• 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!

Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

pixelsmith said:
Really Angelo? I am grasping?... I don't need to discredit anything. Your science, the IPCC and its scientists did that all by themselves, now they are even admitting they were wrong... but you keep saying they are right... that is very strange my friend.
Click to expand...

Yup - wrong and grasping! Keep it up!
 
“Man-made global-warming hypothesis is dead in the water” says Godfrey Bloom MEP, but it gets better, he points a finger at the chairman and shouts “denier”.
 
Well... your "camp" has politicized the climate change arena. The IPCC is a governmental body not a scientific one and that is where your brand of science comes from. It seems the whole world including IPCC scientists are back peddling on climate change claims... except for Angelo.
 
Still nothing disproving the models, eh Pixel? Let me take a page out of your book and bring up what kind of guy Godfrey Bloom is:

A few weeks after being appointed to the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality on 20 July 2004, Bloom told an interview that, "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. That isn't politically correct, is it, but it's a fact of life. The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment."[10] Around the same time, he said that "I just don't think [women] clean behind the fridge enough" and that "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home."[9][11] Bloom told BBC Radio 4's Today that his comments were "said for fun" to illustrate a more serious point, that equal-rights legislation was in fact putting women out of work.[9]

In December 2008, Bloom had to be carried out by an intern after making a European Parliament speech while drunk.[19] During the speech, Bloom denied that the MEPs from Poland, the Czech Republic or Latvia have the ability to understand economic relations. In February 2012, Bloom interrupted a debate with the question whether the Cambridge University Women's Rugby team should wear their logo on the front or back of their shirts. Later he admitted to have consumed alcohol and "very heavy" prescription painkillers after breaking his collarbone in a riding accident.[20]


A drunk Eurosceptic makes more sense than a sober federalist – Telegraph Blogs

On 24 November 2010, Bloom was ejected from the European Parliament after directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP Martin Schulz as the latter was speaking during a debate on the economic crisis in Ireland. Godfrey Bloom interrupted Schulz and said "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" - one people, one empire, one leader.[21] He was then suspended from the debate.


At the height of the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal, Bloom complained about the lack of manners of the political class. In a statement on his website, he pointed out that, unlike many others, he wouldn't employ family members in his parliamentary staff. However, Bloom later conceded that three members of his staff are also employed at TBO, the company in which he is a major shareholder, and one of these is his niece.[5]
 
Angelo the models disproved themselves, the emails between the scientists running the models prove they are fabricated to a desired output. They admit it in their emails, they fight about what will happen when it is discovered and they discuss how to manipulate the data to achieve a warming result. There is no disputing the models are crap, the projected warming didn't happen and now they are all back peddling by saying global warming can cause warming, cooling and flat temps. Geez.. why defend people who admit they are wrong when their data and emails actually prove it?
 
Here we go - this describes you quite well:

Climate change deniers | Climate change basics | Climate change | Science & policy | Climate change basics | Issues

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
Who are the climate change deniers?

Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.
While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system.
Learn more:

Who are the deniers?

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Merchants of Doubt
'Some Like It Hot' — Mother Jones article on climate change skeptics
Responding to Global Warming Skeptics — Prominent Skeptics Organizations
DesmogBlog.com's Disinformation Database
'The Denial Machine' — CBC's the fifth estate program
Who funds the deniers?

What Exxon doesn't want you to know
ExxonSecrets: How ExxonMobil funds the climate change deniers
'Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank' — Mother Jones article on ExxonMobil funding
The science of climate change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change
RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change — Science Magazine
The Science of Global Warming — Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate change reporting in the media

Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
'Snowed' — Mother Jones article about the media's reporting on climate change
'The Fossil Fools' by George Monbiot
More information

DeSmogBlog.com — Excellent blog on the deniers
Skeptical Science.com — Database and refutation of common skeptic arguments
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptic arguments Grist.org
Editorial on stolen climate change emails — Nature Journal
A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear
'Hostile Climate' On Bjorn Lomborg and climate change
Recent news stories on deniers
 
Everywhere you look the global warming issue is falling apart. When the very scientists who predicted catastrophic warming and the IPCC and dozens of other science, nature, economic, news publications are doubting the warming...even you should take a step back and think.. hmm Pixel was right all along.

