Datasets:

bartoszmaj

/

topics_labelled

like 0

comment

c0ia5lj

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/allj5/the_reason_why_it_went_from_global_warming_to/c0ia5lj/

I believe climate must change by definition.

comment

c0ia3xm

2qh0u

pics

https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akxq2/why_cant_all_fastfood_restaurants_do_this_pic/c0ia3xm/

Ah yes. The cholesterol denialists. They rank up there with Truthers, Intelligent Designers, and Climate Change deniers in my book. Out of a literature containing 30,000 articles supporting the cholesterol hypothesis, they manage to cherry pick 100 or so articles that go the other way. Then, they google-bomb the term "lipid hypothesis" to make it look like there's an actual scientific controversy. I cut back my saturated fat intake drastically. My total cholesterol dropped 75 points and my HDL went up 10 points. That's good enough for me.

comment

c0ia081

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alpn3/requesting_input_from_reddit_re_global_warming/c0ia081/

>Has it been concretely concluded that man is causing climate change? The IPCC will never say *concretely concluded* since there is a *slight* possibility that the majority of the changes are natural. However, *nobody* has found a natural mechanism that would account for this. All the ones that have been proposed so far have been adequately discounted. It's like Gravity. We are pretty certain we understand how gravity operates, but there is a slight possibility that it is a complete illusion. That doesn't keep us from building spaceships, though.

comment

c0i9w1i

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i9w1i/

He believes in climate change when it is politically smart to do so, and doesn't believe in climate change when it politically smart to do so (In order to win the Liberal leadership). In the past he's said that it'd be suicide to go to an election claiming that climate change isn't happening or that we don't need to do anything about it, and I think that he still knows this is true.

comment

c0i9tu2

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alilk/whole_foods_ceo_global_warming_denier_looks_like/c0i9tu2/

It is not a misleading term. It means that the global average temperature will increase gradually. This is true. It does not mean that the individual local temperature of each place will increase. Obviously that is not true because the earth has heat-distribution mechanisms like jet currents and ocean currents. The globe will warm up, but it will generally be expressed as more radical temperature differences across the globe as opposed to local increases in the mean temperature and stability of the deviation of temperature. That notion doesn't really fit into a soundbite for people to digest easily, so it's just called Global Warming. I feel like your second sentence was implying that because climate change has happened for millions of years and what we are seeing now is also climate change that you were ignoring the human factor. Right now I feel like you're making a remark as to my misinterpretation of your intention to not look like an ass.

comment

c0i9qtg

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al7f7/in_a_world_growing_ever_hotter_huancavelica_is_an/c0i9qtg/

Are you kidding me? Seriously? Nowhere did I say that climate change was only caused by humans. Read again carefully. And my next question: What is your college degree in?

comment

c0i9om0

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i9om0/

What's worse is using "climate change" instead of saying what you mean. The climate has always changed, sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler. The climate will always change. What you mean when you say "climate change" is really "catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming", or CAGW. Someone else may see the cooling trend since 2000 and refer to that as climate change. By saying what you mean, you make it clearer to your audience. We have barely 150 years of data, and only about 30 years of satellite data. This for a planet believed to be 5 billion years old. Now, the warming of the past 150 years may be continuing. It may be increasing. It may be leveling out or even reversing. Instead of pretending that people questioning what the data show are "idiotic", why don't you let the data take you where it wants to go? It isn't a rhetorical situation. Either the planet is warming or it isn't. We don't need to be afraid of more data points, because they will show us what is really happening.

comment

c0i9o2a

2qhw9

collapse

https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/alul0/heads_in_the_sand_or_why_dont_governments_talk/c0i9o2a/

Why don't governments take any of the threats facing us seriously? Peak oil, climate change, ocean acidification, fisheries collapse...the list is getting longer by the day. Instead, a great deal of effort - and money - is spent by various denial industries to make those of us who do consider these things look like wingnuts.

comment

c0i9m5a

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/alttb/america_is_losing_the_free_world_us_is_facing_an/c0i9m5a/

Aaarrggh!!! I be the copyright pyrate. Free the information ya salty pups. <<<America is losing the free world" by Gideon Rachman Published: January 4 2010 20:11 | Last updated: January 4 2010 20:11 Ever since 1945, the US has regarded itself as the leader of the “free world”. But the Obama administration is facing an unexpected and unwelcome development in global politics. Four of the biggest and most strategically important democracies in the developing world – Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey – are increasingly at odds with American foreign policy. Rather than siding with the US on the big international issues, they are just as likely to line up with authoritarian powers such as China and Iran. The US has been slow to pick up on this development, perhaps because it seems so surprising and unnatural. Most Americans assume that fellow democracies will share their values and opinions on international affairs. During the last presidential election campaign, John McCain, the Republican candidate, called for the formation of a global alliance of democracies to push back against authoritarian powers. Some of President Barack Obama’s senior advisers have also written enthusiastically about an international league of democracies. But the assumption that the world’s democracies will naturally stick together is proving unfounded. The latest example came during the Copenhagen climate summit. On the last day of the talks, the Americans tried to fix up one-to-one meetings between Mr Obama and the leaders of South Africa, Brazil and India – but failed each time. The Indians even said that their prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had already left for the airport. So Mr Obama must have felt something of a chump when he arrived for a last-minute meeting with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, only to find him already deep in negotiations with the leaders of none other than Brazil, South Africa and India. Symbolically, the leaders had to squeeze up to make space for the American president around the table. There was more than symbolism at work. In Copenhagen, Brazil, South Africa and India decided that their status as developing nations was more important than their status as democracies. Like the Chinese, they argued that it is fundamentally unjust to cap the greenhouse gas emissions of poor countries at a lower level than the emissions of the US or the European Union; all the more so since the industrialised west is responsible for the great bulk of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. Revealingly, both Brazilian and Chinese leaders have made the same pointed joke – likening the US to a rich man who, after gorging himself at a banquet, then invites the neighbours in for coffee and asks them to split the bill. If climate change were an isolated example, it might be dismissed as an important but anomalous issue that is almost designed to split countries along rich-poor lines. But, in fact, if you look at Brazil, South Africa, India and Turkey – the four most important democracies in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the greater Middle East – it is clear that none of them can be counted as a reliable ally of the US, or of a broader “community of democracies”. In the past year, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil has cut a lucrative oil deal with China, spoken warmly of Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, and congratulated Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad on his “victory” in the Iranian presidential election, while welcoming him on a state visit to Brazil. During a two-year stint on the United Nations Security Council from 2006, the South Africans routinely joined China and Russia in blocking resolutions on human rights and protecting authoritarian regimes such as Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan and Iran. Turkey, once regarded as a crucial American ally in the cold war and then trumpeted as the only example of a secular, pro-western, Muslim democracy, is also no longer a reliable partner for the west. Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq, opinion polls there have shown very high levels of anti-Americanism. The mildly Islamist AKP government has engaged with America’s regional enemies – including Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran – and alarmed the Americans by taking an increasingly hostile attitude to Israel. India’s leaders do seem to cherish the idea that they have a “special relationship” with the US. But even the Indians regularly line up against the Americans on a range of international issues, from climate change to the Doha round of trade negotiations and the pursuit of sanctions against Iran or Burma. So what is going on? The answer is that Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and India are all countries whose identities as democracies are now being balanced – or even trumped – by their identities as developing nations that are not part of the white, rich, western world. All four countries have ruling parties that see themselves as champions of social justice at home and a more equitable global order overseas. Brazil’s Workers’ party, India’s Congress party, Turkey’s AKP and South Africa’s African National Congress have all adapted to globalisation – but they all retain traces of the old suspicions of global capitalism and of the US. Mr Obama is seen as a huge improvement on George W. Bush – but he is still an American president. As emerging global powers and developing nations, Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey may often feel they have more in common with a rising China than with the democratic US. [email protected]>>>

