• 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?

Free episodes:

Tyger please do not mention this alarmist again. He warns of an ice age back in the 70's then flip flopped and jumped on the global warming bandwagon... then settled on climate change because he realized he could not be wrong because climate change is a natural global event. Like predicting the sun will rise and set.. what a genius he was. LMAO

In his 1976 book The Genesis Strategy (p. 66), Schneider wrote: “Today there are few people much concerned by the approach of the next ice age. And since ice ages take thousands of years to develop, why should we worry? There are several reasons to worry.”

and again
Professor Stephen Schneider, back in 1976:
“I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in–perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age–and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.” Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, New York Plenum, 1976, p. 90

Schneider also wrote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
 
And all on a degree in mechanical engineering, thats how science works for uncritical only.

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[5]

He is definately a climate change legend, dont forget it is HIS models the 2007 ipcc reports were founded on, you couldnt make this stuff up.
 
Here is a video for you Tyger, keep posting stuff you are digging yourself deeper without my help. LMFAO The Ice Age is Coming!!! Run Away! Tygers "expert" warned us a long time ago we could all freeze to death! He even hints at melting the ice caps to help prevent an ice age but warned that might cause flooding. You can't make this up..

So EVERYONE please watch Tygers important scientific video above by the late not-so-great Steven Schneider... LOL!! Post more Tyger post more!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
More of this upstanding Nobel prize winning engineer.


In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.


To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

He went with effective.


Stephen Schneider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In 2002 5 yrs into a heating hiatus we are still in he wrote.



In a January 2002 Scientific American article Schneider wrote:

I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems.

Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming.[10]


He says he cannot rule out ''either mild or catastrophic outcomes''.

He cannot rule out climate change of any degree, thats his own words in print.

It cannot be ruled out so therefore it has to be assumed it will happen, because well it doesnt matter, we all want a better world anyway, wheres the the science ?.
 
Last edited:
Schneider was a hypocrite like the alarmists here on the forum.. He warned of an ice age and suggested melting the ice caps.. then he warned of global warming and that one of the major causes was aviation travel but he and other global warming idiots would fly fly fly every year to some far away place and come to the conclusion that one of the causes of global warming was aviation.. then Schneider DIED while flying from a science meeting in Sweden to London..

Tyger what are your thoughts on Schneider now?
 
Great article on how the whole CONsensus started.

"This article summarizes the brilliant essay of Marjorie Mazel Hecht that offers one of the most compelling insights into the back-story of how a clique of U.S. academics sold a Malthusian population control scare story.* Their aim: to use man-made global warming as the front to introduce drastic worldwide population control."

"Hecht’s piece, “1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” identifies that the key conspirators of the climate hoax came together to formulate their ideas at a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Influential anthropologist Margaret Mead organized the event. [1] Mead was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1974 but had a shadowy past. Her 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud. Thus Mead was “well qualified” to form a new school of anti-population charlatans under her tenacious and bullying tutelage. Among her team was climate con artist Stephen Schneider, biologist George Woodwell, and President Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren. All were “students” of Malthusian mad man Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[2]"

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6 | johnosullivan
 
Tyger will NEVER advance his knowledge because he refuses to research both sides of the topic. He is VERY unscientific and therefore nothing he posts should be taken as credible. I came from his side of the topic and got to where I am today by trying to understand both sides of the science and using the scientific method. Tyger has no clue how to utilize the scientific method. This is a religion for him. Religious obey and believe.
 
I present this here simply to bring people 'up-to-speed' on 'how science works'.
This is SO damn funny.. "how the science works" for these guys is if its is cooling humans caused it.. but if it quits cooling and starts to warm then humans caused it and if they are not sure if it is cooling or warming they call it climate change and humans caused it.. it doesn't matter if CO2 has been 10 times higher in the past or if there were ice ages in the past or much warmer climates in the past or if ocean levels were higher or lower in the past.. these con men want your "green" and well meaning but totally ignorant people like Tyger are helping them get it from you.
 
You will never stop climate change. Period.
Sure we cause pollution but so do volcanoes and methane burps in the ocean. This earth can deal with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scientists cannot rule out a faster sea-level rise that "might overwhelm the ability of human society to adapt."

Quote: NYT's {Science Times} Tuesday, December 16, 2014 --- "3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty," by Justin Gillis
 
Scientists cannot rule out a faster sea-level rise that "might overwhelm the ability of human society to adapt."

Quote: NYT's {Science Times} Tuesday, December 16, 2014 --- "3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty," by Justin Gillis
If you are stupid enough to live next to the ocean and not be willing to accept rising or falling sea levels, tsunamis, hurricanes etc, then you are part of the evolutionary process. Less intelligent people will be phased out. Kind of like the people of Pompeii.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Man, watching you guys verbally bitch-slap each other is better than baseball.

tumblr_l5n18ieMVw1qa4ogf.gif

Can we agree that there IS climate change happening, regardless of WHAT or WHO caused it?
 
Man, watching you guys verbally bitch-slap each other is better than baseball.

tumblr_l5n18ieMVw1qa4ogf.gif

Can we agree that there IS climate change happening, regardless of WHAT or WHO caused it?
I totally agree there IS and I support ongoing climate change. Humans however do not cause it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I totally agree there IS and I support ongoing climate change. Humans however do not cause it.

Is this in the sense that you think it's a GOOD thing? (Just asking)

Nature does have built-in mechanisms for handling gradual changes but they are happening too fast and it's accelerating - as we twiddle our thumbs playing yes-it-is-no-it-isn't blame games. The argument of cause is becoming EXTREMELY pointless.
 
Ok....You exhale carbon dioxide and are contributing to the accelerating climate change then. What are you going to do about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top