• 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!

How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Gene you blather on and on about all these climate change deniers.. Name just one or please leave the discussion to those of us who have actually researched the topic. Thanks. :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No names? You must have dozens of climate deniers names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Read the article and go from there. I do not have the patience to go back and forth with you on this nonsense. There are others who can indulge themselves if they wish.
 
For all the years I have been discussing the topic it has not warmed one degree. Lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
No names? You must have dozens of climate deniers names.
Click to expand...

"One key member of the denial machine, astrophysicist Willie Soon from the Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics, has portrayed himself as an 'expert' on mercury and public health in order to attack legislation curbing mercury emissions from coal plants."

Anyway, glad to see you back. Now I must return to what passes for the real world.
 
pixelsmith said:
Gene you blather on and on about all these climate change deniers. Name just one or please leave the discussion to those of us who have actually researched the topic. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Having watched the discussion on another Climate Change thread where I observed several posters comprehensively respond to your one-liners, I cannot fault any poster walking away from a discussion with you, pixelsmith. (I can't seem to find the old thread right now.)

In the above quoted post you assert that you have done research in the area of Climate Change. Do you mean you are a Climate Change scientist? Or am I reading too much into your comment? I think I am. From the previous thread I gather your 'research' is reading on the topic, just like anyone else. I'm not sure why anyone else's reading is trumped by your reading.

pixelsmith said:
Don't you mean you have to run away now?
Click to expand...

Anyway, in reading many of the Climate Change thread discussions here - and noting your posts in those discussions - I have never seen you really argue the details or the broad arching concepts. You simply post dismissive one-liners. Not sure that anyone refusing to engage your one-liners proves anything except a personal response to your debating style. Just saying.
 
No I am not a trained scientist.
Gene does not understand that no scientists from either side of this topic deny that climate change happens. His "side" thinks that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming that requires immediate action of some kind.
Tyger do you agree? If so why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The argument suggests that too much CO2 is bad.
How many parts per million is too much?
How many ppm is too little?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
97% of the climate models actually prove that the "97% consensus" of scientists are wrong. There has been no warming for 18 years.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I believe gene was referring to scientists or at least those working in the field.
That said I doubt even rush denies that the climate changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
Pretty typical liberal reply. Lol
Click to expand...
Your 'response' to not getting a reply from Gene. You call this an intelligent reply? What makes you think this is a Liberal/Conservative issue? Can you explain that view?

Posting links is not my usual preference but this is a complicated issue - made more so because the casual debater who insists on black/white thinking and politicizing what is actually very subtle and reasonable scientific lines of thinking, degrades the whole lively conversation. There's a lot to discuss, but it's impossible with made-up minds. "The time to make up your mind is never."

LINK: RealClimate: On arguing by analogy

LINK: 10 new climate change controversies – now that the cause is settled - Road to Paris - ICSU

LINK: Two degrees: How the world failed on climate change - Vox

LINK: Is two degrees warming possible? - Road to Paris - ICSU
 
Back
Top