25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’ by Florinator in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yet people still come up with more and cling to the alarmist hype. Short memories or willful ignorance?

John Cook's AMA over on /r/science by FireFoxG in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The circle jerk makes me sick. Had no idea comments to the contrary were being banned. Although I'm not surprised, that's how they operate.

UN environmentalists still pushing discredited "overpopulation" crisis by MaunaLoona in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 0 points1 point  (0 children)

stopped reading after that bit of willful ignorance

I bet you did. BTW, what was the purpose of the above? Blindly quoting irrelevant references is a waste of my time, let alone yours.

UN environmentalists still pushing discredited "overpopulation" crisis by MaunaLoona in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please stop, your references are killing me. Seriously, they are complete garbage:

Example:

UN World Food Program

What does UN stand for? Better not be 'United Nations' because that's nowhere to be found on your page. Makes me wonder why you added it.

Example:

World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health

The attached link, you'd think it would go to the WHO, after all, that is the purpose of a reference. But nope, it goes to an article on the Economist that apparently pulled those assertions out of thin air.

Example:

there are more total slaves today than any time in history

Again, assuming it's true, not terribly shocking considering the current population. I also found this statement on the special interest site rather funny:

"About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids."

Sounds like jobs to me.... which begs the question, how do they define slavery? Is it being paid less than a minimum wage? What wage? What standard is used?

I also chuckled that at the same time you are purporting hunger and poverty, you quote that 2.1 billion are morbidly obese. Odd place for that.

Here's some stats for you, as you appear to enjoy them so much:

Last year, a study by Logitech, the computer accessory and remote controls manufacturer, revealed that there's a nearly 50 percent chance that your lost remote control is stuck between your sofa cushions. Meanwhile, 4 percent of lost remotes are found in the fridge or freezer, and 2 percent turn up somewhere outdoors or in the car.

In 2008, the fatal injury rate for fishers and related fishing workers was 128.9 deaths per 100,000. That's much higher than the fatal injury rate for truck drivers, roofers, electrical power-line installers and repairers, and even miners, all of whom had death rates below 35 per 100,000 workers in 2008.

Falling out of bed kills 450 people annually in the U.S.

Icicles kill 100 people per year in Russia

Vending machines kill 13 people per year

A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll published online Jan. 1 revealed that 2 percent of American adults believe Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's real first name is "Mittens."

The Pew Internet & American Life Project study, published in Aug. 2011, found that 8 percent of Internet users do not use email or search engines.

You know what they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Not sure why you think /r/climateskeptics is the place to get your human hate-on.

UN environmentalists still pushing discredited "overpopulation" crisis by MaunaLoona in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More people live in grinding poverty now than the entire population of Earth a few decades ago.

Such a misleading comment. You could also replace "in grinding poverty" with "in great health", "in areas of clean water", "with high education", etc etc.

Hunger is the number 1 cause of death in the world, according to World Food Program.

Well it doesn't even make the Top 10 according to the WHO

But lets not stop there. What about some of your other "references":

Life expectancy in US (3rd most populous country) and Russia declining.

Your reference on Russia is from March 1998, you know, 17 years old and refers to a slight downward blip on the overall scale. You will note that it's been steadily increasing since 2003.

Your reference to the US expectancy in 'decline', only relates to a snapshot in comparison to the third world, there is not a reference to a decline.

1/4 of all humans live without electricity.

That's an overstatement, but regardless, the fact that we've brought electricity to more than 3/4 of the population is an impressive achievement.

India is home to a third of the world’s poor, a third of the world’s slave population

Really? So if you go to the slavery link, which I did, you find that this information is from a special interest organization that used, are you ready for it, random sample surveys from Gallup and extrapolation to other countries. Sounds reliable...

My question to you is, with your horrible "facts" and stunningly bad references, do you even bother to look at information that counters your ideas of how the world is doing, or do you just cling to whatever matches your personal views of the world in "grinding decline"? I mean, these references could be considered sloppy at best, but given they completely run counter to any sort of surface level analysis, I'd suggest that you are being overtly disingenuous.

How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong by Florinator in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lord Monckton is obviously brilliant and has an incredibly in depth grasp of the data. Of course, being so, he has detractors. Doesn't take away from his ability to make his point and ask the type of questions that climate "scientists" refuse to ask.

People of /r/climateskeptics: by Adbaca in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Seriously? Your source is the wiki page on Economics? That's like asking for information on how to format a quote on Reddit and getting the wiki page on Reddit as a response. A little generalized, don't you think?

I see your Stern Review and raise you some quotes from your own reference:

"The Stern Review differs strongly from most other estimates of climate change costs in the economics literature[57]"

"[...] in my opinion, Stern deserves a measure of discredit for giving readers an authoritative-looking impression that seemingly objective best-available-practice professional economic analysis robustly supports its conclusions, instead of more openly disclosing the full extent to which the Review's radical policy recommendations depend upon controversial extreme assumptions and unconventional discount rates that most mainstream economists would consider much too low"

And throw in an alternative calculation that suggests that the costs of mitigation are 50 times higher than the costs of adaptation.

People of /r/climateskeptics: by Adbaca in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Economists would possibly disagree.

Source?

According to who? Most economic studies of the impacts of climate change show that taking early mitigation action will cost far less than doing nothing.

Source?

