Listener Round Table

[ProphetofOccam]

The issue of climate change was discussed on the show, so I don't know why anyone would find it objectionable to talk about it here as long as one issue does not monopolize the discussion. I have strong opinions on certain issues, and the best way to understand an issue is to learn the best arguments of the opposing side and then see if my own facts and arguments hold up. I think that we can and do have a healthy amount of tolerance and patience here on the forums for opinions that we do not agree with but that we may learn from.

Whatever makes you happy. It doesn't make me happy.

I don't find it objectionable. I find it pointless. That's just me, though. You're not me. You're having fun. Keep having fun.

 

[pixelsmith]

The issue of climate change was discussed on the show, so I don't know why anyone would find it objectionable to talk about it here as long as one issue does not monopolize the discussion. I have strong opinions on certain issues, and the best way to understand an issue is to learn the best arguments of the opposing side and then see if my own facts and arguments hold up. I think that we can and do have a healthy amount of tolerance and patience here on the forums for opinions that we do not agree with but that we may learn from.

That is exactly how I realized that AGW is a scam. I researched the data myself.

 

[pixelsmith]

Whatever makes you happy. It doesn't make me happy.

I don't find it objectionable. I find it pointless. That's just me, though. You're not me. You're having fun. Keep having fun.

non-debate and running away is a typical reaction from people who think CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

 

[jase]

Whatever makes you happy. It doesn't make me happy.

I don't find it objectionable. I find it pointless. That's just me, though. You're not me. You're having fun. Keep having fun.

No problem. Climate change is not my favorite subject, but I don't mind reading about it here. I am skeptical of the scientific claims that AGW is proven to be a result of human activity, and I am suspicious of the motives of the people who want massive government intervention that would increase the cost of energy. But I sympathize with you, because I am sure that there are certain subjects that would really get on my nerves, such as conspiracy theories that blame Dick Cheney or the Jews for being the masterminds behind the 9-11 attacks.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

non-debate and running away is a typical reaction from people who think CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming

At this point, sure.

It's just how Richard Dawkin's refusal to debate stance is evidence for creationism. A to B. There is structured, sensible debate, and then there are exercises in madness. This topic can pretty much only go that way.

I guess I was mostly trying to alarm some of our new friends, who seemingly created accounts just to comment to the contrary on this issue, that it's a dangerous road, which is almost never enlightening or entertaining. I really wouldn't want this kind of thing to sully their perception of the forum, as it's a good forum, with decent people. I like all you guys, even the ones I have a hard time understanding. However, I'd also like to see some new blood. I was trying to give folks the heads up.

As you were.

 

[pixelsmith]

People like PoO are unable to debate the AGW issue because the scientific method is not their friend and they have nothing to back up their alarmism.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

People like PoO are unable to debate the AGW issue because the scientific method is not their friend and they have nothing to back up their alarmism.

I'm sure people can find their own information. My participation would be an empty gesture, in the scheme of things. I'm not worried about the content, at all, I'm worried about the aggression.

I still like you. You mousey rapscallion, you.

THIS idea is a wholly separate debate. I let my emotions get the better of me in my first warning to Sam. My argument, as it were, is about the threat this type of aggression breeding topic creates when it comes to new user growth. But, I started it, so I can let you end it. I'm just worried about scaring people away. You probably disagree it matters or would happen. I can live with that.

EDIT: I just noticed that your avatar is now a cat. I guess you're no longer mousey.

 

[jase]

People like PoO are unable to debate the AGW issue because the scientific method is not their friend and they have nothing to back up their alarmism.

That might be a bit harsh. Debating the science of climate change is very difficult because you would need persons from both sides to be well-educated on a controversial and complex subject. I think that on a friendly forum such as this, we might want to take ProphetofOccam at his word as to why he doesn't care to debate the issue.

 

[pixelsmith]

I want to know about YOUR AGW information. This is how we all learn.

