June 20th episode - Stan Friedman & Kathleen Marden

[Paul Kimball]

I sympathize with the hosts' dilemma. Perhaps one approach may be to spend a minute providing a background explanation of the topic on hand (together with a reference to an earlier Paracast episode if the topic was previously discussed), then move to the more advanced, detailed questioning. This may mean you can cover fewer topics per episode, but it may make the program more engaging and true to the Paracast's founding mandate.

For example, I don't think the show would have lost much if the topic of eugenics was omitted, but I would have loved to have heard Stan and Kathleen try to fit the actual fact patterns surrounding abductions into an overarching theory (data driving theory). While Dr. Simon didn't believe that the Hills were literally describing an abduction (I wouldn't have either back in the mid-60s), the narrative sounds similar to what Hopkins, Jacobs, Carpenter, Mack et. al. have uncovered. Are all these apparently credible individuals just parroting the facts revealed in the Hill case? If so, how about the collection of semen from Barney, which wasn't revealed for years but turned up in the early work of Hopkins et. al.?

Again, just a constructive suggestion.

I appreciate the suggestion. However, it's really up to the host to determine where the discussion is going to head, and it's always a balancing act between what they think listeners might want to hear, and what they want to discuss. For my part, with this interview, I wanted to talk to Stan and Kathy about things other than the paranormal (which is really what their book is about anyway), and I think the subject of eugenics, both then and now, is fascinating and important. And honestly, UFOs do bore me these days, and there simply isn't much new that I think any of us could really bring to the overall conversation on that topic.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So after listening to this episode, I am happy to find out that I see eye to eye with Paul on pretty much most topics discussed on the show. I like hearing a host of a paranormal talk show say that the UFO hypothesis' are just that - educated guesses for explaining strange stuff. It was also good to hear Paul talk about Mac Tonnies' cryptoterrestrials - how just because he's talked at length about it doesn't mean he thinks it's likely.

Great global warming talk too.

Great episode guys - it made my commute feel nice and short.

 

[pixelsmith]

I stopped listening when Friedman started spouting that crap about scientists getting big money for claiming that humans cause climate change. The big money is all on the other side of the argument. And I personally wouldn't mind if the scientists turned out to be wrong, because climate change could be catastrophic. But I don't think they are.

wrong. you need to do a bit more research on that funding issue.

btw- climate change has often been catastrophic for 4.5 billion years now.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

wrong. you need to do a bit more research on that funding issue.

btw- climate change has often been catastrophic for 4.5 billion years now.

A recent survey shows a vast, vast majority of working scientists believe in man-made climate change:

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Also, I don't see scientists making huge riches over this issue. Remember, also, that climate change means a lot more than warming. We've had extreme winter weather in the U.S., as those of you in the snow belt can attest. Summer temperatures are trending higher than normal. So there is at least some movement here that favors those of you who believe this is really happening.

 

[pixelsmith]

A recent survey shows a vast, vast majority of working scientists believe in man-made climate change:

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Also, I don't see scientists making huge riches over this issue. Remember, also, that climate change means a lot more than warming. We've had extreme winter weather in the U.S., as those of you in the snow belt can attest. Summer temperatures are trending higher than normal. So there is at least some movement here that favors those of you who believe this is really happening.

LMAO... NAS! good one... their global warming scam is exposed so now it is called climate change... no one can dispute that the climate changes all the time so they can pretend they have valid points. Nature is the controller of climate change. The sun and the ocean are the drivers for global warming or cooling.

YES! Climate Change, Global warming and global cooling are all happening just as they have been for 4.5 billion years. All of these normal planetary functions happen with OR without humans on this planet.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

LMAO... NAS! good one... their global warming scam is exposed so now it is called climate change... no one can dispute that the climate changes all the time so they can pretend they have valid points. Nature is the controller of climate change. The sun and the ocean are the drivers for global warming or cooling.

YES! Climate Change, Global warming and global cooling are all happening just as they have been for 4.5 billion years. All of these normal planetary functions happen with OR without humans on this planet.

Here we go again. The extreme arguments for global warming on either side are not helpful.
The world will not end due to climate change in the next ten years, but those who fool themselves into thinking that we have had NO effect on our climate at all are delusional.
The studies are there - we are contributing to climate change. The question is, how much.

 

[pixelsmith]

Angel! How can you say that?

When a top scientist of PIXELSMITH'S caliber makes a pronouncement on a internet paranormal chat forum, you can take it to the bank!

Sure, he doesn't agree with most scientists on the issue but the paranormal and conspiracy enthusiast mantra is that "SCIENCE IS WRONG!"

As proven by the buffoon huckster, Freidman in this recent show.


Lance

Show me some human caused climate change please.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Show me some human caused climate change please.

We can't. We've been through this. Any peer reviewed study presented to you will be shot down as being part of a conspiracy, so it isn't worth it. But, if you want to present some evidence proving that we have zero cause on the climate, please feel free to do so.

 

[pixelsmith]

We can't. We've been through this. Any peer reviewed study presented to you will be shot down as being part of a conspiracy, so it isn't worth it. But, if you want to present some evidence proving that we have zero cause on the climate, please feel free to do so.

1) remove ALL humans from the planet.
2) there will still be climate change.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

1) remove ALL humans from the planet.
2) there will still be climate change.

