Should Global Warming Skeptics be Banned from this Forum?

[Frodo]

Let's start a trend, shall we? 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Everyone should be banned.

[GaussLaw]

No.

Just no. 

Controversial opinions should not be censored......

[ElectionsGuy]

No (likes freedom of speech)

[TNF]

There aren't any real grounds for censoring this particular brand of quackery, so no.

[IceSpear]

That depends. Do we ban flat earthers?

[Adam Griffin]

This won't end well. It never does.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Let them be ridiculed ...

[Joe Republic]

The only example I can think of is Snowguy, who definitely wouldn't deserve it.  At least he bothers to back up his skepticism with effortposts and walls of text (feat. charts!  Lots and lots of charts!).  That's certainly better than any miscellaneous blue avatar's "it's all a liberal conspiracy to take our guns" or whatever.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Everyone should be banned.

Gully?

[Free Bird]

No because at least THEY have evidence on their side

[Antonio the Sixth]

No because at least THEY have evidence on their side

*facepalm*

[Free Bird]

No because at least THEY have evidence on their side

*facepalm*

I'm talking man-made global warming

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, we have... some dudes writing in the opinion pages of some random news sites vs. the global scientific community. Sound like an open debate.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

No because at least THEY have evidence on their side

LOL.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Much as I enjoy science articles written in the style and depth of a Cracked article, your second link is bogus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is true that average surface temperature hasn't changed in a while. That doesn't matter when we consider 90% of heat is absorbed by oceans (which have ballooned in temperature) - the changing global temperature is also especially apparent at the poles, which is bad for obvious reasons; plus it ignores the effect of Pacific Decadel Oscillation and other such essentially short-lived trends. It's also why it's more referred to as CLIMATE CHANGE more than GLOBAL WARMING now.


I'm not going to bother going over the groundless "some guys in the 70's said this .... therefore ....", as the NS can probably say it better than me:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html#.U-UVrqJX-uY

Also haha at those "scientists petitions!". The vast majority of them aren't even remotely specialised in climatology or anything related (it provides a breakdown); and it also consists of random lists of impossible to source names. Whoop!

The rest of is a slight gish gallop - the links to Breitbart and DM crowing that Arctic ice has increased 50%!!! (compared to last year, that is,); then links to intelligent design supporting Roy Spencer's blog - a man who believes that God naturally keeps the earth at equilinrium. Then it links to a handful of scaremongering media predictions that were wrong. Well, duh, it's easy to make headlines by taking the worst case scenario and the media love to imagine climate change as a disaster film with dramatic storms every month etc. Unfortunately the reality of climate change is less Roland Emmerich and more depressing European art house film, with everyone hungry and crowded.