Listener Round Table

[Michael Allen]

Firstly, I read enough to know I wasn't reading anything that proved AGW one way or another--so I chose to go to the data and science and move away from the gossip and quote mining. I made the statement about the email you posted because you probably don't even know what data was in question there and was trying to coax you into actually putting something out with substance that could form an actual argument against AGW -- you haven't. If you want a link war, I will give you one...if you want to actually take a risk and post real data (that you've digested) showing AGW is false, then here's your chance to do it.

Is it really so hard?

As far as your recommendations:

*Spencer dismisses the ice core data flat out to support his "feedback" and then claims the IPCC didn't build enough sensitivity into their models when the opposite was true.

*Climate Audit looks like a gossip column.

*Wattsupwiththat.com is a mixed bag -- I liked the debunking of the science experiment and thought "geeze....someone needs to get their asses spanked" However every denier claim I've read on that site was adequately answered (with data and sources to data) by sites such as realclimate.org and Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined --

from my point, just looking at a typical writeup on any given subject, I get more information from the former and a lot of bloviating and fist-pumping on the others you've sent.

CAGW may be a scam depending on what you define as "catastrophic"
AGW is very well established.

Now here are my recommendations:

Data Access and Data Contribution - WDC for Paleoclimatology
Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data


RealClimate: Start here
RealClimate: Data Sources
RealClimate: No man is an (Urban Heat) Island
RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking | Scholars and Rogues


Whether you like it or not I am going to gravitate towards material that provides theory, formula and data sources and move away from gossip columns, rants, and blogs of wolves howling at a non-existent moon or quote muckrakers trying to turn a profit on some book because its "cool and fashionable to be contrarian"

Lets end this. I won't answer anything posted from here on out--if you want to disprove AGW, do it with data and science--not with gossip.

 

[Randall]

Well I for one don't really care much for the term "paranormal" since it really doesn't add much to the discussion. What does it even mean to say of something (e.g. an event) that it was "paranormal." Basically it means anything that is beyond (current) scientific understanding ... While of course talking about things outside our current scientific understanding, I would like to add that the notion of ETs doesn't really fit in with "paranormal," unless we ourselves are ready to classify our own species as "paranormal."

I think it's important to remember that the paranormal is synonymous with the supernatural. It's not merely beyond the range of our current science, but by its very nature supposedly beyond science altogether. It's tempting to think that nothing is beyond science if we only had enough information, but given the nature of some phenomena, that does not appear to be a realistic belief. Paranormal events aren't the same as encountering a material device that we have yet to learn how to construct ( like UFOs ). All machines can eventually be understood in scientific terms and are therefore not part of the paanormal. However typical paranormal examples like telekinesis and precognition seem to be in another realm of understanding. Consider the following from the Oxford English Dictionary word history:

1958 J. Blish Case of Conscience (1959) i. 82 He has no belief in the supernatural—or, as we're calling it in our barbarous jargon these days, the ‘paranormal’.

In contrast to the supernatural, the word UFO came out of a very down to Earth USAF military investigation into reports of material flying objects of unknown origin, sometimes tracked on radar and pursued by jet interceptors. Clearly that is an entirely different concept from fortune tellers and spirit mediums.

 

[jonathan]

Ok, I've had a look at this volcano/man thing and it does seem I'm wrong. Can't remember where I had learned this 'fact' but I'm sure it was a science program! Looking at eruptions such as Krakatoa, they don't dump so much CO2 as they do things such as sulphur dioxide etc, sometimes causing temperature drops by blocking sunlight.

I think someone mentioned China, and I read the other day that in Beijing alone, there are one million government vehicles. So add all the privately owned cars etc and that is a heck of a lot of vehicles that were not there 15 years ago. China/India and the other fast-growing economies are just going to follow the exact same pattern of consumerism as we in the west did. There is only going to be a bigger demand on resources and it shows zero signs of slowing....

Thanks Goggs,
Not many people in the world are willing to say, "I was wrong." "I don't know." "I'm sorry." I seem to find more on this show and the forums. Even those of us with crazy tendencies are willing to apologize. Thanks again.
The science show was probably talking about the quick dump of gas into the atmosphere from composite volcanic eruptions. That is the kind of stuff that causes bad weather, grounded air traffic, it usually makes it colder for a while not warmer because of the weather. Volcanic volume is big and concentrated but dissipates; humans have just created a nice steady pumping of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the centuries and continue to do so. The Chinese just have more people so their dump rate is a little faster than the other developed nations. It's kinda funny in a weird way because the effect of "global warming" on the ocean currents has the opposite effect: the northern hemisphere gets colder and gets a lot more snow, as in ice-age in a couple hundred years give or take. If we do the same pumping on Mars we could possibly live there in a couple hundred years.