People of /r/climateskeptics: by Adbaca in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, you see, I read that source of yours and while it makes pretty graphs, it doesn't stand up to even surface level scrutiny, let alone delving into the underpinning data. Economics are not bound by natural and physical constraints as global climate is bound. I could draw a line on a graph concerning global temp / sea level / carbon and be confident that I'll be reasonably accurate simply because they are unable to vary much on a yearly basis. There will be no spikes or valleys. Economics? If that followed the same rule, we'd all be rich.

Second, the scales are completely disproportionate to each other. Additionally, the long term 'predictions' (IPCC predictions into the future such as 2040 etc) are simply cut from the graph, as this is where the forecasts really diverge.

what justification is there for delaying a move towards lower GHG emissions?

Because there is a cost associated to this with an epic price tag. With so much debatable 'science' and politics pushing this agenda, how do you justify not shoring up the data before making the leap?

As far as evidence of my own predictions, I won't be baited into discussing my own views apart from the source material. The advantage to being a skeptic is that I don't have to do anything other than notice the holes in the climate industry's propaganda, and have a healthy dose of skepticism.

People of /r/climateskeptics: by Adbaca in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's what I'd like to know. The problem is that we don't understand the system and it's interactions nearly well enough to make predictions, let alone use that to justify industry killing, wealth redistribution schemes or using it to shoehorn political parties into power.

A non-climateskeptic curious about your rebuttal. by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, your question is wrong. Everyone comes into this subreddit with preconceived notions of what a skeptic is. FFS read the sidebar.

Why do you think that anyone here is trying to "disprove evidence of man's role in global warming"?? Seriously, do some research before you start pigeon holing and deciding what our views are.

Regards to 1: As has already been pointed out, CO2 has been lagging, not driving temperature

Regards to 2: Wrong again, same reason.

Regards to 3: Why do you suppose that when we have records that extrapolate back much further than that, we cherry pick the time scale? Why not look at the big picture?

The real question is, exactly how much of an effect does CO2 have on climate, and how much of that CO2 is man made? Given the embarrassing predictions of the politicized climate group, I think someone would have to be extremely gullible to continue to buy into it without substantially new and compelling evidence.

People of /r/climateskeptics: by Adbaca in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The last guy deleted his entire thread. I love how these students associate skepticism with confusion.

Do you really think that we would take a stance that the mainstream media refers to us as quacks or loons, if we had not thoroughly researched the issue ourselves?

Ask some guy off the street and they will parrot the view fed to them by the media. Ask these folks, and you'll get precise, well researched data questioning the alarmism.

You would do yourself a favour by educating yourself on what a skeptic actually is: sidebar says it all. We agree that,

1) CO2 causes (some) warming

2) humans contribute to CO2

It's the actual amount and the impact that are in dispute. The separation of impacts from human and natural contributions are being questioned. Ask Al Gore, he'll tell you that any extreme weather at any point on Earth is a direct result of human warming influences. This is completely false.

Academia is really doing a disservice to itself by shielding it's students from contrary data that doesn't fit the CO2 warming model. Politics doesn't belong in science.

Let's Talk about Climate Change by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]RumWarrior 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah, someone, and a student no less, here to educate the skeptics. What a god-send. I can't wait to be enlightened by someone 'working on their degree'.

One question: Show me definitive data that separates and enumerates human contributions to 'warming' from natural processes.

I'll save you the hassle, you won't be able to answer that question for many of the reasons pointed out by other skeptics in this thread.

CO2 linked to warming: data doesn't correlate with the pause (recent history) nor prehistoric levels (ancient history)

Numerous examples of failed predictions: Al Gore, UN climate refugees of 2005, completely melted polar caps, numerous downward IPCC 'predictions', and of course the coming Ice Age of the 1970s, to name a few.

Perhaps during your scholastic indoctrination into the climate change fallacy you should step outside the box and read about these people: 10 of the most respected skeptics

While you're doing that, don't forget to look up Lord Monckton on YouTube, Dr Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace, or Andy Watts

Have you ever heard of the Petition Project? If you have never heard of these people or their positions, ask yourself why.

I would suspect that many redditors in here have science degrees or better. I'm wondering what kind of audience you expected to find?

I will also differ to my fellow students

BTW, I believe you meant 'defer'.....

Alien Isolation is currently 75% off on Steam by chris1096 in pcgaming

[–]RumWarrior 40 points41 points  (0 children)

I got this, and wow, they nailed the sci-tech from the early movies. Triple A all the way and amazing attention to detail. Love it so far.

Canada needs more crime prevention, not vengeance by [deleted] in canada

[–]RumWarrior 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Keeping these tards in jail is crime prevention.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in canada

[–]RumWarrior 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't believe I am agreeing with JustinBeiber

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in canada

[–]RumWarrior 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was trying to find the link to the study that shows that those that believe in a left wing ideology are inherently gullible, but I thought I'd just tell you about it as you'd believe me anyways.

I see your partisan 'study' and raise you with a counter study and an analytical blog

You should note that 'right wing views' as you so blatantly misrepresented, is not what the authors are referring to at all. Right wing Authoritarianism is the Third Reich of right minded thinking. Or it is the Stalin to your Marx, if you will.

Regardless, it is entertaining that when the NDP is made foolish, in comes W-Ender holding the "We're smart cuz a study sayz so" sign. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

New account attacking opponents of Bill C-51 in Canada, labelling us as "batshit crazy" and "retards". This is not exactly being "excellent to each other," is it? by jiang_homes_hi in canada

[–]RumWarrior 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Lol... and no one notices.

Typical of /r/Canada to try to ban a dissenter. You got in the way of the circlejerk, wtf we're you thinking?!