Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

Yep. Exactly what I wrote, EXCEPT for Sarah Palin and Condoleezza Rice in the choir. They are the polar opposite of all the other people presented here (bear not included) 

I would caution against taking on faith the principle that people of one political persuasion go one way on climate change and those of another go the other.  Whether 'climate change' is in total a scam or not, I am quite confident to say that it is being used as a lever which provides spiritually motivated armies for some and makes a huge amount of money through various machinations for many more.

Climate change has evolved into a very powerful political tool, and we find politicians who are competent and savvy making use of it in a variety of ways.  It's less of a progressive/reactionary issue than it is a slimeball/non-slimeball issue.  And all political stripes have their contingent of slimeballs.  I don't know Palin's and Rice's involvement but it would surprise me not at all of they were not making hay off the thing.

I think I've called attention to Hank Paulson's new global warming think-tank on this thread already.  When I was out digging a ditch and daydreaming yesterday I thought of this analogy:

  "The stealthy green-stripped red leopard made the kill and now the hyaenas and vultures are gathering around to tear at the carcass."

I am not against the idea that Palin or Rice may profit from fighting the idea of AGW. You can make money selling books preaching against AGW. I just do not picture Palin and Rice in the same boat as pelosi and gore, unless they were trolling that church...

That's all the deeper analyzing I'll do on that flyer 

[Spendulus]

Yep. Exactly what I wrote, EXCEPT for Sarah Palin and Condoleezza Rice in the choir. They are the polar opposite of all the other people presented here (bear not included) 

I would caution against taking on faith the principle that people of one political persuasion go one way on climate change and those of another go the other.  Whether 'climate change' is in total a scam or not, I am quite confident to say that it is being used as a lever which provides spiritually motivated armies for some and makes a huge amount of money through various machinations for many more.

Climate change has evolved into a very powerful political tool, and we find politicians who are competent and savvy making use of it in a variety of ways.  It's less of a progressive/reactionary issue than it is a slimeball/non-slimeball issue.  And all political stripes have their contingent of slimeballs.  I don't know Palin's and Rice's involvement but it would surprise me not at all of they were not making hay off the thing.

I think I've called attention to Hank Paulson's new global warming think-tank on this thread already.  When I was out digging a ditch and daydreaming yesterday I thought of this analogy:

  "The stealthy green-stripped red leopard made the kill and now the hyaenas and vultures are gathering around to tear at the carcass."

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska?

[tvbcof]

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska? 

Digging down into the political philosophies here, it is kind of interesting to note the generally recognized associations regarding 'change' between 'conservative, reactionary, etc' on one hand and 'liberal, progressive, etc' on the other.  Typically the former tends to be resistant to change while the latter more prone to embraces it.

When it comes to 'climate change' things are generally the reverse.  Of course there are many exceptions to the mapping between political bents and stance on climate change, but I think it is still safe to say that climate change gets more traction on the Left which is the playground of the more liberal progressive types.

I personally classify myself as a 'progressive' and I don't really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility of human induced changes.  Part of this is because I am kind of a realist, and part of it is that I recognize that environmental changes are a reality and would be with or without humans.  Change tends to not be a 'good' or 'bad' thing to me.  Mostly just interesting.  I do strongly believe that we should do our best to understand change in a realistic way and at times take logical actions, but I am prone to be negative about fundamentalism in almost any setting.  Fundamentalism with respect to ecology is especially off-putting since this should be the stomping ground of science and science is dear to me.

I'm at the point in my research where I'm pretty confident to say that 'climate science' is being used as a handy tool by those with broader social goals.  Many of these people are 'progressives' and true to form do want change on certain political fronts.  It is mostly an accident of fate that the fight against 'change' on the climate front happens to be of the most utility to these people at the moment.  Environmentalism is a sideshow.  That is not to say that most people involved in the involved in the 'crusade' don't care about the issues.  Most of them do care deeply about the environment (as framed by their sacred texts) and are not even aware of their status as tools in a larger project.  Many others are dimly aware of this reality but more or less favorable to the political changes which they think (probably incorrectly) that they are working towards.

[Spendulus]

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska?  

Digging down into the political philosophies here, it is kind of interesting to note the generally recognized associations regarding 'change' between 'conservative, reactionary, etc' on one hand and 'liberal, progressive, etc' on the other.  Typically the former tends to be resistant to change while the latter more prone to embraces it.