 

[pixelsmith]

Firstly, I read enough to know I wasn't reading anything that proved AGW one way or another--so I chose to go to the data and science and move away from the gossip and quote mining. I made the statement about the email you posted because you probably don't even know what data was in question there and was trying to coax you into actually putting something out with substance that could form an actual argument against AGW -- you haven't. If you want a link war, I will give you one...if you want to actually take a risk and post real data (that you've digested) showing AGW is false, then here's your chance to do it.

Is it really so hard?

As far as your recommendations:

*Spencer dismisses the ice core data flat out to support his "feedback" and then claims the IPCC didn't build enough sensitivity into their models when the opposite was true.

*Climate Audit looks like a gossip column.

*Wattsupwiththat.com is a mixed bag -- I liked the debunking of the science experiment and thought "geeze....someone needs to get their asses spanked" However every denier claim I've read on that site was adequately answered (with data and sources to data) by sites such as realclimate.org and Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined --

from my point, just looking at a typical writeup on any given subject, I get more information from the former and a lot of bloviating and fist-pumping on the others you've sent.

CAGW may be a scam depending on what you define as "catastrophic"
AGW is very well established.

Now here are my recommendations:

Data Access and Data Contribution - WDC for Paleoclimatology
Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data


RealClimate: Start here
RealClimate: Data Sources
RealClimate: No man is an (Urban Heat) Island
RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking | Scholars and Rogues


Whether you like it or not I am going to gravitate towards material that provides theory, formula and data sources and move away from gossip columns, rants, and blogs of wolves howling at a non-existent moon or quote muckrakers trying to turn a profit on some book because its "cool and fashionable to be contrarian"

Lets end this. I won't answer anything posted from here on out--if you want to disprove AGW, do it with data and science--not with gossip.

AGAIN you show your ignorance! NO ONE is saying AGW is not real. You have so much to learn before you can speak to this. Gavin and Hansen (i assume you know them) ignore empirical evidence and rely on climate models. Which scientific evidence would you subscribe to? Models that have proven to be inaccurate or actual empirical evidence?

 

[Michael Allen]

AGAIN you show your ignorance! NO ONE is saying AGW is not real.

From an earlier quote by pixelsmith:

The data proving global warming is apparently invisible...like a ghost. They can't seem to find the original data they based the computer models on.

Another one

Thanks for your reply Jonah.
Please show us the "science" that supports run-away-global-warming due to increased CO2.
Please show us how politics will save the planet.
Please explain the massive corruption that surrounds the Leader of the UN IPCC and its supporting scientists, including NASA and other environmental agencies, and also explain why they have to manipulate data if the AGW theory is true.

New Anti-global warming debate? | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

In fact you are. Evidence from your posts clearly indicate your position. You've already assumed that I am ignorant, so I suppose you think you can con me into now believing you've been supporting AGW all this time when you've actually done the opposite--all because you have lost the argument (a person who follows something for 12 years can't be wrong, right? ). You have yet to post anything of substance or even answer the counter-claims presented by well-established sources on the subject. Instead you continue to throw out red-herrings and distractions. You haven't answered a single question regarding the substance and evidence supporting man-made global warming. And you seem to be masking your ignorance with mud slinging and writing in all caps--not much different from the fist-pumping manifestos and diatribes coming in from the very sources you link.


Same with the climate-gate emails, you focus more on the human failings in the process and do nothing to examine the real evidence. And when you finally find your position failscading, you prop yourself up by making your own position unclear.