comment

c0i9l2y

2qh68

canada

https://old.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/aliha/blog_roundup_this_year_i_will_take_up_the/c0i9l2y/

I agree that becoming entirely independent is foolish in a stable society where you can trade reliably. Will Canada crumble? What once seemed ridiculous becomes less so as climate change, peak oil, ocean acidification, etc accelerate.

comment

c0i9iz3

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aly39/al_gore_destroyed_by_wearechange_on_climategate/c0i9iz3/

If anyone bothered to read the actual 'climategate' documents, all they'd find was scientists using indirect (tree-ring derived) temperature data up until 1960, and more reliable thermometer-based data from 1960 onwards. Climate-change deniers carefully select a few quotes to make it sound like a sinister conspiracy, but all these scientists did was reject indirect data that was known to be wrong (because it conflicted with thermometer readings) and use direct data that was known to be more accurate.

comment

c0i9dlq

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i9dlq/

Daily Kos seems surprised at Mackey's opinions: >If the science on climate change were as shaky as Mackey asserts and the costs of action were so high, why would Whole Foods >"stores [be] taking the initiative in many areas to reduce our impact on the earth and its resources" > have made a "Palm Oil pledge" stating that "Whole Foods is committed to protecting rainforests, communities and our global climate." >be encouraging customers to calculate their carbon footprint >care about "reduced reliance on fossil fuels" Because that shit MAKES MONEY... people will pay more if they think it is doing good. Whole Foods is a multi-billion case in point.

comment

c0i9apz

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alsa1/cia_shares_data_with_climate_scientists_experts/c0i9apz/

"“That will be very important economically and logistically,” Dr. Untersteiner said, arguing that Arctic thaws will open new fisheries and sea lanes for shipping and spur the hunt for undersea oil and gas worth hundreds of billions of dollars. " UGH, why? It sounds like they are trying to paint climate change as a good thing. New fishery! for us to rape and destroy. New sea lanes! for us to pollute.

comment

c0i97sj

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alw9n/climate_change_skepticism_may_endanger_worlds/c0i97sj/

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairperson of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has warned that allowing skepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world’s poorest people. According to a report in the Guardian, Pachauri has said that climate change skepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate “hardship” for the planet’s poorest people.

comment

c0i97ra

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alw9d/women_and_the_climate_change/c0i97ra/

Recently, more than 115 world leaders gathered at the largest and most important United Nations meeting ever on fighting against global warming. In fact, the United Nations Climate Change Conference through its Copenhagen Accord has failed to reach a deal on industrialized and emerging nations reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, although it has successfully set a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius over the coming years, and developed nations made a financial commitment to help poor nations cope with the effects of climate change.

comment

c0i95cn

2qlfy

nonprofit

https://old.reddit.com/r/nonprofit/comments/alil3/can_a_large_group_of_people_make_good_collective/c0i95cn/

If you want a working model of your idea look at the collective decision making of ants. Collectively they can do a lot more awesome things than individually, and when there are more of them in the colony, the stuff gets even more awesome. Figure out why ants do it and it can be applied somehow to humans. Okay, so every ant is pretty much the same in the colony, they aren't individualized like humans so what is in the best interest of one, would be in the best interest of all of them. Mass communication sites like reddit do develop a 'hive mind' where everyone agrees on certain things (Bacon = good, Fox News = bad). There probably needs to be a consensus on the rules that limit us for us to collectively agree (the site's code forcing a certain framework of interaction, a set of ethics, etc.) before really effective decisions can be made. The problem is we are always debating the rules. The climate change example is good because once people understand the rules (the science behind climate change) they can focus on the solutions.

comment

c0i92bs

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i92bs/

Well, lets see, you can side with overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is very real, or you can side with the corporate interests heavily vested in the status quo that like to cite facts about very local maxima on the time scale to deter interest in long term trends. Ill side with the "boneheads" over your tabloid articles.

comment

c0i8zya

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i8zya/

Having done a Master's research project on climate chance (And got an "A" on it even though my Prof is a "Warmer.") I suspect that I am not totally ignorant as to the dynamics of climate change.

comment

c0i8ztk

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i8ztk/

Why is it that every time a blizzard hits somewhere in the world, someone makes an idiotic comment about global warming? I dont know what's worse, not understanding that "global warming" is a misnomer for climate change, or linking to dailyfail.

comment

c0i8zqv

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i8zqv/

Dude, it is in your posting and your ignorance of what climate change means. It's not even heat everywhere, it is a overall heating of the atmosphere and sudden movement of weather patterns. Variations both hot and cold are the way it will be from here on out. It will get only worse. If the caps melt, and the oceanic flows move or slow, it'll get really cold first in some areas. It is sad that people comment without merely google-ing and reading the scientific consensus. When it snows in Guatemala, that will really make you right according to your interpretation and Fox News.

