoers, Promised Land was also produced “in association with” Image Media Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media, according to the preview’s list of credits. A spokesperson with DDA Public Relations, which runs PR for Participant Media, the company that developed the film fund backing Promised Land, confirmed that AD Media is a financier. The company is wholly owned by the government of the UAE.


http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/

[tvbcof]

.....
...
Even the DEQ bitch who has been hassling me

Just curious, what is the DEQ which you mention?

Oregon Dept of Environmental Quality.

A minority of states have such a department with teeth, and the federal level EPA offloads work to them if they can be trusted (...to fuck over the state's citizens even worse than would the feds.)

Oregon is one of those states with a demographic which is favorable toward environmental excesses.  A bulk of the population lives in urban areas around Portland and Eugene, and this overpowering voting block gets a lot of what they want.  Pump a little Prozac into indoctrinated condo-dwellers and all kinds of unpleasant shit flows down-hill.

I really think that Oregon has more than it's share of active free-thinking individuals.  This from various observations of political history and meeting fellow Oregonians in my various points of living away from the state.  Perhaps it's the low fluoride levels...and at this point I'm only half-joking about it given the latest studies on the effects of this element on the human brain.  The trouble is that a 'free thinker' is free to think in a variety of directions, and propaganda is a powerful directing force.  Sadly, the metro areas of Oregon are one of the main centers of 'sustainability'.  For now at least.

[Wilikon]

.....
...
Even the DEQ bitch who has been hassling me

Just curious, what is the DEQ which you mention?

Oregon Dept of Environmental Quality.

A minority of states have such a department with teeth, and the federal level EPA offloads work to them if they can be trusted (...to fuck over the state's citizens even worse than would the feds.)

Oregon is one of those states with a demographic which is favorable toward environmental excesses.  A bulk of the population lives in urban areas around Portland and Eugene, and this overpowering voting block gets a lot of what they want.  Pump a little Prozac into indoctrinated condo-dwellers and all kinds of unpleasant shit flows down-hill.

I really think that Oregon has more than it's share of active free-thinking individuals.  This from various observations of political history and meeting fellow Oregonians in my various points of living away from the state.  Perhaps it's the low fluoride levels...and at this point I'm only half-joking about it given the latest studies on the effects of this element on the human brain.  The trouble is that a 'free thinker' is free to think in a variety of directions, and propaganda is a powerful directing force.  Sadly, the metro areas of Oregon are one of the main centers of 'sustainability'.  For now at least.

The trouble is that a 'free thinker' is free to think in a variety of directions, and propaganda is a powerful directing force.

That is why I love bitcoin, or rather its concept that brings so many people from so many different geographical and political horizons

(free advertising for bitcoin over and out )

[Spendulus]

.....

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

I guess our new acquaintance Salzman has fled, but just wanted to note that is proof of "all reasonable scientists" above bolded....

...is by his error a list of over 1350 published peer review articles supporting global warming skepticism....

LOL...

BUT SINCE Salzman uses PopularTechnology.net as his reference, let us use HIS PREFERRED SOURCE to look at the 97% claim.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

They went and talked to the scientists who were alleged to "support the hypothesis."

What did they find?

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

    Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

    Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

    What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

    Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.

Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,

    Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

    I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

    ...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"

For those who do not know these names Tol, Shaviv, Idso, Scaffeta (and many others) these are stand up guys.

[Wilikon]

.....

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

I guess our new acquaintance Salzman has fled, but just wanted to note that is proof of "all reasonable scientists" above bolded....

...is by his error a list of over 1350 published peer review articles supporting global warming skepticism....

LOL...

  . That is really amazing for a $10 000 per article superior brain writer 

[Wilikon]

.... I am still laughing 

[Come-In-Behind]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

[Wilikon]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I agree, but YOU should participate more often 

[Come-In-Behind]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I agree, but YOU should participate more often 

Just reading the nonsense spewed by yourself is giving me a headache...

[Spendulus]

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I apologize, but the faithful, devout True Believers and their minions just keep coming.

I know I'm doing my part.  Eating lots of meat from tasty animals.

http://www.ooze.com/pweeta/

[hdbuck]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

Hey im all about human pollution.  

The fact is (anthropologic) global warming has been over promoted in comparaison to what really harm our planet.
Its just an excuse to tax us even more, enslave the poor countries whilst not allowing them to develop with basic coal plants (Kyoto protocol my balls!), and deliberately divert our focus from the real and immediate problems...

For which I nominate fukushima, massive deforestation, oil slicks, heavy particles (not fuckin CO2!), geoingeneering (chem-fuckin-trails), garbage islands and so forth..



   

   

   



capish?





edit: oh and just for the records, what is the common denominator of all these real problems - on which not even, say, 1 / 1 000 000^th (conservatively) of the whole global warming propaganda budget is spent on??

they cant TAX shit on them.

[Wilikon]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I agree, but YOU should participate more often 

Just reading the nonsense spewed by yourself is giving me a headache...

That headache could be caused by too much C02 in the air where you live... 

[Wilikon]

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

Hey im all about human pollution.  

The fact is (anthropologic) global warming has been over promoted in comparaison to what really harm our planet.
Its just an excuse to tax us even more, enslave the poor countries whilst not allowing them to develop with basic coal plants (Kyoto protocol my balls!), and deliberately divert our focus from the real and immediate problems...

For which I nominate fukushima, deforestation, oil slicks, heavy particles (not fuckin CO2!), geoingeneering (chem-fuckin-trails), garbage islands and so forth..



   

   

   



capish?





edit: oh and just for the records, what is the common denominator of all these real problems - on which not even, say, 1 / 1 000 000^th (conservatively) of the whole global warming propaganda budget is spent on??

they cant tax shit on them.

hum... That plastic island could be a great candidate for that bitcoin island some here were into to financing a while back.

[BitDreams]

It is good to see the debate come around to pollution instead of global warming.

The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.

Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.

If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.

[Wilikon]

It is good to see the debate come around to pollution instead of global warming.

The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.

Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.

If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.

The main topic of the discussion here is:

Is it true that science is settled and the cause of global warming is 100% man made, nothing else?


No one here is for pollution. Pollution is bad. That plastic bag stuck in my tree across my window for years is proof enough, if I knew the world only through that view. We can manage pollution made from our industrial societies as we created it. We decided pushing for a carbon tax was a priority instead, because the science was settled by 97% of scientists...



This is what my thread is about. Of course people a free to create another thread