When it comes to 'climate change' things are generally the reverse.  Of course there are many exceptions to the mapping between political bents and stance on climate change, but I think it is still safe to say that climate change gets more traction on the Left which is the playground of the more liberal progressive types.

I personally classify myself as a 'progressive' and I don't really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility of human induced changes.  Part of this is because I am kind of a realist, and part of it is that I recognize that environmental changes are a reality and would be with or without humans.  Change tends to not be a 'good' or 'bad' thing to me.  Mostly just interesting.  I do strongly believe that we should do our best to understand change in a realistic way and at times take logical actions, but I am prone to be negative about fundamentalism in almost any setting.  Fundamentalism with respect to ecology is especially off-putting since this should be the stomping ground of science and science is dear to me.

I'm at the point in my research where I'm pretty confident to say that 'climate science' is being used as a handy tool by those with broader social goals.  Many of these people are 'progressives' and true to form do want change on certain political fronts.  It is mostly an accident of fate that the fight against 'change' on the climate front happens to be of the most utility to these people at the moment.  Environmentalism is a sideshow.  That is not to say that most people involved in the involved in the 'crusade' don't care about the issues.  Most of them do care deeply about the environment (as framed by their sacred texts) and are not even aware of their status as tools in a larger project.  Many others are dimly aware of this reality but more or less favorable to the political changes which they think (probably incorrectly) that they are working towards.

I reached virtually identical conclusions in 2006.  Come to think of it, what caused me to examine the matter in depth was the extremely strong beliefs that "Global Warmers" had.  To anyone trained in the examination of theories and hypotheses, and the strong criticality which underlies scientific understanding, this was pretty suspect.

[Wilikon]

Yep. Exactly what I wrote, EXCEPT for Sarah Palin and Condoleezza Rice in the choir. They are the polar opposite of all the other people presented here (bear not included) 

I would caution against taking on faith the principle that people of one political persuasion go one way on climate change and those of another go the other.  Whether 'climate change' is in total a scam or not, I am quite confident to say that it is being used as a lever which provides spiritually motivated armies for some and makes a huge amount of money through various machinations for many more.

Climate change has evolved into a very powerful political tool, and we find politicians who are competent and savvy making use of it in a variety of ways.  It's less of a progressive/reactionary issue than it is a slimeball/non-slimeball issue.  And all political stripes have their contingent of slimeballs.  I don't know Palin's and Rice's involvement but it would surprise me not at all of they were not making hay off the thing.

I think I've called attention to Hank Paulson's new global warming think-tank on this thread already.  When I was out digging a ditch and daydreaming yesterday I thought of this analogy:

  "The stealthy green-stripped red leopard made the kill and now the hyaenas and vultures are gathering around to tear at the carcass."

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska?

Yes. Canada. Northern Scandinavia. Siberia, etc...

[Wilikon]

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska? 

Digging down into the political philosophies here, it is kind of interesting to note the generally recognized associations regarding 'change' between 'conservative, reactionary, etc' on one hand and 'liberal, progressive, etc' on the other.  Typically the former tends to be resistant to change while the latter more prone to embraces it.

When it comes to 'climate change' things are generally the reverse.  Of course there are many exceptions to the mapping between political bents and stance on climate change, but I think it is still safe to say that climate change gets more traction on the Left which is the playground of the more liberal progressive types.

I personally classify myself as a 'progressive' and I don't really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility of human induced changes.  Part of this is because I am kind of a realist, and part of it is that I recognize that environmental changes are a reality and would be with or without humans.  Change tends to not be a 'good' or 'bad' thing to me.  Mostly just interesting.  I do strongly believe that we should do our best to understand change in a realistic way and at times take logical actions, but I am prone to be negative about fundamentalism in almost any setting.  Fundamentalism with respect to ecology is especially off-putting since this should be the stomping ground of science and science is dear to me.

I'm at the point in my research where I'm pretty confident to say that 'climate science' is being used as a handy tool by those with broader social goals.  Many of these people are 'progressives' and true to form do want change on certain political fronts.  It is mostly an accident of fate that the fight against 'change' on the climate front happens to be of the most utility to these people at the moment.  Environmentalism is a sideshow.  That is not to say that most people involved in the involved in the 'crusade' don't care about the issues.  Most of them do care deeply about the environment (as framed by their sacred texts) and are not even aware of their status as tools in a larger project.  Many others are dimly aware of this reality but more or less favorable to the political changes which they think (probably incorrectly) that they are working towards.