comment

c0i8zqd

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluht/are_you_sceptical_about_global_warming/c0i8zqd/

[And once again for global warming deniers: extreme temperature variations are an active sign of climate change, not a refutation. As the oceans lose their ability to moderate the climate, we get colder winters as well as warmer summers.](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/ajzbk/meteorologist_bastardi_a_cold_of_a_variety_not/c0hzs3i)

comment

c0i8zg8

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i8zg8/

[And once again for global warming deniers: extreme temperature variations are an active sign of climate change, not a refutation. As the oceans lose their ability to moderate the climate, we get colder winters as well as warmer summers.](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/ajzbk/meteorologist_bastardi_a_cold_of_a_variety_not/c0hzs3i)

comment

c0i8zay

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aluki/record_cold_and_snow_in_siberia_europe_asia_north/c0i8zay/

Oh, that's right, it's "climate change" and warming caused cooling, and it must be really hot somewhere else.

comment

c0i8xc2

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/alsvw/why_does_reddit_refuse_to_seriously_discuss_the/c0i8xc2/

sorry JustJim- In all honesty- you're facing what is a public relations nightmare. If you consider what has happened over the past decade or so- super fundamentalism has taken over the image of christianity. The delay of embryonic stem cell research, gay bashing, the fact that we still teach evolution in schools- these all stem from a select few, but the few are the most vocal and that's all that the public sees. I mean, the best that you can do is start with your congregation- and have them reach out- not on a crusade to convert people, or to save them. But really to start backing progressive movements. Climate change initiatives, evolutionary biology research, etc etc etc- these are all things that can be done to help change the dogma that religion receives.

comment

c0i8wkw

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/altf5/global_warming_is_real/c0i8wkw/

So, there are actually people that see colder winters and hotter summers and DON'T think there's climate change? Records in both every year aren't, you know, a concern? Huh.

comment

c0i8w54

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i8w54/

Physics doesn't give one tiny toss what this 'society' is of which you write. You suggest (I assume) that the science on climate change is all marketing, yet I don't recall the mathematics in any of the core literature on this subject (or related ones) being particularly marketable. Even if Chandrasekhar (1950) had Coke ads in it, the maths and the physics he describes would stand. Of course this is not so. And the physics at play here has very little to do with the relative value of dolphins to the spotted ocelot or any other comparison you choose to apply. >Once a string is tagged and people follow, an industry is born and scientists are called to support it, with grants. Hmm. What you and many others seem to utterly fail to understand is that the science that underpins our understanding of climate change was developed before we were particularly worried our impact on climate and was largely developed independently of its application to climate change studies. I continually ask people like you to specify which papers underpinning the science are wrong or deliberate lies, and always the thread ends as soon as I ask. It is the mark of personal integrity that you do not hold strong opinions on subjects that you know very little about. How about you tell me then, which references listed in [CO2 climate science](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) are evidence of this "marketing"

comment

c0i8v7y

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alpax/australia_experienced_its_hottest_decade_on/c0i8v7y/

Some decade is inevitably going to be the hottest decade on record in any given place on the planet, or on the planet itself. This leaves open some questions: 1. Normal variation? 2. General climate change, caused by one or more natural things? 3. General climate change caused by human activity? 4. Something else entirely? I have no qualifications to answer any of those questions. I have no opinion about the potential answers to any of those questions. I do know, because my country's leaders have told me so, that conserving fuel, helping reduce dependence on foreign oil, and using sustainable energy are good ideas. The various vitriolic arguments about climate change don't change that (and many other things of concern to our expanding human population, like conservation of fresh water, etc.

comment

c0i8uvt

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/altf5/global_warming_is_real/c0i8uvt/

It's no longer global warming; it's climate change. Get you're talking points right.

comment

c0i8tds

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i8tds/

Actually the macroscopic evidence is very highly available. You don't see any cyclic or repeated evidence in all history of mankind of reduction of ALL glaciers and melting of permafrost. Mount Kilaminjaro(sp?) and the Alps are all changing. The problem is that (1) democratic society (charged with judging if science is valid) is impatient and enjoys movies where catastrophes happen overnight and (2) accurate intuitive memory of climate-scale weather changes doesn't exist in 90% of the population [>50yrs]. In short.. the evidence is everywhere (and accelerating) but its boring, slow and people are positive that one bit of counter-intuitive data somehow makes it all random. Adding on to that, we have a 'denier' phenomenon these days where any hopeful rumor about facts can change into 'proof' that a group's dreams have come true regarding no-consequences-demanding-change.

comment

c0i8rxv

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al8oq/its_preposterous_that_climate_change_deniers/c0i8rxv/

>Oh now the name calling starts. Yeah, that's what I thought. You know who else whines about name-calling when they can't answer an argument? Creationists. >Science certainly proves things through the scientific process. You have fundamentally misunderstood how the scientific process works. Read up on it before you make yourself look even more of a thrashing moron. >Whatever you say it cannot be proven that man is effecting climate. Prove it. A scientific theory cannot be proven, only disproven. Nonetheless, evidence can be brought to support it. The best evidence for climate change is very simple indeed, which is why it is so widely ignored by you shitheads: 1. We have known for a couple of hundred years now that CO2 and various other gases - some more than others - absorb solar radiation and re-emit the energy at a different wavelength. This has the effect of trapping solar energy on Earth rather than radiating it off into space. 2. Since the industrial revolution, the concentrations of these gases have been increasing significantly because we've been churning out fucking billions of tonnes of them that otherwise would have remained locked up underground. 3. We know this shit traps solar energy. We know there's more of it. We should therefore expect the global average temperature to increase. And when we look, whadda ya know, [it fucking does](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Physical_evidence_for_climatic_change). Going to stop denying science yet, creationist? Of course not, because what you actually meant was this: >Whatever you say it cannot be proven *to me* that man is effecting climate.

comment

c0i8rhj

2qlfy

nonprofit

https://old.reddit.com/r/nonprofit/comments/alil3/can_a_large_group_of_people_make_good_collective/c0i8rhj/