 

[pixelsmith]

i am no scientist either but that does not mean we can't discuss it. most people who believe what main stream media talking heads are saying have no clue what the actual observed data and scientific evidence is showing us.

 

[jase]

i am no scientist either but that does not mean we can't discuss it. most people who believe what main stream media talking heads are saying have no clue what the actual observed data and scientific evidence is showing us.

I'm not saying that we can't discuss it, but I think that it might not be bad to accept with a generous spirit the reasons that others on this board might give as to why they do not want to engage on this issue.

 

[jase]

I want to know about YOUR AGW information. This is how we all learn.

I like this blog:
Climate Skeptic

I also listen to James Delingpole, who has a podcast at Ricochet.com, and a column in the Daily Telegraph: James Delingpole - Official Website But I don't really consider myself to be extremely well-informed on the subject. I am very alarmed by the scientific fraud that has been perpetrated by the advocates of Anthropomorphic Climate change, and there are several good books on this subject. The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds): A.W MONTFORD: 9781906768355: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Well Goggs wins best accent award hands down.

Thanks Stoney, even though I couldn't disagree more, like most people I hate the sound of my own voice on a recording and I love American accents - but it would be churlish and ungrateful not to just accept a compliment. Cheers.
(by the way, I probably talk a lot quicker and with a far stronger local accent day-to-day and because of that I have to make a conscious effort to slow down and not use local slang, otherwise I absolutely guarantee 95% of the listeners would think I was speaking another language entirely .)

 

[Jimi H.]

....Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.- Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D."

Aha! That explains to me why Roundtable participant Dean would mention this number of scientists as the number who 'believed' in global warming. Anyways, Dean, if you're reading this, I'm sorry for coming down on you so hard, this topic does at times makes me lose my temper.

The writing was already on the wall years before that report, but IPCC's job was to present a clear conclusion they could give to the many international politicians who had requested it, and the public.
Now, the IPCC report mentions 'Scientific Reviewers', the Coffman quote mentions 'scientists'. Otherwise, I don't know too much about what's behind Coffman's quote, and how he interpreted the whole thing, but the phrasing frankly made me think it didn't come from a fair source, and so I looked him up:

"Dr. Coffman is currently President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI), and Executive Director of Sovereignty International. EPI focuses on providing professional guidance and training in defining environmental problems and solutions based on Judeo-Christian principles of stewardship as contrasted with pantheistically-based environmentalism. ...In what has to be a miracle from God, Dr. Coffman played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) in the U.S. Senate an hour before the Senate was scheduled to vote on its ratification."
Dr. Michael Coffman

He's a miracle from God, yay! Enough with that panthestic science!

Basically, we are talking about the politics of global warming here. And the quote just confounds what I said about anti-intellectualism among some conservatives/religious people.

The OP suggested a few links that one might look into to get wiser about the science of global warming.

But the easiest way to understand it is simply to ask yourself: What happens to a closed system when you inject massive amounts of energy into it?
Look at the historical figures and you'll see that, indeed, we have injected more energy into our house than has been for a loooooong time:

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Great show! It was cool to put voices to the posts on here.
Goggs, BTW, I was stationed at Ft. Meade in the late 80's. Did I hear you right when you said you were there at one time? I worked with several British and Australian troops, great guys all of them.

@Exo - unfortunately, no. I was cut off from finishing where I was going with that story and I was illustrating (for those aware of the NSA) that what I was about to tell, took place in the UK equivalent, GCHQ.) I had just read a Nick Redfern piece about some security guards at GCHQ having a really good UFO sighting or two, directly over the building in which I had also worked.
I was going to point out that these men had been pretty much ordered by the higher-ups to say that what they had seen was the Mir space station in orbit. Obviously that was definitely not the case, but it's interesting how such a govt. agency such as GCHQ handled what was really only an average sighting.
I was also going to mention that one real regret I have since leaving the navy was that I never thought to grill any long-time radar/EW operators as to whether they had ever seen any tracks they could not explain, in terms of speed, rate of climb etc -all the good characteristics of some UFO sightings that cannot be conventional aircraft. Bearing in mind some of these guys may have spend years manning a radar screen, all round the world etc. I can almost guarantee that someone must have seen something that they maybe put down to those radar ghosts that can happen due to the electronics, or weather phenomena.

