• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Climate Change: Fact and Denial

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

marduk said:
I don't know.

It's pretty much a religious debate. It feels... Galilean.

Hey guys, you can just look and see the fact that your old book is wrong, maybe we should update it...

Nope! Facts don't matter, my beliefs are all that matters! Um, I mean, I just made up some new facts that matter more... see, there's a debate here, and maybe there's controversy, etc, etc.

Pixel and Greer here are acting downright papal.

They didn't listen for a couple hundred years. It took science and society just ignoring them to make progress.

The internet routes around damaged nodes and just keeps working. I suggest we learn from history and technology and just do the same.
Click to expand...

I am agnostic about man made climate science.

There is no definitive either way IMO, see the lukewarmer video I posted.

This is Skepticism, towards both sides. The papal approach is to say debate over, no more science to be done and ignore all the other evidence, thought and new discoveries that challenge.
 
marduk said:
Science is hard too.
Click to expand...

So you admit you don't know who Mann is and do not believe he altered data to produce the hockey stick graph that launched all this fake global warming hysteria. Ok. Yeah science and facts are hard for the challenged.
 
pixelsmith said:
So you admit you don't know who Mann is and do not believe he altered data to produce the hockey stick graph that launched all this fake global warming hysteria. Ok. Yeah science and facts are hard for the challenged.
Click to expand...
Logic... that's even harder.
 
Liberals who have accomplished a lot in their lives and may even have high IQs often say things that are incredibly and profoundly stupid and opposite of the way the science works.
I left the liberal party because of the stupidity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
Liberals who have accomplished a lot in their lives and may even have high IQs often say things that are incredibly and profoundly stupid and opposite of the way the science works.
I left the liberal party because of the stupidity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Oh, you're a scientist now?
 
marduk said:
ok, so explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Well I am about to harvest 1800 garlic and several mushrooms. I have no time to train you. Why not start with Manns deceptive hockey stick graph that Al Gore used to deceive the world and set global policies in place by saying the science is settled. Then went on to suggest carbon credits while launching a carbon credit trading company, then study the so called greenhouse effect and the logarithmic properties of CO2 that make it impossible to over heat the planet. Then study how CO2 is greening deserts and the rest of the planet. Then study the whole chicken little doomsday scenarios that have been going on since the 60's and follow the money.
Then try using the scientific method to empirically prove that anthropogenic contributions of CO2 is causing anything to worry about.
 
pixelsmith said:
Well I am about to harvest 1800 garlic and several mushrooms. I have no time to train you. Why not start with Manns deceptive hockey stick graph that Al Gore used to deceive the world and set global policies in place by saying the science is settled. Then went on to suggest carbon credits while launching a carbon credit trading company, then study the so called greenhouse effect and the logarithmic properties of CO2 that make it impossible to over heat the planet. Then study how CO2 is greening deserts and the rest of the planet. Then study the whole chicken little doomsday scenarios that have been going on since the 60's and follow the money.
Then try using the scientific method to empirically prove that anthropogenic contributions of CO2 is causing anything to worry about.
Click to expand...
I actually have a science and math degree, I don't need training in the underlying methods.

Frankly, I'm not sure you understand.
 
marduk said:
I actually have a science and math degree, I don't need training in the underlying methods.

Frankly, I'm not sure you understand.
Click to expand...

Then utilize your training and show me empirical proof via scientific methodology that anthropogenic CO2 is causing runaway global warming. It should be simple for a smart guy like you.

Or don't you understand what I just said? I realize people with degrees from indoctrination centers nowadays are told what to think rather than how to think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pixelsmith said:
Then utilize your training and show me empirical proof via scientific methodology that anthropogenic CO2 is causing runaway global warming. It should be simple for a smart guy like you.

Or don't you understand what I just said? I realize people with degrees from indoctrination centers nowadays are told what to think rather than how to think.
Click to expand...
Nope.

That burden is on you. That's the point.

If you want to prove your claim, then do so. Without appealing to authority, especially authoritative sources that have been massively discredited.

Start with the null hypothesis - in other words, that you are wrong. Prove that you're not wrong.

With data.
 
marduk said:
Nope.

That burden is on you. That's the point.

If you want to prove your claim, then do so. Without appealing to authority, especially authoritative sources that have been massively discredited.

Start with the null hypothesis - in other words, that you are wrong. Prove that you're not wrong.

With data.
Click to expand...

No the burden is on you. Your "side" is the one making catastrophic claims with no proof. They started in the 60's with global cooling.
 
pixelsmith said:
No the burden is on you. Your "side" is the one making catastrophic claims with no proof. They started in the 60's with global cooling.
Click to expand...
The proof has been given and accepted by the scientific community.

You're the one claiming they all just lied. Every climate scientist. In the whole world.

Because...

Well, why was that again?
 
marduk said:
The proof has been given and accepted by the scientific community.

You're the one claiming they all just lied. Every climate scientist. In the whole world.

Because...

Well, why was that again?
Click to expand...

No it hasn't been accepted. There is NO 97% consensus. Debunked long ago. And now Mann is in court over fabricating the hockey stick graph.
It's over. Hell even that dumb ass trump knows its all fake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said every scientist in the world lied. Don't put words in my mouth.
Try using your pathetic education to prove what I said earlier. You can't. Your scientists can't either that's why they relied on climate models of which 97% have failed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
No it hasn't been accepted. There is NO 97% consensus. Debunked long ago. And now Mann is in court over fabricating the hockey stick graph.
It's over. Hell even that dumb ass trump knows its all fake.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is no debate.

I could send you your own climate science data but you would ignore it.

You're more interested in spreading rumours and lies.

Why is that Pixel? You know you're being used, right?
 
Back
Top