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you on this.... >No. Groups trend to do average to bad decisions. We would have no great genius in our past (Einstein, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc.), if they acted in groups. This is probably why we don't have any in our present time. For me, some of the more impressive human developments of the last decade or so are things like Wikipedia and Reddit - and while one or two people started these its the group/community of users that made them great. For me, Reddit is about a large group of people making collective decisions about what is or is not "news" ("worthy of attention" is probably more accurate). I've been doing a bit of research on this topic recently and it seems like there's growing interest from both academics and for-profit enterprises. For instance, MIT now have a [Centre for Collective Intelligence](http://cci.mit.edu/) - which incorporates an attempt to have large groups of "ordinary" people producing solutions to [climate change](http://cci.mit.edu/research/climate.html)... if a group can tackle a problem as complex as that, surely they can make decisions about what a non-profit should be doing? If you look around there are lots of reports on how businesses are already harnessing the intelligence of groups (Prediction markets seem to have been the most successful utility so far). To me, the key to determining whether any venture which seeks to tap into the wisdom of a crowd will work seems to be all in the detail of how its structured. I think SoCapital could work, but it'll take plenty of time and effort to get its decision-making infrastructure right. My concern is that if this kind of technology is developed chiefly by (and for the benefit of) for-profit companies - then a lot of the potential for this technology to benefit society at large might be lost.

comment

c0i8qzk

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alpax/australia_experienced_its_hottest_decade_on/c0i8qzk/

Decadal trends can reasonably be attributed to climate change - especially as part of a multi-decadal pattern. A week-long cold snap cannot.

comment

c0i8o99

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al8oq/its_preposterous_that_climate_change_deniers/c0i8o99/

Well done. You can find about 40 people, very few of whom are specialised in the field of climatology (there are a lot of geologists and a few chemists, mathematicians, and *astronomers*) who disagree with the consensus for one reason or another. Hell, some of them even think that climate change is real and man-made, but just not too much of a problem. I also see that at least one is openly and shamelessly affiliated with the Cato institute. Poor effort. Thankfully, governments all over the world are finally starting to get their acts together and put a stop to all the Ayn Rand bullshit that would gleefully strip humanity of its survival into the future. History will remember you as nothing but a sick joke.

comment

c0i8np0

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aljcu/global_warming_denial_creationism_history/c0i8np0/

Hate to break it to you, but global climate change is as much an unproven theory as evolution is. The denier crowd uses the same thought process and reasoning as creationists in theirs.

comment

c0i8mrq

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alpn3/requesting_input_from_reddit_re_global_warming/c0i8mrq/

>Has it been concretely concluded that man is causing climate change? Yes >Given that man hasn't, accurately, been recording the weather for all that long and (to my understanding and please correct me if I am wrong on this) current scientific methods only allow for an understanding of past climate conditions on a grand scale (over thousands and thousands of years ie. ice ages) is it not possible that climate change is an entirely natural process? Yes ****************** The debate hinges on how much impact man's actions have and if there is a net negative or positive effect. "*We must act now*" arguments are based in the premise that AGW is massive and detrimental. Denier arguments are that AGW is negligible and/or beneficial in impact. Here's a pretty smart denier statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOtiRB3uyk#t=19m01s

comment

c0i8kpk

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i8kpk/

Why is it that the hard core religious types are climate change deniers? I've noticed the same trend with people I know in real life.

comment

c0i8jya

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i8jya/

Flawed or not, Abbott does not believe in climate change. He made it quite clear on the Four Corners program last year. The only reason he plans to offer an an alternative ETS is because it would hurt the Liberal party to not do so. His big gripe was that Turnbull wasn't aggressive enough over the matter.

comment

c0i8j84

2qh1s

economics

https://old.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/almaa/gary_s_becker_steven_j_davis_and_kevin_m_murphy/c0i8j84/

Good submission. In regards to the article: Recession already past-tense but liberal Democrats, the President, anti-climate change talks, and health-care reform are holding back the Recovery? Could we agree that, like their sister company Fox, what the WSJ prints does not really qualify as reality-based news?

comment

c0i8h76

2qh0u

pics

https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/alowc/stop_climate_changehave_pity_on_these_rare/c0i8h76/

From that list half of them are in trouble because of man's impact and not climate change.

comment

c0i8ex9

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/allj5/the_reason_why_it_went_from_global_warming_to/c0i8ex9/

Isn't "Climate Change" any situation where the climate doesn't stay exactly the same?

comment

c0i8ekg

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/alobw/hard_freeze_expected_later_this_week_global/c0i8ekg/

Arctic warming, which is happening, will necessarily push colder weather further South, which is happening. What part of Climate Change don't you get? Records are being broken in Australia, where it's Summer, for the warmest year ever recorded by the White man. It's not all in your own back yard...

comment

c0i8eew

2qxsq

alt_conspiracy

https://old.reddit.com/r/alt_conspiracy/comments/alog5/climate_change_denial_the_stupid_it_burns/c0i8eew/

greenfyre works for a climate change NGO so he's... you know... in on The Conspiracy.

comment

c0i8dkr

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alnyf/one_mans_journey_from_climate_denier_to_climate/c0i8dkr/

Interesting to see what exactly it took to persuade him. Could be tactically useful information in the battle to wake more people up. My take on it was that he was initially mostly just hung up on the idea of trusting scientists, because he viewed science as a threat to his religious beliefs. Even climatology, apparently, though I don't remember the Bible weighing in on that, unless maybe you count Noah's flood. But of course it was really the entire culture of science that I believe he was uncomfortable with. Anyway, very encouraging story. I was really, really happy to read about how avidly he took the investigation into his own hands and began to develop a **scientifically** skeptical attitude toward every source of info about climate change. From a science hater to a junior scientist himself! Sweet. I hope there are a whole lot more out there like him.

comment

c0i8dkk

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/alobw/hard_freeze_expected_later_this_week_global/c0i8dkk/

Can we not erroneously conflate temporary severe temperature swings with the snide insinuation that anthropogenic climate change is hokum? It only works when either you or your audience is full of complete screaming retardation, and last I checked this wasn't Digg.

comment

c0i8d9n

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/aloc0/hard_freeze_expected_later_this_week_global/c0i8d9n/

I hope your kidding about this disproving climate change.

comment

c0i8cc5

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i8cc5/

true, which is why climate change is now the preferred term :)

comment

c0i89hn

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i89hn/

Not true, for example it could mean the difference between crops that make good money like cotton (boo, hiss) to more marginal things like barley. You're right that rainfall is chaotic, but most models point to more rain up north, and less down south. They don't really need more rain up north, in fact floods and storm damage are fairly constant problems, meanwhile down south things could go from marginal to ridiculous. There are winners and losers globally with climate change (I'm looking at you Canada) but Australia does look like it'll be particularly screwed.