I would venture to believe you would be against the redditors banning anyone not agreeing on the science on AGW being settled?

This is what this thread is about, beyond my personal political bias. It is not about if we love to kill polar bears for sport by letting them melt under tropical condition. It is not about loving a planet full of pollution.

So far this thread is showing that science is not settled yet, regarding AGW...

[Spendulus]

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska?  

Digging down into the political philosophies here, it is kind of interesting to note the generally recognized associations regarding 'change' between 'conservative, reactionary, etc' on one hand and 'liberal, progressive, etc' on the other.  Typically the former tends to be resistant to change while the latter more prone to embraces it.

When it comes to 'climate change' things are generally the reverse.  Of course there are many exceptions to the mapping between political bents and stance on climate change, but I think it is still safe to say that climate change gets more traction on the Left which is the playground of the more liberal progressive types.

I personally classify myself as a 'progressive' and I don't really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility of human induced changes.  Part of this is because I am kind of a realist, and part of it is that I recognize that environmental changes are a reality and would be with or without humans.  Change tends to not be a 'good' or 'bad' thing to me.  Mostly just interesting.  I do strongly believe that we should do our best to understand change in a realistic way and at times take logical actions, but I am prone to be negative about fundamentalism in almost any setting.  Fundamentalism with respect to ecology is especially off-putting since this should be the stomping ground of science and science is dear to me.

I'm at the point in my research where I'm pretty confident to say that 'climate science' is being used as a handy tool by those with broader social goals.  Many of these people are 'progressives' and true to form do want change on certain political fronts.  It is mostly an accident of fate that the fight against 'change' on the climate front happens to be of the most utility to these people at the moment.  Environmentalism is a sideshow.  That is not to say that most people involved in the involved in the 'crusade' don't care about the issues.  Most of them do care deeply about the environment (as framed by their sacred texts) and are not even aware of their status as tools in a larger project.  Many others are dimly aware of this reality but more or less favorable to the political changes which they think (probably incorrectly) that they are working towards.

I would venture to believe you would be against the redditors banning anyone not agreeing on the science on AGW being settled?

This is what this thread is about, beyond my personal political bias. It is not about if we love to kill polar bears for sport by letting them melt under tropical condition. It is not about loving a planet full of pollution.

So far this thread is showing that science is not settled yet, regarding AGW...

Hey, look.  We're already for killing all the monkeys.

Now about those bears.....

[Spendulus]

Regarding Palin, be practical.  WOULDN'T climate change, if it existed, be a net positive for Alaska? 

Digging down into the political philosophies here, it is kind of interesting to note the generally recognized associations regarding 'change' between 'conservative, reactionary, etc' on one hand and 'liberal, progressive, etc' on the other.  Typically the former tends to be resistant to change while the latter more prone to embraces it.

When it comes to 'climate change' things are generally the reverse.  Of course there are many exceptions to the mapping between political bents and stance on climate change, but I think it is still safe to say that climate change gets more traction on the Left which is the playground of the more liberal progressive types.

I personally classify myself as a 'progressive' and I don't really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility of human induced changes.  Part of this is because I am kind of a realist, and part of it is that I recognize that environmental changes are a reality and would be with or without humans.  Change tends to not be a 'good' or 'bad' thing to me.  Mostly just interesting.  I do strongly believe that we should do our best to understand change in a realistic way and at times take logical actions, but I am prone to be negative about fundamentalism in almost any setting.  Fundamentalism with respect to ecology is especially off-putting since this should be the stomping ground of science and science is dear to me.

I'm at the point in my research where I'm pretty confident to say that 'climate science' is being used as a handy tool by those with broader social goals.  Many of these people are 'progressives' and true to form do want change on certain political fronts.  It is mostly an accident of fate that the fight against 'change' on the climate front happens to be of the most utility to these people at the moment.  Environmentalism is a sideshow.  That is not to say that most people involved in the involved in the 'crusade' don't care about the issues.  Most of them do care deeply about the environment (as framed by their sacred texts) and are not even aware of their status as tools in a larger project.  Many others are dimly aware of this reality but more or less favorable to the political changes which they think (probably incorrectly) that they are working towards.

I would venture to believe you would be against the redditors banning anyone not agreeing on the science on AGW being settled?

This is what this thread is about, beyond my personal political bias. It is not about if we love to kill polar bears for sport by letting them melt under tropical condition. It is not about loving a planet full of pollution.

So far this thread is showing that science is not settled yet, regarding AGW...

