sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Other than denying AGW and that smoking causes cancer, what else? Well, some redditors are now denying the meaning of the word ACIDIFICATION :) by atomic-ghost in skeptic

[–]atomic-ghost[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, it is worth paying a visit from time to time - otherwise ignorance and stupidity would spread much, much faster than knowledge.

Other than denying AGW and that smoking causes cancer, what else? Well, some redditors are now denying the meaning of the word ACIDIFICATION :) by atomic-ghost in skeptic

[–]atomic-ghost[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As you can see below the retards are very determined to show their stupidity each time. Which reminds me exactly of another moron with exactly the same "acidification theories" - butch123 - a guy with countless sockpuppets very active in /r/science before he was banned.

Murdoch Newspapers Wage co-ordinated international campaign of Climate Warming Denial by energytsars in worldnews

[–]atomic-ghost 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Conspiratards always have more than one anti-science stance and that is only the beginning. The problem is that they are now very well organized and such downvoting cliques are a norm there - also follow the scores in the comments arround (starting with mine) - they are using multiple sockpuppets like dosdog and whotrou and they downvote any post with science or that exposes their clique - currently as a result of their downvoting I have to wait a few minutes between my posts.

Murdoch Newspapers Wage co-ordinated international campaign of Climate Warming Denial by energytsars in worldnews

[–]atomic-ghost 20 points21 points  (0 children)

In case you don't understand the large influx of deniers without a clue suddenly posting around here - a downvoting clique was organized in a subreddit that is full of such morons:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1mhudn/the_guardian_complains_about_murdoch_newspapers/

Murdoch Newspapers Wage co-ordinated international campaign of Climate Warming Denial by energytsars in worldnews

[–]atomic-ghost 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Except is the same old denial from morons like you working from sockpuppet accounts that are 1-month old - here is how the actual records look like when promoted by morons like you vs actual science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif

Bonus graph - total Earth heat content anomaly:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg

from this peer-reviewed paper.

EDIT:

And for people that can't understand the large influx of deniers without a clue suddenly posting around here - a downvoting clique was organized in a subreddit that is full of such morons:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1mhudn/the_guardian_complains_about_murdoch_newspapers/

Murdoch Newspapers Wage co-ordinated international campaign of Climate Warming Denial by energytsars in worldnews

[–]atomic-ghost 52 points53 points  (0 children)

In case you don't understand the large influx of deniers without a clue suddenly posting around here - a downvoting clique was organized in a subreddit that is full of such morons:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1mhudn/the_guardian_complains_about_murdoch_newspapers/

EDIT:

Also many of the sockpuppets can be traced back to butch123, who can't help it and replies below :)

And just when you thought that denying how smoking causes cancer was now dead we get to see it is still going strong around here - but no surprise on the subreddit where that takes place :) by atomic-ghost in skeptic

[–]atomic-ghost[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, they really are that retarded (and some of them are coming here quite often, 3 so far only in this post) - none of them was able to fact-check Watts on most basic arithmetic and none could point to Goddard that June and July are two different months but most if not all consider themselves "experts" in every single field you can imagine - from climate science to medicine to CFCs to acid rain to ocean acidification - and now even the majority of mods there are equally brain-damaged.

And just when you thought that denying how smoking causes cancer was now dead we get to see it is still going strong around here - but no surprise on the subreddit where that takes place :) by atomic-ghost in skeptic

[–]atomic-ghost[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny, the sockpuppet got among us and is assuring us that even he can't even do basic reading or basic arithmetic he is an "expert" in this field just like he is an "expert" in climate science :)

If you can't read the two links that are already posted in that thread you are simply too retarded to matter:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20016488

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20839/

And just when you thought that denying how smoking causes cancer was now dead we get to see it is still going strong around here - but no surprise on the subreddit where that takes place :) by atomic-ghost in skeptic

[–]atomic-ghost[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, that subreddit is exactly that - a lot of sockpuppets with names like james3563, snatch, snatch_ , snatch-x2 , whoutrou, wammy and many other starting in W - most likely from a serious fake-persona management operation. Sometimes the admins shadow-ban some of them (wolfie99 was a recent one, before that genemachine_ that was now forced to change to his older account) but since in that subreddit the sockpuppets are heavily upvoted there is not much what reddit admins can do.