comment

c0i89d0

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alilk/whole_foods_ceo_global_warming_denier_looks_like/c0i89d0/

We should openly discuss climate change because it forces us to face ecological facts. It will be very unpopular when everyone realizes the planet is having its resources consumed far beyond a replenishing rate. We're going into debt there and the water wars will be the start of things becoming interesting.

comment

c0i87c2

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/allj5/the_reason_why_it_went_from_global_warming_to/c0i87c2/

Compared to the BILLIONS and BILLIONS given by our Guvment for "research"? Global warming/Climate change - they are now punchlines.

comment

c0i85ms

2qh3l

news

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/alisv/seoul_buried_in_heaviest_snowfall_in_70/c0i85ms/

Ya, well, the nutters have been working on that, now it's called-Climate Change. That way, they can get credit either way. Big money in Climate change.

comment

c0i85jx

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/allb6/the_bureau_of_meteorology_says_figures_showing/c0i85jx/

Does your Ignorace extend to Greenland? I wonder how it got its name? Antarctica ice is growing not shrinking! Silly rabbit climategate tricks are for kids! http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191 You demonstrate your ignorance by continuing your bleating about climate change. Go ahead cute little sheep follow the dwindling herd, you will wake up soon enough, or maybe not. edited to add link.

comment

c0i852d

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alilk/whole_foods_ceo_global_warming_denier_looks_like/c0i852d/

OK but ice ages and climate change are factual and have happened forever.

comment

c0i84kh

2qh8e

australia

https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/alljm/2009_ends_australias_warmest_decade_on_record/c0i84kh/

A single year cannot really be used to prove anything, this just makes global warming look flakey. Instead, they should stick to the historical trends which clearly show climate change is happening.

comment

c0i83b5

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/alhq5/deniers_claims_that_there_is_no_global_warming/c0i83b5/

It's NOT Global Warming. It's CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

comment

c0i82ka

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/alfiw/why_do_people_tend_to_distrust_scientists_and/c0i82ka/

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately within the context of William Perry's stage theory of intellectual development. The interested reader could go [here](http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html) for more information, but basically the idea is that learners progress through four stages: * Dualism - This is when the learner believes that there is a *right* answer and a *wrong* answer, and the right answer is the one that an "authority" (e.g., teacher, textbook, parent, god, preacher, government) says is the right answer. * Multiplicity - This is when the learner figures out that sometimes the experts are actually "wrong." In this stage, the learner knows that there are conflicting answers, and thinks that his job is to choose whatever answer he likes best (or, decide that there's just no right answer, and we should just respect *everyone's* viewpoint). This is not very sophisticated reasoning, but this is nevertheless an important stage, because it allows people to rebel against what they have always been taught, such as that certain things are 'immoral' because it's written in some book somewhere. This is also the stage that basically makes adolescent rebellion possible. * Relativism - In this stage, the learner still knows that there are conflicting answers, but he has learned that some of these answers are better than others. He now thinks that his job is to pick the best answer using some sort of logical procedure, such as some critical thinking or evaluation technique he has learned in school. This 'logical procedure' may be either a simple procedure, such as going with whichever answer got more karma on reddit, or a more complex procedure, such as whichever answer has the best supporting evidence. * Commitment - Here, the learner discovers the right answer for a question often depends on a combination of the available knowledge, the specific situation, and his personal values. In this stage, however, the learner is willing to listen to others' viewpoints, acknowledge when others make good points, and reconsider his position as needed in light of new knowledge. Unfortunately, a lot of people never progress beyond the first two stages. I also think the second stage is especially valued in current American culture - it seems to me to be the root of today's fierce anti-intellectualism. It seems to be a truism today that everyone can have their own viewpoint and we should respect all of them, regardless of whether that viewpoint has any relationship to reality. For example, articles about climate change, or evolution, cite both 'scientists' **and** people who "don't believe" in these facts, as if both are equally valid "opinions" that we should "respect." Both of the first two stages are ripe for granting celebrities that elusive credibility. In the first stage - the celebrity functions as the authority who has the 'right' answer. The person in this stage thinks - well, that famous person wouldn't so pretty and blessed in life and beloved if they were wrong about this, so they must have the right answer. In the second stage - the person knows that there are possible explanations other than what the celebrity is saying, but they believe that their job as the thinker is to pick whichever idea they "like" or personally "believe" is best. People get into this stage when they've been educated enough to know that sometimes "authorities" don't always have the right answer - I mean, there's some debate even amongst scientists about global warming, right? So in this case, it makes sense that the person would pick the easier, more emotional, more hopeful, and clearer idea that the pretty and famous person is endorsing, especially when that idea's competition is the complex, logical, and probabilitic (rather than absolute) idea that is either endorsed by some faceless nobody, or is endorsed by those very same "experts" that the person just figured out are wrong sometimes. To those learners, the idea the celebrity endorses "feels" right (and, as other commenters have pointed out, these learners are swayed at this point by an emotional argument). Sadly, even learners who are early in the third stage, who are actually fairly intellectually sophisticated, get stuck in the trap of thinking that celebrity status confers credibility. Those learners are trying to evaluate an idea based on *something* other than their own 'opinion', but the *something* that they go by is popularity, rather than actual evidence. These people follow the loudest voice, thinking that the celebrity couldn't possibly be yelling so loud if they were wrong. Of course, contributing to this problem is that scientists tend to be in the later stages of intellectual development, and have a hard time figuring out how to convincingly convey their argument to those in the earlier stages (if they think about it at all).

comment

c0i80de

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/allj5/the_reason_why_it_went_from_global_warming_to/c0i80de/

There's a sucker born every minute :) How does the climate change crowd reconcile the ice ages and heat waves throughout history? Was that due to capitalism too?

comment

c0i7xza

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/allkj/maybe_well_get_lucky_and_global_warming_and_the/c0i7xza/

climate change is a convergent set of events. the end result will be desertification and massive ice sheets and all sorts of weird weather. a real ice age takes anywhere from less than a decade to slightly more than a decade to get started.

