1
5

[–] drug 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

this comment section is fucking cancer.

9
3

[–] conguero 9 points 3 points (+12|-9) ago 

Remember to refer to them as deniers, not skeptics.

2
6

[–] RedditSucksNow 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Remember to refer to them as conservatives. They think that global warming is a decades-long liberal conspiracy designed to reduce the quality of life of red-blooded American heterosexual men.

3
0

[–] Imapopulistnow 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Remember to go fuck yourself

3
-1

[–] escapetomars 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

I'll remember to refer to global warming believers are "cultists".

2
-2

[–] theoldguy 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

All this heat and noise do is prove that whatever studies or scientists agree with global warming are "genuine and correct scientists" and studies and scientists that say global warming isn't occurring are "not scientists but shills". You have to say global warming is false to earn the shill label, even though lots of people like Al Gore are laughing all the way to the bank by supporting global warming.

14
-2

[–] EHowardHunt 14 points -2 points (+12|-14) ago 

Most people are corrupt or incompetent at what they do. including scientists. Consensus are usually wrong. Science does not work by consensus, but by evidence. https://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree The medieval warming period was very warm, much warmer than it is today. It was followed by the little ice age. http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html "...the ice sheets around Greenland were largely absent as little as 950 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. Interestingly there is no evidence of a rise in sea level during this period. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the sea levels were the same as they are today!"

4
13

[–] fullmetaljacket 4 points 13 points (+17|-4) ago 

You are really arguing with thousands of highly educated experts? You are batshit crazy #4. I know you REALLY want to believe AGW is not real. But it is. Proven over and over and over. More than 30 independent scientific studies confirming it.

5
-2

[–] escapetomars 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago  (edited ago)

You are really arguing with thousands of highly educated experts?

If you call members of a delusional, end-of-the-world cult "experts", sure.

7
-3

[–] Broc_Lia 7 points -3 points (+4|-7) ago 

You are really arguing with thousands of highly educated experts?

Yes. I'm prepared to call thousands of educated experts wrong. Like the thousands of educated experts who thought that blood moved through the body like a tide or the thousands of educated experts who believed in phlogiston. The history of natural philosophy is full of consensuses of thousands of educated experts being completely wrong.

4
5

[–] Crashmarik 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

Science is about making falsifiable statements. When someone starts talking about consensus instead of the experimentally verifiable you know they aren't talking about science

It gets even worse when the statements are falsified but there is a head in the sand reaction to ignoring reality.

Here are the predictions of the models vs the observed temps.

http://imgur.com/CTAQszd

Now experts or observed reality ?

2
6

[–] Lighting 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

If you want your imgur graph to be treated seriously and not like the fraudulent science that deniers typically throw on the internet, then you have to provide context for the graph. Where was the paper that this graph came from? Peer reviewed? What were the settings for the models (start time, altitude, RF settings, etc) what was the altitude of the balloons? Which layers of the atmosphere were the satellites measuring?

2
4

[–] tame 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

It's the consensus of the community on the experimental data. That's science.

1
3

[–] Lighting 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The medieval warming period was very warm, much warmer than it is today

That's a fallacy promoted by denier blogs and not actual scientists. The 0 point for the comparison to the medieval warming period was 1880 to 1960. If you read the ACTUAL and ORIGINAL paper that this is based on - you'd see the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) stuff was based on this paper which had a 0 point of the Y axis based on temperatures 1880 to 1960. If you set the 0 point on temperature even as far back as 2011 then ALL OF THE data points on the "warm" graphs would be NEGATIVE.

So really the "medieval warm period" (MWP) should be called the "warm period relative to 1960 and not today." MWPRT1960ANT

See this video on the MWP fraud for a really nice explanation of why the site you pointed to (green-agenda) about the MWP is really evidence of scientific fraud by deniers.

1
1

[–] Crashmarik 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

0
1

[–] NinetyAndNine 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

youre an idiot

4
-3

[–] 9-11 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

wow, /v/science really does let anything get posted

0
9

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So you agree that 9/11 wasn't a controlled demolition.... BUT you believe global warming is just some scam?

How can you be so buzzkill on one issue yet so crackpot on the other? I thought you were a fellow skeptic? This is disturbing to me to discover you believe gloabal warming is a scam. Why? What would make you believe such utter bullshit when you're so level headed on the subject of 9/11.

I've got plenty of citations for you to read up on if you're actually still a "denier".

NASA http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gifGIF

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html

American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

American Geophysical Union (world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists) “Human Impacts on Climate” http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now” http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html

California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf

Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming” http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457

The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change - the big picture” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/

The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications

Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx

National Geographic Magazine http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/

Scientific American Magazine http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change

0
0

[–] 9-11 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

what made you think i dont believe in gw? my comment was directed at the misspelled title and non-science link.

0
4

[–] Atlasstorm [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So only certain types of science posts are permitted on /v/science? Please provide a list of Science subjects we should censor from /v/science so we can keep your world view from being challenged and offended.

0
1

[–] x4GTNshinigami 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is voat not reddit

5
-5