So that's a no to you providing any proof then?
By the way, I agree that climate change has happened without humans. However, ignoring the fact that our actions has not caused some change, be it big or small, is foolish.

 

[pixelsmith]

So that's a no to you providing any proof then?
By the way, I agree that climate change has happened without humans. However, ignoring the fact that our actions has not caused some change, be it big or small, is foolish.

angel, that is like saying your body heat contributes to global warming... or that your fart contributes to global warming...it is actually true but not worth the mention.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

i suggest a quick look at the "gates". the whole AGW/ACC has been exposed for the fraud it is.
Climate Scandals NoTricksZone

 

[Angel of Ioren]

angel, that is like saying your body heat contributes to global warming... or that your fart contributes to global warming...it is actually true but not worth the mention.

And the hot air that comes out of you

Of course, you know what I mean. So your position is that with everything we do (cars, manufacturing, etc) has NO effect on the Earth? That pretty much goes against all of the science. I don't agree with the alarmists that think were going to destroy the world in a few years, but we are contributing to climate change. There's nothing that proves the opposite no matter how much you huff and puff that there is.

 

[pixelsmith]

And the hot air that comes out of you

Of course, you know what I mean. So your position is that with everything we do (cars, manufacturing, etc) has NO effect on the Earth? That pretty much goes against all of the science. I don't agree with the alarmists that think were going to destroy the world in a few years, but we are contributing to climate change. There's nothing that proves the opposite no matter how much you huff and puff that there is.

sure we affect things a little bit but not to the point that the sky is falling. sure we need alternate energy sources. yes we should not pollute BUT
beavers kill trees and cause flooding, bugs kill trees too, fish poop in the ocean, animals and humans fart, volcanos erupt, earthquakes destroy things, tectonic plates shift, poles reverse, astroids impact earth, etc etc etc... what is your point?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

sure we affect things a little bit but not to the point that the sky is falling. sure we need alternate energy sources. yes we should not pollute BUT
beavers kill trees and cause flooding, bugs kill trees too, fish poop in the ocean, animals and humans fart, volcanos erupt, earthquakes destroy things, tectonic plates shift, poles reverse, astroids impact earth, etc etc etc... what is your point?

I don't disagree with that at all.

 

[pixelsmith]

because of climate change, millions of species have gone extinct before us. i doubt dinosaurs or cephalopods drove cars or had manufacturing facilities. you are worried about a non problem.

Since the dawn of time tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and catastrophes and asked us to pay tribute to their idols. Today is NO different. Argument by authority is the disguise of the witchdoctor. AlGore et al is our modern day witchdoctor.

 

[CapnG]

Take it outside you two, this is the Friedman/Marden thread.

 

[pixelsmith]

Take it outside you two, this is the Friedman/Marden thread.

didn't you listen to the podcast? we are discussing what Friedman was talking about, climate change.

 

[CapnG]

didn't you listen to the podcast? we are discussing what Friedman was talking about, climate change.

Yep, for all of ten minutes tops, then he talked about other things. You should try it yourself sometimes.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Yep, for all of ten minutes tops, then he talked about other things. You should try it yourself sometimes.

I find this amusing.

However, the climate change subject is fair game for this thread, as we discussed it at some length on the show. However, I would encourage folks to move beyond simple rhetoric and offer something new. Actual science would be a good start.

Paul

 

[Kevin Daly]

There's a flaw with Stan's Magellan analogy for interstellar space flight: even if some civilisations have achieved almost instantaneous travel over enormous distances (or something similar), that in no way precludes others from puttering around in generation ships or other primitive craft that do it the hard way. If the nifty travel methods exist, not everyone will discover them (there's every chance that we won't, given the role of institutionalised stupidity in our current civilisation) and those that do may do so thousands or millions of years after others - which doesn't mean they won't try interstellar travel by other means first.
Bear in mind that when the first continent-spanning aircraft began to fly not inconsiderable numbers of human beings still had no form of tranport more sophisticated than a dugout canoe: that's members of the same species, with the same intellectual abilities, the same length of development, and technologies starting from the same point. A lot depends on opportunities, exchange of ideas (that's played a huge part in technical advancement on Earth) and the little accidents along the way. And of course resources (I suspect there is a very serious bootstrap effect in terms of resources and relative cost once your technology reaches a certain level that ours has yet to achieve).
A civilisation which had only learned how to do interstellar travel the hard, slow way would in all likelihood still be bound by the economics of scarcity, and so might well be highly motivated to take what they didn't already possess. If they were using generation ships to make the journey they would have spent decades if not centuries in a resource-strapped marginal environment - which could lead to loss of technology (and resulting difficulties repairing equipment, as well as a motivation for being less than forthright about their circumstances)...becoming in effect ETBillies - and plausibly they could undergo a militarisation of society (as people submit to regimentation in order to ration scarce resources and allocate tasks necessary for survival).

So while Hawking was speaking well outside his area of expertise (as is his right, like anyone else), I don't think his concerns should be dismissed out of hand, because they are not baseless.
Consider also that if we assume for the sake of argument that some UFO reports represent ET craft, we have no way of knowing whether they have just arrived from another star system or have in fact come from colony craft which have been concealed in some part of our solar system for decades.