It is showing that the science is settled into a miasma of confusion where the very concept of testable scientific hypotheses has been replaced by political propaganda, polemics, often paid, mystical love of Gaia, and environmental hysteria.

The science is settled, and what it has settled into is, not science.  It is something quite different, and quite alarming.

[Wilikon]

Climate Change … Who Cares?


Thanks to the blog of the irrepressible Hilary Ostrov, a long-time WUWT commenter, I found out about a poll gone either horribly wrong or totally predictably depending on your point of view. It’s a global poll done by the United Nations, with over six million responses from all over the planet, and guess what?

The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.

Now, people are always saying how the US is some kind of outlier in this regard, because polls in the US always put climate change down at the bottom, whereas polls in Europe generally rate it somewhat higher. But this is a global poll, with people chiming in from all over the planet. The top fifteen countries, in order of the number of people voting, were Mexico, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Philippines, Thailand, Cameroon, United States, Ghana, Rwanda, Brazil, Jordan, and Morocco … so this appears to be truly representative of the world, which is mostly non-industrialized nations.

So the next time someone tries to claim that climate change is “the most important challenge facing the world” … point them to the website of the study, and gently inform them that the rest of the world doesn’t buy that kind of alarmist hogwash for one minute. People are not as stupid as their leaders think, folks know what’s important and what’s trivial in their lives, and trying to control the climate is definitely in the latter group.

The poll will be open until 2015, so you can register your own priorities …

My regards to everyone, I’m off for a staff Christmas dinner with the workmates of the gorgeous ex-fiancee, life is good.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/climate-change-who-cares/

[tvbcof]

...
The science is settled, and what it has settled into is, not science.  It is something quite different, and quite alarming.

Well stated.

Over the last few days I've become aware of Murry Salby's work.  I found a talk from 2013 on youtube and was quit thought provoking to me.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

Only the intro is German.  It might not be surprising that Salby lost his job and his recent relevant papers fail somewhat mysteriously in the peer review process.

Talk about a fundamental reinterpretation!  Actually it makes a lot of sense that global temps drives CO2, and that the magnitude would be the integral of temp (or what I might be inclined to just call energy input...)  I mean, if one walks into a smokey kitchen, one expects that the longer they've forgotten about the burner the thicker the smoke will be...until the pan burning dry starts to factor in.

Among other things, the guy questions the ice core proxies for CO2 (...to the extent that they are proxies.)  It does seem to me that if long term diffusion is a factor then there should be observable and a gradation of artifacts as one walks back through the time sequences.  If diffusion is a shorter time phenomenon then it probably could be replicated in laboratory conditions I would think.  Although intense analysis of ice core proxy methodologies should have been done it would surprise me not much if they've been neglected as long as the putative climate change cult are getting the kinds of answers they need.

edit: Salbe -> Salby

[Spendulus]

...
The science is settled, and what it has settled into is, not science.  It is something quite different, and quite alarming.

Well stated.

Over the last few days I've become aware of Murry Salby's work.  I found a talk from 2013 on youtube and was quit thought provoking to me.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

Only the intro is German.  It might not be surprising that Salby lost his job and his recent relevant papers fail somewhat mysteriously in the peer review process.

Talk about a fundamental reinterpretation!  Actually it makes a lot of sense that global temps drives CO2, and that the magnitude would be the integral of temp (or what I might be inclined to just call energy input...)  I mean, if one walks into a smokey kitchen, one expects that the longer they've forgotten about the burner the thicker the smoke will be...until the pan burning dry starts to factor in.

Among other things, the guy questions the ice core proxies for CO2 (...to the extent that they are proxies.)  It does seem to me that if long term diffusion is a factor then there should be observable and a gradation of artifacts as one walks back through the time sequences.  If diffusion is a shorter time phenomenon then it probably could be replicated in laboratory conditions I would think.  Although intense analysis of ice core proxy methodologies should have been done it would surprise me not much if they've been neglected as long as the putative climate change cult are getting the kinds of answers they need.

edit: Salbe -> Salby

Ha, yeah you really are digging into stuff.  I understand the ice core proxies, but they are nothing compared to the crap which is called tree ring proxies.

The important concept here is "proxy."  The idea is that we can look at something, and it will tell us something about the state of affairs a long time ago.  Actually "proxy" would be an excellent subject for a graduate level course or such.  It is very subtle sometimes, what the degrees of accuracy may be.  Or whether accuracy exists at all.