 

[pixelsmith]

No one disputes there is an almost immeasurable amount of heating do to human generated CO2. The amount of heating is hardly worth mentioning. You also fail to realize that a doubling of CO2 does not generate a doubling of heating. You also fail to realize Real Climate is NOT a valid source. Neither is Skeptical Science. They both adhere to Hockey Stick science even tho the data used to produce the hockey stick left out a couple key events like the Medieval Warming Period and The Little Ice age... they even admit in their emails they had to remove them to get the desired hockey stick profile (BTW this is FALSE)..what you probably do not know is the same profile can be generated by introducing random red noise into the equation. 99% of the time you can generate your own hockey stick graph, the only thing you can't generate is collect the massive funding to do it, the vacations, the public policy that transfers wealth or the millions generated from the hoax to put in your pocket.
I will gladly help you find your way thru the climate mess, I have been there, I personally distributed 100 DVD of al gores movie before I studied the data myself. Good luck, see you in 10 years or so.

 

[Michael Allen]

No one disputes there is an almost immeasurable amount of heating do to human generated CO2. The amount of heating is hardly worth mentioning. You also fail to realize that a doubling of CO2 does not generate a doubling of heating. You also fail to realize Real Climate is NOT a valid source. Neither is Skeptical Science. They both adhere to Hockey Stick science even tho the data used to produce the hockey stick left out a couple key events like the Medieval Warming Period and The Little Ice age... they even admit in their emails they had to remove them to get the desired hockey stick profile (BTW this is FALSE)..what you probably do not know is the same profile can be generated by introducing random red noise into the equation. 99% of the time you can generate your own hockey stick graph, the only thing you can't generate is collect the massive funding to do it, the vacations, the public policy that transfers wealth or the millions generated from the hoax to put in your pocket.
I will gladly help you find your way thru the climate mess, I have been there, I personally distributed 100 DVD of al gores movie before I studied the data myself. Good luck, see you in 10 years or so.

Say what you will about the hockey stick, this site gave me a hell of alot more detail on the question than you just did.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

And why should I take your word for what a "valid source" is or isn't when you yourself aren't even a valid source for your own claims. First I see posts where you claim there's no evidence to support AGW, then you change AGW to CAGW and then claim that AGW is not in dispute. I appreciate the change of tone in your past posts where you appear to at least be calming down a bit and actually trying to explain yourself, but you're confusing the hell out of me.

Are you still conflicted over this? I've never felt the need to pass out Gore's movies (quite frankly I could care less--the Earth will shake us off like fleas and reset itself long after we are gone). However I do have a sincere intellectual interest in this subject--even so much as marveling at the wave of hysteria on one end and the foam-mouthed denials on the other. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and you seem to be caught in some kind of demented turbulence between the two.

I guess this is a good stopping point where I ask myself--why in the hell are we arguing if we agree? I never said I agreed with the hysteria behind what you call warmism (and I don't think realclimate is trying to push that hysteria by the way), I was just answering what appear to be your blanket denial of the same. So I guess I am left scratching my head.

 

[Randall]

Question for you guys:

Let's suppose that human activity has not been a significant contributing factor to climate change, but regardless, there seems to be evidence that a climate shift is underway. What ( if anything ) can we do to either adapt to or affect the planetary weather to avoid or lessen any impending disasters? I'm reminded of an old Star Trek TNG episode where the Enterprise encounters an ancient mysterious probe that causes Picard to live an entire lifetime as part of a species on a planet that is undergoing global warming.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Michael

The climategate e-mails he's talking about were a big waste of time. The only people who were surprised by what they said, especially things concerning tree rings and the like, were people who don't actually keep on the science behind climate change. My boss pulled this one on me when it happened. He took the time to show me a bunch of the text on several websites. My response was, "but people already know this. Those guys aren't hiding it; it's common knowledge." He asked why it's a big deal (I had actually not yet heard of it). I said it's probably only a big deal to deniers, conservatives, and other people who don't read research. Then he showed me some stuff that was clearly jocular in nature and pretended it was not.

Nobody cares about those e-mails because they didn't reveal anything other than the fact that the two or three climatologists who are opposed to the prevailing theory don't know very much about the science they supposedly study, so they jumped on the conservative bandwagon of attack.

I can't believe you guys are still seriously talking about this shit. NOBODY IS GOING TO AGREE WITH ANYBODY. Neither of you actually cares what the other thinks, come on.



That said, I finally got around to listening to this episode. I think it was the most interesting and entertaining episode of the show that I've yet heard. You all did a great job and managed to speak pretty well, on air. With the exception of Goggs, you each sound like particular people I went to high school with. It was pretty interesting.