comment

c0i7xvn

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7xvn/

The use of the FEM in civil engineering applications is less of an issue because the variables of the equation are based on the physical sciences that have been studied and better understood much longer than earth climate science. I don't claim to hold your precious models as false, but rather express my desire for further research before we close the book and jump off the cliff. You give your own science a different standard because you are personally involved and therefore biased. For the record, I'm not politically opposed; I trend towards the belief in man-influenced climate change, and I think it's a good paradigm shift for our race even if it turns out to be false. I just have an issue with supposedly logical, scientific minds jumping on statistical models that we don't fully understand and holding them up like the bible. Lastly, I will never trust the judgement of those who tell me to blindly trust their judgement.

comment

c0i7xsd

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/ale7c/genetically_modified_rice_cleared_for_commercial/c0i7xsd/

This will end badly for the Chinese . Given , the latest agricultural research in India is now [revealing to all](http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_organic-farming-is-the-way-forward-says-vandana-shiva_1324774) that the multinationals peddling these dangerous wares are not quite upfront about the real [*results and their some what biased research is missing all the bad parts*](http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.) . For it is only about money and mega profits to be made even if they kill the customers in the process . What a big surprise not , what price the future dependent on global monoculture farming , for have we forgotten much about the root cause of the Great Irish Famine in the Nineteenth Century? Are we deliberately now sowing the seeds of our own self mass destruction and population crash along with the rising seas , destruction of fishing habitats and growing planet wide adverse climate change being fed into the evil mix as well ? [Soylent Green scenario?](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/)

comment

c0i7wk0

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/allb6/the_bureau_of_meteorology_says_figures_showing/c0i7wk0/

I am sure the RECORD SETTING low temps elsewhere mean nothing. Who even believes the political chant of "climate change" anymore? Its now a punchline to many jokes.

comment

c0i7v4v

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al8oq/its_preposterous_that_climate_change_deniers/c0i7v4v/

This was basically the climate change denial equivalent of a Gish gallop, and my life is far too short to waste on answering all this nonsense. But there's at least one, hopefully highly revealing thing I can do in just a few seconds. Watch. >Actually there is a large segment of the scientific community who thinks man made global warming is a fallacy. [No there isn't](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

comment

c0i7uec

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aljcu/global_warming_denial_creationism_history/c0i7uec/

Not nearly as much credibility as you lost when you revealed your denial of man-made climate change.

comment

c0i7ude

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i7ude/

...and you are aware that the basis of our understanding of climate change is radiative transfer through gases right? and that the theory of radiative transfer comes from quantum mechanics right?

comment

c0i7ry2

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aljcu/global_warming_denial_creationism_history/c0i7ry2/

The moment you said "Global warming denial" you lost credibility. Using "Denial" to describe disbelief in man made climate change implies that man made climate change is true/proven, which it is not.

comment

c0i7rez

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i7rez/

This article was about one year of weather. That's too short to be making conclusions about global climate change. If there is a driving force like the greenhouse effect or precession or whatever you like, it's buried in all the noise of ordinary unpredictable short term weather.

comment

c0i7qbc

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alk0i/climate_denier_calls_us_activists_hitler_youth_at/c0i7qbc/

Using "denier" implies that man made climate change is true/proven, which is it not.

comment

c0i7q2i

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i7q2i/

If the scientific community is obsessed with anthropogenic climate change (which they are paid to be btw..) how will milankovitch or other thinkers in this vein be properly peer reviewed? What if Mil is right in theory and wrong in calculation? Especially as there are so many small effects being tracked many of which Milankovitch might not have known to account for.

comment

c0i7pgr

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7pgr/

Oh, if it were still only a matter of rational economic analysis, the "War Against Climate Change" might have a chance. After all, the [cost of doing nothing](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050503016.html) is enormous. Additionally, strategies to wean ourselves from dependence on overseas fossil-fuel energy imports would have long term economic advantages. Alas, I fear the opposition to actively taking on the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is more rooted in an anti-intellectual/anti-science/anti-elitism. If the opposition could be won-over by sound economic arguments there might be a chance. But for those that reject logical arguments (be it scientific or economic) it is hard to see how progress can be made. That, to me, is what is most depressing of all.

comment

c0i7p6l

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i7p6l/

Expect James Delingpole climate change denial brigade in 5 , 4 , 3 ......

comment

c0i7oos

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alinz/the_science_behind_the_cold_weather_although_it/c0i7oos/

It's refreshing to see a news article on strange weather without any references to climate change

comment

c0i7lxf

2r9vp

trees

https://old.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/alemw/0_i_just_thought_of_an_amazing_pipe_but_im_not/c0i7lxf/

Dont do this! I cant stress it enough, if your bowl is cold (freezer or if you live in a cold climate as i) and then heat it up quickly with a lighter glass will crack from the temperature change. There are better options in this thread such as the whiskey stones SliveDraver suggested.

comment

c0i7lag

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7lag/

See what addressed? That the climate's changed before? [Yes, climate scientists know that.](http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm) And the last 9 years have been flat because most of the heat is [currently going into the oceans.](http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm)

comment

c0i7km6

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7km6/

When people tell you that they "don't believe" in global warning, ask them what their opinion is on neutrino mass. Or Higgs. Then point out that they are no more qualified to have an opinion (that differs with scientific consensus) on climate change than on high energy physics.

comment

c0i7isp

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7isp/

You can quote & link that stuff all day long, but it won't make a bit of difference to a climate change "skeptic" - it's all part of a conspiracy driven by climatologists who just want to make money off the taxpayer teat.

comment

c0i7f0g

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/alacz/i_have_no_respect_or_tolerance_for_sharia/c0i7f0g/

I think you will find that the author of this article will have dished out similar treatment to the Catholic religion in previous articles from his daily column. Speaking on the pope.. "Maybe if he had been as quick to comment on Irish priests raping children as he was to address a climate change conference, his views might have more weight."

comment

c0i7e7z

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7e7z/

I've never understood the whole "scientific consensus" argument. It seems to me to be abstracted one level from the actual argument: is human activity causing global climate change? Heck, let's just abstract the argument another cuil and start arguing over how many people believe that there is scientific consensus? I can see the headline now: "Senior Bank Teller Solomon Entwhistle: 'Only 35% of Laypersons Believe There's a Scientific Consensus' on Global Warming."