Personally I think all that is nonsense, you simply look at the planetary radiation balance, inflow and outflow of heat in the upper stratosphere.

[Wilikon]

UN Climate Conference Sets Record For Largest Carbon Footprint…

 The current U.N. climate talks will be the first to neutralize all the greenhouse gas pollution they generate, offset by host country Peru’s protection of forest at three different reserves, organizers say.

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.

At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations’ burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.

The venue is one big reason. It had to be built.

Eleven football fields of temporary structures arose for the 13-day negotiations from what three months ago was an empty field behind Peru’s army’s headquarters. Concrete was laid, plumbing installed, components flown in from as far as France and Brazil.

Standing in the midday sun here can get downright uncomfortable, but the Lima sun is not reliable. That’s one reason solar panels were not used.

For electricity, the talks are relying exclusively on diesel generators.

Organizers had planned to draw power from Peru’s grid, which is about 52 percent fed by non-polluting hydroelectric power. “We worked to upgrade transformers and generators but for some reason it didn’t work,” said Alvarez.


http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/12/09/lima-climate-talks-set-for-record-carbon-footprint




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Spendulus]

UN Climate Conference Sets Record For Largest Carbon Footprint…

 The current U.N. climate talks will be the first to neutralize all the greenhouse gas pollution they generate, offset by host country Peru’s protection of forest at three different reserves, organizers say.

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.....

Translating this to regular words, it means Lima got paid off?

[galdur]

The planet is fine, the people are fucked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[Wilikon]

UN Climate Conference Sets Record For Largest Carbon Footprint…

 The current U.N. climate talks will be the first to neutralize all the greenhouse gas pollution they generate, offset by host country Peru’s protection of forest at three different reserves, organizers say.

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.....

Translating this to regular words, it means Lima got paid off?

Yes.. Maybe they got paid in carbon credit IOUs from
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shorebank.php
 

[Spendulus]

The planet is fine, the people are fucked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

Carlin would have made a truly outstanding senator.

[galdur]

[Spendulus]

This is why, with the numbers of polar bears increasing rapidly, we need to start a hunting season for them.  This will cull the less vigorous members of them and a net positive good for their genetic pool.  I'm for eating delicious polar bears.  Plus, we need to learn to protect ourselves against them if they start heading south.  And even if we train them in the hunting fields like deer, using timed release mechanisms to dispense food at set intervals, there are only so many rabid environmentalists to be used as fodder.  All too soon the editorial staffs of reddit, grist and media matters would be depleted, and those of the huffington post half gone. 

[tvbcof]

One of the (many) things I recently read regarding climate change was this article
 
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/are-polar-bear-researchers-blinded-by-belief-or-acting-dishonestly/

It's worth checking out the link just to see the pics of that fat-ass bear.  218lbs -> 908lbs in 4 months.  I sort of knew that certain bears can put on weight quickly (which makes sense in some environments) but I didn't know it could happen that fast.

The rest of the story is the same theme I've been reading over and over and over whether it's tree rings or butterflys; scientists with an ecological bent behaving badly.  Obviously the stories I've been reading are written by 'skeptics' or whatever, but the evidence they bring to the table seems pretty strong.  I'm actually kind of shocked by this.  If I were a scientist I am very sure that I would not twist research whether I thought it would lead to a better world, whether I thought it would bring more grant money, or whether anything else.  I just assumed that a heavy majority of scientists would do the same.  It's dawning on me that I might have mis-estimated

Another thing I am learning in my looking into this stuff is that a lot of the 'skeptics' are hardly evil conservative hard right-winger types.  Most of them are not one-tracked.  One of them spends other parts of his time arguing for gay marriage (or some such.)  Another arguing strongly on the liberal side of race issues.  McIntyre in his speech at Heartland said straight-up that he didn't have philosophical issues with governments taking actions on things like energy issues.  And Dyson has alway leaned toward the liberal end of the spectrum.  Before I really started digging, I bought the idea that 'deniers' were evil right-wingers hook, line, and sinker.  Now it seems to me that unifying characteristic is mostly that they are interested and honest about things.  At least the techie types.
It is true (so far) that the pundit types are more drawn from the right-wing areas.  I do hope to see that change.

---
Oh, one more thing.  The person who leaked the climategate e-mails (aka 'Mr. FOIA') released the third tranche with a message that I think everyone who is even mildly interested in this stuff should read.  I'll be forking over some BTC to him/her one of these days.

  http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/

[Come-In-Behind]

It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.