I think it made things more interesting that none of you have books to sell or TV shows to promote. I think that show was also an example of how things like presence, or even voice, automatically makes things more empathetic and personable. You guys were able to have opposing views on the show without paragraph after paragraph of reiterated disagreement and implications of stupidity, naivety, or punditry. The minute stuff like that is taken away, it's like somebody shook a bag full of wolverines.

The conversation in this thread is suggestive of something interesting, though. Out of all the things the guests disagreed upon, which was almost issue for issue, climate change was the thing everyone wants to talk about. it's the only thing anyone wants to be passion about. Why?

The guests disagreed regarding the origin of UFO's, ghost activity, information conspiracy theories, and even cattle mutilation. All of those fall under the general heading of "paranormal;" yet, nobody wants to argue about those. Nobody wants to get passionate about those ideas. Why do you guys think that is? I make no guess, I'm just very curious.

This topic has been discussed in these forums before. It's not special. Why is it being treated as more important than the paranormal topics discussed?

 

[Burnt State]

The conversation in this thread is suggestive of something interesting, though. Out of all the things the guests disagreed upon, which was almost issue for issue, climate change was the thing everyone wants to talk about. it's the only thing anyone wants to be passion about. Why?

We are most passionate about that which we think we can prove. We think we can prove it because it is tangible and graspable, unlike trying to grab Bigfoot's tail. He has a tail, right?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Yahtzee.

 

[nameless]

Question for you guys:

Let's suppose that human activity has not been a significant contributing factor to climate change, but regardless, there seems to be evidence that a climate shift is underway. What ( if anything ) can we do to either adapt to or affect the planetary weather to avoid or lessen any impending disasters? I'm reminded of an old Star Trek TNG episode where the Enterprise encounters an ancient mysterious probe that causes Picard to live an entire lifetime as part of a species on a planet that is undergoing global warming.

hehhhh my girlfriend rips the shit out of me for being a sic fi, paranormal geek freak posting on this forum as it is. for you to start dropping Star Trek analogies has not dispelled this what so ever but has further damned me to ridicule. I love it man. heh. thats one of my fave episodes.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

We are most passionate about that which we think we can prove. We think we can prove it because it is tangible and graspable, unlike trying to grab Bigfoot's tail. He has a tail, right?

I had the same feeling, but I was curious if I was the only one.

For all the passion everyone seemingly has regarding the paranormal, there seems to be an unconscious awareness that there isn't as much to fight about, in regards to evidence and data, as there is when fighting about mainstream science. That doesn't really speak to the legitimacy of the paranormal, in any way; I just thought that implication was interesting.

But, seriously, Ufology, and I am not being facetious, can you please go into detail, maybe citing some cases, that makes a compelling argument for the ghosts as extraterrestrial media idea you presented.

I await awesomeness.

 

[nameless]

Much as I would like to add to this thread and the many other very long threads about climate change I feel I have to show you this;

no doubt Mike has one of these.

 

[Muadib]

But, seriously, Ufology, and I am not being facetious, can you please go into detail, maybe citing some cases, that makes a compelling argument for the ghosts as extraterrestrial media idea you presented.

I await awesomeness.

I'm interested in hearing about this as well, maybe it should be another thread? I find it much more interesting concept wise than the tired old idea of the souls of the dead back to visit us for whatever reason.

 

[Michael Allen]

I had the same feeling, but I was curious if I was the only one.

For all the passion everyone seemingly has regarding the paranormal, there seems to be an unconscious awareness that there isn't as much to fight about, in regards to evidence and data, as there is when fighting about mainstream science. That doesn't really speak to the legitimacy of the paranormal, in any way; I just thought that implication was interesting.

But, seriously, Ufology, and I am not being facetious, can you please go into detail, maybe citing some cases, that makes a compelling argument for the ghosts as extraterrestrial media idea you presented.

I await awesomeness.

You raise a good point, however I can be just as passionate about bad science (or none at all) when applied to ufology. One of my ongoing "Imgoingtogettoiteventually" projects is actually creating a worthwhile database (like UFOCAT) and coming up with algorithms to look for this or that pattern--not that I've actually started the project, mind you, because I actually have a job that sucks the life out of me from one day to the next.