comment

c0i7dss

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i7dss/

>The controversy only exists because there are powerful entities bankrolling it. Don't forget they are on **both** sides. A lot of these carbon-credit companies stand to profit a shit ton if carbon taxation is pushed forward. And what about our liberty? I'm not asking for a fairness doctrine on the issue of the source of climate change and how to / or if we should solve it. I'm saying if you think climate change/warming is caused by human activity, then you better **DAMN WELL** check who's carrying your torch. I don't think you want the likes of Maurice Strong being the champion of your cause, and I don't want energy companies leading the charge against carbon taxes. The problem we can agree on is special interests.

comment

c0i7ddj

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ali9p/here_come_the_super_heroes_saviours_of_our_planet/c0i7ddj/

Saving Earth from astroids while allowing its destruction from climate change.

comment

c0i79qw

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/alccz/something_you_may_have_missed_over_the_holidays/c0i79qw/

Maybe I was unclear, what I mean is, the Republicans lies include terrorists trying to kill us, gays molesting children and breaking up marriages, government g-men taking our guns and creating a police state, government taking all our money, foreign countries trying to kill us, etc, and that's not even touching the religious lies in which everything anyone who opposes them tells you to do will make you burn in a pit of fire forever. Liberals certainly lie, but you don't get the same visceral reaction to climate change or health care reform as you do to terrorists and queers. What I was trying to say is that in a game of lieing and manipulation, Republicans win because their lies are more startling and motivating.

comment

c0i79hx

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i79hx/

> Consensus amongst atmospheric scientists, not the whole world, is the false claim for Climate Change. You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make you right. See BlueRock's post.

comment

c0i78zy

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i78zy/

There is a consensus that the Earth is round **amongst scientists**. Consensus amongst atmospheric scientists, not the whole world, is the false claim for Climate Change. But if you are looking for GLOBAL consensus on ANYTHING, you're going to wait a long time. People are naturally uncomfortable with consensus, and in a large enough population you'll find somebody to disagree with just about anything. I for one am glad; I'd hate to live in a world where consensus was common or easily reached. Besides, consensus, or majority, or even plurality is an unreliable road to the truth. Everything you hold to be true today was once the outcast idea of a single lone misfit. It doesn't take numbers to be right.

comment

c0i780h

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i780h/

No scientific consensus? Hmmm [rubs chin]: - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 - Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php + http://www.miller-mccune.com/news/scientists-public-drift-apart-on-climate-change-948 - The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm - If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 - World's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists - the AGU: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2008-03.html - The Scientific Consensus: http://cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/ - A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (e.g. - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Anyone got his email?

comment

c0i77mw

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/alccz/something_you_may_have_missed_over_the_holidays/c0i77mw/

I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, but I think it's ultimately self-defeating. If we agree that lies and manipulation are the only game in town, the Republicans have us beat hands down... they've got all the scary lies on their side, as well as religion, the original master of that game. I do think there's a possibility to convert people through truthful, well-reasoned arguments- not everyone, certainly, but enough to change the political climate slowly. I think that's the only chance liberals really have.

comment

c0i77c5

2qh9a

worldpolitics

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/aldli/if_any_of_your_idiot_friends_still_believe_in_agw/c0i77c5/

>Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. [Here is the link to the draft.](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13459002/The-Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Treaty-Draft-Sept-15-2009) Paragraph 36 is on page 18 and they say nothing at all about any world government. >The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. If the proposed solutions are somehow evil and socialist, does that mean there is no AGW? I don't get that connection.

comment

c0i75c7

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i75c7/

Both "global warming" and "climate change" is correct. While the mean temperature of the *globe*—of Earth the planet—increases and will continue to do so, it won't increase uniformly. As the paths of the warm ocean currents are disturbed, Northern Europe may well freeze. Also, warming is the main part of the change, but not the only one. As the weather patterns change, we may expect droughts, storms, heavy rains and floods, the disappearance of the monsoons... pretty much everything. Science is not a matter of belief; it's not a religion. If you want the scientific opinion on global warming, go no further than [Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

comment

c0i74gm

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i74gm/

It's seems to be a popular conspiracy theory that the semantics has shifted from "Global warming" to "climate change" because of some calculated political motivation. In fact, the term "climate change" was adopted in the scientific community because there are important, and potentially dire, effects in addition to rising temperatures. (increased storm activity, drought, rising sea levels,...). And the issue today is not "climate change" but "anthropogenic climate change" - that human activities are radically altering the atmosphere and creating an unprecedented rate of climate change. Oh, and one last thing, to borrow your terminology: you have to be a retard to deny humans are causing climate change.

comment

c0i74fr

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i74fr/

>I like how the terminology is shifting from a failed title "Global warming" to a undeniable one, "climate change". The *name* change came because various idiots used some local temporary cooling as "proof" that global warming was false. The *idea* has not change: human action has led to significant overall warming of the biosphere.

comment

c0i745i

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i745i/

This will get downvoted into oblivion, but the crowd here needs to stop drinking the global warming cool aid. (I used to, but have moderated my views significantly) YES, CO2 is a green house gas. YES, CO2 concentrations are increasing. But we cannot necessarily jump to the conclusion that the earth is warming because of it (see significant disagreement about temperature records), and most of all, we most certainly cannot profer the doomsday scenarios that are based on shaky computer models. A good part of the reddit community are in the field of computer science, and if you saw the code used, you'd be appalled. As to the CEO's comments, it's true, there isn't a consensus: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. “Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications. “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

comment

c0i73nn

2qhkd

energy

https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/al7kk/sun_wind_and_wavepowered_europe_unites_to_build/c0i73nn/

> I suppose you could call me a climate change agnostic. No, I'd call you a Denier. Either you accept the overwhelming science as communicated by the planet's climate, or you demonstrate where they've gone wrong or you're a Denier. That's how I dice it. And you confirm it with your vague accusation of shadowy conspiracy. > Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php > ...anyone trying to prove those people wrong doesn't have a say... That's what creationists say about evolution.

comment

c0i72jw

2qhkd

energy

https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/al7kk/sun_wind_and_wavepowered_europe_unites_to_build/c0i72jw/

I'm neither a denier, nor a believer. I suppose you could call me a climate change agnostic. What I do know though is that there's too much money and group think involved, and anyone trying to prove those people wrong doesn't have a say or a grant any more. That IMO isn't very scientific at all.

comment

c0i72ee

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aldyw/whole_foods_ceo_john_mackey_theres_no_scientific/c0i72ee/

There's a whole chapter about palaeoclimate in the IPCC ar4 report, it's free and it addresses past climate change. Google it.