The Economist and other journalism icons are beginning to reassess their position on global warming
The overwhelming consensus on global warming among journalists may be cracking. Last week, the world’s most prestigious newsmagazine – The Economist – backed away from its past alarmist position, saying that “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.” The Economist now discounts the high-end estimates of warming coming from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being unlikely if not far-fetched.

Climate change of heart for Economist, other journalism icons | FP Comment | Financial Post
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Still nothing disproving the models, eh Pixel? Let me take a page out of your book and bring up what kind of guy Godfrey Bloom is:

A few weeks after being appointed to the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality on 20 July 2004, Bloom told an interview that, "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. That isn't politically correct, is it, but it's a fact of life. The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment."[10] Around the same time, he said that "I just don't think [women] clean behind the fridge enough" and that "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home."[9][11] Bloom told BBC Radio 4's Today that his comments were "said for fun" to illustrate a more serious point, that equal-rights legislation was in fact putting women out of work.[9]

In December 2008, Bloom had to be carried out by an intern after making a European Parliament speech while drunk.[19] During the speech, Bloom denied that the MEPs from Poland, the Czech Republic or Latvia have the ability to understand economic relations. In February 2012, Bloom interrupted a debate with the question whether the Cambridge University Women's Rugby team should wear their logo on the front or back of their shirts. Later he admitted to have consumed alcohol and "very heavy" prescription painkillers after breaking his collarbone in a riding accident.[20]


A drunk Eurosceptic makes more sense than a sober federalist – Telegraph Blogs

On 24 November 2010, Bloom was ejected from the European Parliament after directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP Martin Schulz as the latter was speaking during a debate on the economic crisis in Ireland. Godfrey Bloom interrupted Schulz and said "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" - one people, one empire, one leader.[21] He was then suspended from the debate.


At the height of the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal, Bloom complained about the lack of manners of the political class. In a statement on his website, he pointed out that, unlike many others, he wouldn't employ family members in his parliamentary staff. However, Bloom later conceded that three members of his staff are also employed at TBO, the company in which he is a major shareholder, and one of these is his niece.[5]
Click to expand...

So, PS is quoting a guy who thinks women should stay in the home and shut-up, and who then blames these kinds of statements on extenuating circumstances? Oh, the irony. I couldn't make up this stuff, especially under the circumstances. (This truly has me laughing so hard it hurts.)

I'll be the first to admit that otherwise intelligent people can sometimes be complete fools in other areas, but this doesn't mean we can't notice a pattern when one emerges. If someone has the reputation of making completely asinine statements, it may be because that person is a total a** and shouldn't be taken seriously.

So much headache could be spared if we would learn to get to the bottom of a source. If something is quoted, find out directly from the source what was quoted and in what context. Research who is making which statements. A paper that appears to have an accurate quote but has had headlines involving Bat Boy might not be giving the same critical information as another paper that gives an unedited quote, especially if that latter paper also has specialized in the topic at hand.

We should also remember to consider if those doing the reporting have an agenda. I can see a clear agenda behind scientists hired by oil companies, whereas I don't see a clear agenda behind scientists who work in academia or for actual, scientific institutions. I'd like nothing more than to have the evidence that global warming is a complete myth and that the environment can somehow shrug-off all of the pollutants and greenhouse gasses we emit everyday. Wanting to believe in something doesn't give me the permission to ignore objective evidence. Any organization or person that gives us permission to listen to our meanest or laziest instincts should automatically be suspect. "I want to believe" is a damning statement. I don't want to "believe" anything. I'd rather see what objective evidence is available and draw my conclusions from that.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Here we go - this describes you quite well:

Climate change deniers | Climate change basics | Climate change | Science & policy | Climate change basics | Issues

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
Who are the climate change deniers?

Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.
While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system.
Learn more:

Who are the deniers?

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Merchants of Doubt
'Some Like It Hot' — Mother Jones article on climate change skeptics
Responding to Global Warming Skeptics — Prominent Skeptics Organizations
DesmogBlog.com's Disinformation Database
'The Denial Machine' — CBC's the fifth estate program
Who funds the deniers?

What Exxon doesn't want you to know
ExxonSecrets: How ExxonMobil funds the climate change deniers
'Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank' — Mother Jones article on ExxonMobil funding
The science of climate change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change
RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change — Science Magazine
The Science of Global Warming — Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate change reporting in the media

Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
'Snowed' — Mother Jones article about the media's reporting on climate change
'The Fossil Fools' by George Monbiot
More information

DeSmogBlog.com — Excellent blog on the deniers
Skeptical Science.com — Database and refutation of common skeptic arguments
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptic arguments Grist.org
Editorial on stolen climate change emails — Nature Journal
A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear
'Hostile Climate' On Bjorn Lomborg and climate change
Recent news stories on deniers
Click to expand...
No scientist in my "camp" denies climate change, global warming, global cooling, ice ages, etc happen. You can't seem to understand that fact. What we deny is that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic or statistically significant warming. And as I have stated in the past 3 years your "camp" has gone from global cooling/ice age to global warming to anthropogenic global warming to climate change to global climate disruption and now are now are back peddling on everything they have said in the past because of actual OBSERVED data rather than human generated results from computer models they admit do not work well or not at all. The thing is Angelo if the science was truly settled we would not be having this discussion. You my friend are not the best skeptic...there is plenty in this arena to be skeptical about.
 
Pixel, just to make sure - who do you think is in my camp? Keep in mind two posts up I said I disagree with the alarmists (like Green Peace and Al Gore), and denialists (you). I'm with the scientists.
I guess you just ignore what I post. Sort of how you ignore evidence!
 
When I see you post anything about "my camp" denying that climate change or global warming happens I quit reading what you post. It is a lie. Climate change has always happened and always will with or without human influence.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Pixel, just to make sure - who do you think is in my camp? Keep in mind two posts up I said I disagree with the alarmists (like Green Peace and Al Gore), and denialists (you). I'm with the scientists.
I guess you just ignore what I post. Sort of how you ignore evidence!
Click to expand...
The evidence we know is CO2 is necessary for all life on earth. It is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. The human contribution is approximately 3%. So if you want to tax or regulate CO2 it would seem you are barking up the wrong tree. Do you firmly believe a 3% contribution of a life giving trace gas is warming the planet to catastrophic levels? really Angelo? You are not a real skeptic. You are a believer.
 
pixelsmith said:
I suggest you consider taking a few months to explore this web site. Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
If you do not subscribe to the crap from Al Gore or Greenpeace then there may be hope for you.
Click to expand...

Pixel, I have said that many times - you just don't listen or pay attention, which is why you still use sites like Watts Up With That, which is run by a Fox News Weatherman.
Admit that you have an issue with the economic actions proposed to stop climate change and not the actual science.
 
Watts worked for many news stations. so what? Give me the names of people you get your science from and see what happens. Better google them first!
 
lets start with the first one and go from there... REALLY?! John Cook has no integrity at all. He has been busted changing content, removing posts that challenge his reported science, manipulating his forums to make himself appear legitimate. His response when busted? "I accidentally mistook my readers to have responded to my updated article. Thinking that was indeed the case, their comments sounded silly to me. So I ended up adding responses to guide new readers" Better do some more research on this guy. SS has been discredited on many levels. Next...
 
oh boy... lets not even bother with the government climate change web site... nuff said there. total mouthpieces for the UN. next..
 
Back
Top