• 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:

RL read my post above... the tabloid did not break the story... geeez... you clearly do not have the knowledge to discuss anything related to this topic.

I suggest you return to the joke thread where you excel. Could you please post more funny cat stuff? I like cat stuff.
 
On the topic of climate change the sun is ever relevant ...

For example.


Its a big bloody magnet with a smaller magnet orbiting it .. namely us.
 
Burnt State said:
We've been through this before. You have a serious case of confirmation bias and I can't say anything scientific or otherwise to refute what you believe. I explained previously that the formation of first year ice blocking the rowers is a sad argument up against historical glacial devastation. You feel that this is just a natural ebb and flow of nature. I hope you get to freeze and revive your brain:rolleyes: in the next century to see what human caused planetary devestation looks like.

The only thing left to talk about on this thread is the psychology of conspiracy thinking and evidence of it in action. This type of discussion may take us further into understanding just what it is we all don't know about UFO's and why conspiracies are apt to consume the most precious resource of all - time.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
 
pixelsmith said:
It is so sad that you and Burnt are brainwashed. Glaciers are supposed to retreat (glacial devastation). You would not be here if they didn't. :)
Click to expand...

Oh pixelsmith! Obama has brainwashed me! God help me! Always trying to frame your opponents' argument into a "gotcha" comment. No one here believes global warming is an unnatural process, silly. However, I will let the scientific consensus speak for itself on whether mankind is accelerating the process...
 
Tell me about this "consensus" that you speak of? Even if there was a consensus you are aware science is not derived from it... right? The "consensus of scientists" thing has been totally debunked.
 
Over the years there have been 2 reports of a "97% consensus of scientists" mantra... BOTH were debunked.

NOW the IPCC has to admit that 99% of their climate models have been proven to be wrong about their warming projections. They now say that the warming may not happen for 30 - 60 years.

If you have some new climate data to present I would love to see it
 
I will not argue with you on how to conduct scientific research or how scientists come to consensus on their data. Its pretty easy to figure out how different groups of researchers generating similar trends of data could lead to something called a "consensus".


The peer reviewed publications are out there, whether you ignore them is your choice.


I'll ask you to do two things:

1. Post some reputable examples of peer reviewed publications debunking the THOUSANDS of papers supporting a hypothesis for anthropogenic global warming/ climate change.

2.Give me a logical explanation for why most major scientific organizations project the idea of anthropogenic global warming, aside from the overwhelming trend of data.
 
Terjarv said:
I will not argue with you on how to conduct scientific research or how scientists come to consensus on their data. Its pretty easy to figure out how different groups of researchers generating similar trends of data could lead to something called a "consensus".


The peer reviewed publications are out there, whether you ignore them is your choice.


I'll ask you to do two things:

1. Post some reputable examples of peer reviewed publications debunking the THOUSANDS of papers supporting a hypothesis for anthropogenic global warming/ climate change.

2.Give me a logical explanation for why most major scientific organizations project the idea of anthropogenic global warming, aside from the overwhelming trend of data.
Click to expand...
Ok, you're asking a lot here from a conspiracist, as the pre-purchased, pre-ordained, sanctioned rhetoric does not respond well, if at tall, to entrees into critical literacy.
 
Burnt State said:
Ok, you're asking a lot here from a conspiracist, as the pre-purchased, pre-ordained, sanctioned rhetoric does not respond well, if at tall, to entrees into critical literacy.
Click to expand...
Burnt and Terjarv please point me to this consensus of scientists and we can proceed.
 
pixelsmith said:
Burnt and Terjarv please point me to this consensus of scientists and we can proceed.
Click to expand...
Lol. Like I reported in another thread, the BBC were unable to find anyone credible (actual climatologists) who would even attempt to refute the problem with greenhouse gases, recently.

So, you have two options (unless you want to come to reason?):
- Keep being in denial, while appearing ignorant of what goes on in the world.
- Keep to your conspiracy-angle, while appearing like a fool, or like someone with a purely political agenda.
 
And you have yet to produce anyone credible who can support the CAGW hypothesis.

So, you have two options (unless you want to come to reason?):
- Keep being in denial, while appearing ignorant of what goes on in the world.
- Keep to your conspiracy-angle, while appearing like a fool, or like someone with a purely political agenda.
 
No credible scientist arguing against the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis dispute a minimal human influence in climate, or that climate change does not exist, or that greenhouse gasses have an effect on climate. They argue that the essential trace gas CO2 is NOT the evil substance we need to fear. Natural climate variables and disasters are a concern, not people exhaling an essential plant food into the air. We are recovering from a near global disaster from a LACK of CO2, let's try to do our best to keep the CO2 levels between 400 and 1200 ppm and feed the planet from the beneficial results.
 
pixelsmith said:
Over the years there have been 2 reports of a "97% consensus of scientists" mantra... BOTH were debunked.

NOW the IPCC has to admit that 99% of their climate models have been proven to be wrong about their warming projections. They now say that the warming may not happen for 30 - 60 years.

If you have some new climate data to present I would love to see it
Click to expand...
Pixelsmith is right. The IPCC has been thouroughly debunked as it were. Anybody remember Climategate?
 
Burnt State said:
Anytime serious science is sent your way you either sidestep or ignore altogether i.e. 911 molten conspiracies etc.. Even typing this by way of explanation is exhausting when it comes to engaging you.
Click to expand...
This is probably due to going over this many times LONG before you were here. I have even been banned because of a global warming dispute.
It should be rather simple for you to provide this "consensus" because the "science is settled" and I assume you can direct me to where it is empirically proven that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic or even somewhat alarming global warming.
 
Ok lets consider that the king pins of this climate debacle the IPCC and which ever political faction you follow is correct, and humans are the cause of global warming. Then what? By the way this is not a political issue, it is a humankind issue. It is neither red nor blue, only the simplistic mind will see it as such. Lets hypothetically accept that human kind is the cause of this alleged CO2 increase, lets also assume that CO2 is the big bad wolf of environmental gasses. Then what? What is the winning faction going to do about it? I will tell you what they will do, they will charge everything and everyone money. Those little pieces of paper in your wallets being paid to the World Bank. What is the World Bank going to do? They going to go around and stop emissions, no, they will just charge the offenders MORE money for violating their arbitrary rules. Is the world bank going to reinvest all those trillions of dollars into alternative clean energy, of course not, Big oil and Big Energy companies would not allow that. Keep in mind they are just talking about CO2, not the myriad of other Hydroflourocarbons that are the real culprits and much more efficient heat insulators. They are not concerned with the water pollution, now radiation pollution. The poisoned water and food we eat is not there concern. They show such blatant uncaring for us as a species why do you think they care about CO2... I'll give you one guess...money. This is not conspiracy, the official stance is what is a conspiracy. I hear people in this debate that just refer to nebulous consensuses. They have no clue on who or what is involved in their so called consensus. They are truly just parroting talking points they have heard. If anybody actually took the time to research for themselves and actually think and question the sources of their so called consensuses they would realize they have been lied to, over and over again. I have actually read the Climategate emails that were exposed, I do not listen to anyone who is just a party line repeater. When you get past the childish arguments of who is responsible for what, what are you left with? You are left with a huge cash grab on a global scale. This is not one of those arguments where it matters who is correct, the end result is the same, nothing will change.
 
Back
Top