comment

c0i6vpb

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al7f7/in_a_world_growing_ever_hotter_huancavelica_is_an/c0i6vpb/

You know, believe it or not, the only people suggesting that climate doesn't change naturally are the deniers like yourself. It's like creationists claiming that evolution means cats giving birth to dogs. What actual scientists are pointing out is that our civilization and all the stuff needed to support our 6 billion people is fairly heavily gamed around the current arrangement. It doesn't do Americans much good if the Breadbasket lands shift nortwards a hundred miles or so and suddenly Canada is the wheat capital of the world. How many Indians and Bangladeshis would die if the monsoon system were disrupted and that abundant rainfall moved somewhere else or dried up entirely? As I pointed out above, Northern Europe is actually pretty frickin far north, and they depend on the current weather system to keep from freezing over. The American southwest has enough problems getting enough drinking water without half the Rocky's winter snows disappearing.

comment

c0i6ur0

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/alege/uks_brown_says_climate_change_agreement_possible/c0i6ur0/

LONDON: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Sunday he believed a global agreement to combat climate change might still be possible despite the limited results of last month's Copenhagen meeting. "I've got an idea about how we can actually move this forward over the next few months and I'll be working on this," Brown told the BBC, when asked what came next after the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen.

comment

c0i6upx

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aleg6/copenhagen_accord_disappointing_pm/c0i6upx/

NEW DELHI: In a departure from the line taken by his environment minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed his disappointment over the Copenhagen Accord on climate change. Addressing the 97th Indian Science Congress on Sunday, the Prime Minister said nations “made limited progress” at the climate change conference at Copenhagen and that “no one was satisfied with the outcome”.

comment

c0i6ulf

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aleey/copenhagen_accord_has_initiated_a_drift_in/c0i6ulf/

The much awaited climate change negotiations culminated in Copenhagen on 18th December 2009 at Copenhagen when the Heads of States and Governments adopted a declaration, the Copenhagen Accord, on climate change. The Accord seeks to lay out the future action plan for containing climate change. The key points of the Copenhagen Accord are:

comment

c0i6tql

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/ale61/450is_climate_change_affecting_birds/c0i6tql/

NAGPUR: Has climate change started affecting bird life? It may just be so going by the peculiar phenomenon of more species but fewer number of birds sighted during the HSBC Bird Race on Sunday. The first prize winner of the race Kishore Dudhe sighted as many as 161 bird species, more than the 129 sighted last year, Tarun Balpande, one of the coordinators of the race, said though number of species now being seen has gone up, the number of birds has come down down.

comment

c0i6r15

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aldan/climate_change_is_a_god_thing/c0i6r15/

Cloud cover and radiation from the sun is what primarily controls the temperature of the earth. “Global warming” and “Climate Change” are due to forces commonly called “Laws of nature,” also know as physics. God wrote those laws, so climate change is a God thing. One thing that physics professors have said since they earned those titles was that the laws of nature couldn’t be suspended. If the laws of nature appear to be suspended what we have then is commonly called a “miracle.”

comment

c0i6q3t

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/alcye/climate_shame/c0i6q3t/

End of Copenhagen Climate Change conference

comment

c0i6mjs

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al8oq/its_preposterous_that_climate_change_deniers/c0i6mjs/

Hello, two reasons I think you should reconsider this approach: 1. The main evidence for global warming has never been measurements of _past_ climate. Rather, it's based on fairly basic physics - some gases trap more heat than others, and we're releasing huge amounts of those gases into the atmosphere, which is almost guaranteed to cause warming, all other things being equal. Most of the "debate" has been whether or not some previously unknown effect would suddenly show up to stop this warming from occurring, or whether other previously unknown effects would show up and make it worse. Unfortunately, there's more evidence for the latter than the former. The historical temperature record could have provided evidence to _disprove_ AGW, but it has not done so. It has never been the primary proof that AGW was _going_ to occur. 1. We do have temperature data going back much more than 100 years. They're not as reliable as thermometers, of course, but we know (for example) that the ice ages occurred, and can measure roughly how much colder it was than today (about 5C). We also have a relatively good idea of how quickly climate change occurred in the past, and we do not believe it has ever warmed up as quickly as it is warming now. This has huge implications for the biosphere, because while a 5C warming over a million years can easily be handled by evolution, a 5C warming over 100 years cannot.

comment

c0i6ib9

2qzb6

iama

https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/akrna/i_am_a_debunker_of_911_conspiracy_theories_ama/c0i6ib9/

> You have a naive vision of media ownership. The idea that literally all major media outlets are controlled by some hidden Dr. Evil is laughable. Any newspaper that broke the story of Holocaust fraud would be guaranteed a Nobel prize. Look at historical scandals like Watergate; what do you suppose that did for the Washington Post's sales? Oh yeah, the Nobel Prize is a symbol of integrity and whatnot. That's why our wartime president Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. > And that's just in the US. What you're also asserting is that the media in Germany, Austria and Poland are also part of a conspiracy going against their own national interests that prevents them from exonerating themselves in one of the greatest crimes in the 20th century. Impressive. Countries aren't people. They don't think. Only people and other mammals do that. > Further, you're apparently lumping universities in with the media. Any budding historian would set the world on fire if he wrote a PhD thesis proving the Holocaust was a lie. I guess all professors are also controlled by this hidden organization? When that does happen, they usually end up in prison, or shot. > And how is it that literally every media outlet and all academic institutions in multiple nations all flawlessly perpetrate this gigantic Holocaust lie and yet can't pull it off in areas that are vastly more important to them? One example would be climate change. Every major industry would love for this issue to be suppressed, and for oil companies it's literally an existential threat. According to the world you're imagining, there should be a deafening silence on the subject, with just a few brave souls shouting the truth but denounced by the corporate media as crackpots. You have to ask yourself why there is such a vigorous debate on this topic yet absolute unanimity on the Holocaust. The "climate change" fraud broke over the internet. So did the Holocaust myth. There is not unanimity; you are talking to somebody who knows better. The truth has won out over money whenever media could be monopolized; the internet cannot be monopolized. Not very easily, at least. > Anyway, I know literally nothing I can say will have you look critically at this subject, so how about I make my final comment something positive: you mentioned upthread you were a pacifist. That's very cool and commendable. Kudos. It is. We should all be pacifists.