R/science removes comments advocating carbon capture as a solution to global warming, as well as comments criticizing sensationalist headlines.

168    14 Oct 2019 02:14 by u/sum_muthafuckn_where

13 comments

46 u/bacon_flavored 14 Oct 2019 12:31
The science sub is just an even more fascist-run version of the politics sub. Their headlines are fucking hilarious. "Alt-right people more likely to have Nazi midichlorians in their blood causing their penis to be tiny." "Belief that Patriotic behavior is normal found to be more prevalent amongst white supremacists." "Climate change denial found to correlate closely with being a big ole poo poo head." "People suffering from low IQs found to be more likely to vote Republican." I just snort laugh every time I see the stupid ill-framed "science" that is obviously all agenda driven crap
10 u/Tokestra420 14 Oct 2019 15:26
That sub just makes me lose faith in science, they post the most retarded "studies" I've ever seen
2 u/Nergaal 15 Oct 2019 01:14
> People suffering from low IQs found to be more likely to vote Republican They actually allow IQ threads? Cause usually those turn extra "spicy"
3 u/Euphemism 15 Oct 2019 01:49
it is like a honey pot. They put the thread up, after a hour or so they have enough "wrong think" people pointing out actual stat's that can be banned as to not cause trouble in later threads.
37 u/sum_muthafuckn_where [OP] 14 Oct 2019 02:15
In addition to their SOP of removing any post denying global warming
26 u/XxTyraelxX * 14 Oct 2019 04:02
Who do they think they're protecting by removing the comments of skeptics? Climate models are notoriously bad at simulating clouds - mostly because we literally have no idea how warming will affect cloud cover. This is all over the NOAA pages on clouds and the IPCC pages regarding these topics, but mention it and you're a "climate denier!" which makes no sense because no - I'm not denying that the climate exists - lol. I'm talking about science - which is never "settled" btw. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle **Edit:** Just to be clear - I am *not* saying that the planet is *not* warming and that CO2 *doesn't* contribute. I'm just pointing out that the timeline may be different depending on how clouds react to said warming. It may actually be worse than it is, but pointing out that it *could be better* should not be silenced - that suggests that there is more at play.
8 u/liberules 14 Oct 2019 13:05
the IPCC shill famous for the hockey stick curb was called a fraud online because of his shit fake "science", he sued for defamation, and he lost in court... twice. so badly he had to pay their legal fees. twice. the UN is the parent of the IPCC. look at the date on this statement by the UN: [https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0](https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) meanwhile obama just bought a $14 million beach front mansion that will be underwater if what he says is true. and both AOC's campaign manager and numerous EU politicians are on video saying climate change isn't about saving the environment... it's about upending capitalism for socialism. they're all fucking frauds and deep state globalist shills. not saying we shouldn't protect the environment, but "climate change" is a doomsday cult conspiracy theory.
3 u/gaelgal 14 Oct 2019 14:13
The report doesn’t even deny climate change it just mentions the margin of error is probably wrong
1 u/[deleted] 14 Oct 2019 07:09
[deleted]
4 u/Frontfart 14 Oct 2019 07:49
tHe ScIenCe iS sEtTlEd
8 u/yzq12 14 Oct 2019 04:02
They remove large numbers of posts for no clear reason, it don't seem ideological
5 u/Bishblash 14 Oct 2019 12:37
The big problem with carbon capture is that it makes gas/oil a RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE. This, obviously, makes it a huge issue for environmentalist, because now they have to compare an algea farm, for oil, to extracting and processing heavy metals for batteries and solar. Which one you think is actually less ecological? How are they going to put a carbon tax of oil, if the oil made has a NEGATIVE carbon footprint? (Or essentially a null footprint, since it's just used over and over again)
1 u/Jeyhawker 14 Oct 2019 17:05
Just start calling them fascist.