Extraordinary Claims DO NOT Require Extraordinary Evidence | The Paracast Community Forums

I am on a climate kick because that's where my current obsession is taking me...work with it

I've spent most of the last few days reading material on climate science and playing around with MITgcm and asking stupid questions like "hey, have they created a GCM@Home project for this [running huge earth system models] similar to the SETI@HOME [analysis of signals] or the GNFS@Home [Factoring large integers]"

 

[Jeff Crowell]

But, seriously, Ufology, and I am not being facetious, can you please go into detail, maybe citing some cases, that makes a compelling argument for the ghosts as extraterrestrial media idea you presented.

I await awesomeness.

I think we sort of covered this in the show? Advanced cloaking systems, dimensional shifting as proposed via theoretical physics (string theory), or even M-theory (branes). Beings well versed in the practical application of these mathematical theories my well be able to hide and manipulate our environment with the effects being "haunting" in appearance.

One argument against the ET observation/interaction idea proposed by UFOlogy doesn't really explain apparitions in my opinion. Apparitions tend to take on distinctly human appearance, sometimes familiar, sometimes not. Are we thinking ET is mimicking appearance of known humans? Sure, the shadow people or poltergeist phenomona may hint at effects of ET interaction, but not apparitions, I think.

I'm not sure if I brought this up, but my wife hinted at an interaction with an entity during one of our more recent investigations, and she was genuinely frightened. She did believe that the entity she was in communication with may have been more of an ET/ED (extradimensional) being other than the spirit or consciousness of a physically dead human being.

 

[Michael Allen]

One argument against the ET observation/interaction idea proposed by UFOlogy doesn't really explain apparitions in my opinion. Apparitions tend to take on distinctly human appearance, sometimes familiar, sometimes not. Are we thinking ET is mimicking appearance of known humans? Sure, the shadow people or poltergeist phenomona may hint at effects of ET interaction, but not apparitions, I think.

Of course there might be two separate sources that are unrelated between apparitions and ET. So if A causes B and C causes D, we cannot combine B and D into one unit and expect our hypothesis to work unless A and B are related somehow. In fact you end up infusing noise against both the hypothesis regarding both B and D.

So the problem with these "unified theories" of the paranormal is that they assume a unity behind the cause.

It is often pointed out that ETH doesn't explain apparition, but has anyone thought that the hypotheses regarding apparitions don't jive very well with the narrowed signal focus on "nuts and bolts" UFO sightings?

 

[Michael Allen]

Question for you guys:

Let's suppose that human activity has not been a significant contributing factor to climate change, but regardless, there seems to be evidence that a climate shift is underway. What ( if anything ) can we do to either adapt to or affect the planetary weather to avoid or lessen any impending disasters? I'm reminded of an old Star Trek TNG episode where the Enterprise encounters an ancient mysterious probe that causes Picard to live an entire lifetime as part of a species on a planet that is undergoing global warming.

Well it depends on what you mean by "adapt." If you mean we just adjust our own bio-cultural ways and means, then we'll probably come up with stupid plans like dumping a huge amount of aerosols into the upper atmosphere over a period of years and inadvertently drive our our biosphere into chaotic unpredictable changes that virtually guarantee our fate. I am more worried about what we will do as a quick-fix against AGW than what might occur if we just ignored it altogether. Perhaps that's what drives pixelsmith crazy, although I don't think its a call for abandoning the mainstream--on the contrary it means we really need to dig in and try to learn as much as possible about how dynamic systems work and how our planet regulates itself.

There were periods in our Earth history when CO2 was above the current level it is now (i.e. Jurassic/Ordovician period) and the Earth was a hell of a lot warmer than it is now. Does that mean we should rest on our laurels and start pulling out the giant mosquito repellent and wait it out? Not sure if humans will have the same superiority advantage as they do now (no way to know since humans didn't exist at that time, only dinosaurs). The best argument for doing something about AGW is the possibility of throwing the earth's climate into some kind of alternate death-spiral due to the rapid acceleration. Our current CO2 levels are the highest in the last 400-650 thousand years (yes that cuts through the medieval warming and little ice age mentioned by pixelsmith), and in the last 100 years has skyrocketed from the 400 ky maximum of 300ppm to 380-400ppm now. This kind of change is not supposed to happen over a decadal timescale, but on a millennial one...

 

[Michael Allen]

....This topic has been discussed in these forums before. It's not special. Why is it being treated as more important than the paranormal topics discussed?

Its not, I'm 1/2 of the culprit on this one.