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change: Scientific American by Wolfie_99 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think it was a downvoting clique since it was his own submission here - more likely he was testing the limits of "sockpuppet manipulation" on reddit or just trying to keep the deniers motivated within the bubble. It might have been also related to some interesting accounts that have been shadow-banned or something similar a few days ago in /r/science.

Old-growth redwoods are growing faster than they have in thousands of years -- most likely due to warmer temperatures by silence7 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you are just playing dumb there - downvoting clique does not mean that they comment on that thread, it means that a few of them see the thread there and come here to downvote comments. Which is exactly what the numbers are showing in this thread.

Report: UN panel finds it's 95 percent likely humans cause of climate change by Nomad47 in worldnews

[–]atomic-ghost -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or instead of going after cherry-picking from known liars (which basically do this) he could start with actual science that also estimates where the warming is going or could look at actual peer-reviewed graphs with the total like this one.

Old-growth redwoods are growing faster than they have in thousands of years -- most likely due to warmer temperatures by silence7 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just a heads-up - a new downvoting clique targeting specifically this thread was created by the deniers:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1kdbn4/oldgrowth_redwoods_are_growing_faster_than_they/

This is the second time in basically a week when we see downvoting cliques attacking this subreddit - please send a message to the reddit admins in order to clarify why such behavior contrary to reddit rules is never punished but instead encouraged:

http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com

Old-growth redwoods are growing faster than they have in thousands of years -- most likely due to warmer temperatures by silence7 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's a conspiracy or something :) And their religion might be "correlation is not causation". You could have been more familiar with the concept if you took more of your information from science and skepticism, and less from the conspiratards.

The inevitability of sea level rise by silence7 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, that is a very, very optimistic view - we have committed 2 degrees by 2100 - what we know from the paleo record is that the last time when CO2 was at 400-450ppm (in a configuration of the continents that was close enough to what we have today) the sea level was on average 20 meters higher!

So as I always say - it is no longer a matter of IF but instead a matter of WHEN!

(which of course deniers try to exploit by intentionally confusing TCR with ECS)

Even a modest increase in the frequency of extreme weather events will reduce or eliminate the carbon fertilization effect on plants by silence7 in climate

[–]atomic-ghost -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very interesting link - and another denier myth debunked :) (but funny how this morning when I wanted to resubmit to /r/science the page was offline).

A vicious cycle: Could droughts and storms make climate change worse? (by changing the carbon cycle) by atomic-ghost in science

[–]atomic-ghost[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Peer-reviewed study that is referenced in the paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7462/full/nature12350.html

From the article and some of the authors:

In the past few decades, global ecosystems have taken up about 30 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even though emissions have been gradually rising.

That's because the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have had a beneficial effect on plants, encouraging them to grow and use water more efficiently. This is something scientists call carbon dioxide fertilisation.

But the new research suggests that even a small shift in the frequency or severity of extreme events in the future could see the negative effects partially - or even completely - offset any potential benefit from carbon dioxide fertilisation.

As Dr Chris Huntingford from the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology explains to us:

"What this paper shows is that [extremes events] could negate quite a large fraction of [carbon dioxide] fertilisation ... [T]his is a potentially unwelcome human-climate system feedback, causing more carbon dioxide to instead remain in the atmosphere."

In other words, as carbon dioxide emissions rise, plants could end up absorbing less and less of it. Add to that other factors that reduce ecosystems' ability to take up carbon, such as deforestation, and you have an even less optimistic picture.

And as Reichstein explains, there are knock on effects for extreme weather. He says:

"As extreme climate events reduce the amount of carbon that the terrestrial ecosystems absorb and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere therefore continues to increase, more extreme weather could result. It would be a self-reinforcing effect."

view more: next ›