Actually Exo, one of my colleagues who went through training with me, did do a stint at Fort Meade, just after I left the navy myself. For those of us doing SIGINT, there were a few cushy drafts in places such as Ft Meade, Cyprus, Australia and New Zealand. They were the kind of jobs you had to really be friends with the drafting officer to get! (different for Americans but if you work in the UK armed forces, especially in a windowless room on a ship, getting a draft in a nice hot sunny climate for 18 months, can seem like you've won the lottery.

If you have anything interesting to tell about the place, I'm always up for hearing about stuff like that.

 

[pixelsmith]

I am well aware of who Dr Coffman is. If you were well aware of the IPCC then you would not even site them as a reliable source. The leader of the IPCC is a retired railroad engineer who enjoys writing soft porn... hardly the man you should be getting your climate "science" from. The "scientists" from the IPCC and their leader have already exposed themselves for what they are via their own emails. Frauds and corrupt money grubbing individuals who have controlled the peer review process and fudged the data and climate models to suit their agenda. We are not a closed system like a greenhouse... I see no walls or barriers in the sky. CO2 is a minute trace gas necessary for life on Earth that has very little to do with any heating of the planet.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I couldn't agree more. The idea to have shows that feature forum members is an OVER THE TOP EXCELLENT way to bring focus and continuity to both the Paracast forums as well as the show itself. It really breeds and exemplifies member respect and civility on the highest and most healthy level. Truthfully IMO, the MRT (member round table) show is the best edition of the Paracast I heard since the Skinwalker Ranch show. Rarely do I listen to a whole show from start to finish but this one I did because of how extremely up to date relevant and varied it was. I applaud each separate member for representing and elucidating themselves so well, and I especially thank Gene and Chris for just being so damn genuine and easy to communicate with. IMO G&C, you guys have absolutely demonstrated beyond a doubt that if there is one quality, and indeed TALENT, that you both share and excel at bringing to the forefront of your show each week, it's being ultimately REAL first and foremost. You are both a couple of cool and humble cats that have and keep a sincere mojo on the go. All qualities that I am sure we'd all like to see a lot more of from the Fortean spokesperson community at large. Rock On!!!

@Jeff Davis - I can attest to the fact that taking part was just so easy and professional. Speaking for myself, I certainly was a little nervous going into it but in no time at all, I just wanted to go for hours and hours. I could tell the others felt the same. What you hear on this show is so close to the recording it's crazy. A few silent pauses or whatever removed etc and Gene puts together something great. A complete honour to have taken part and a great memory from a real fan of the show itself.
I would also agree in that I would love to hear shows featuring some other forum members. I'm sure all thank you for the kind words. I was just hoping to be a small cog in an acceptable Paracast episode. If it was any better than that, I'm totally over the moon.

Goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'm sure people can find their own information. My participation would be an empty gesture, in the scheme of things. I'm not worried about the content, at all, I'm worried about the aggression.

I still like you. You mousey rapscallion, you.

THIS idea is a wholly separate debate. I let my emotions get the better of me in my first warning to Sam. My argument, as it were, is about the threat this type of aggression breeding topic creates when it comes to new user growth. But, I started it, so I can let you end it. I'm just worried about scaring people away. You probably disagree it matters or would happen. I can live with that.

EDIT: I just noticed that your avatar is now a cat. I guess you're no longer mousey.

1000 gigamillion points for using rapscallion.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@FLB.Sam - It was me who talked about the lack of data. Perhaps I should have been more clear as I am fully aware of the science of taking measurements about the climate in the past from things such as ice cores etc. It wasn't that I was saying there is no data, only that there is far, far less of it and it is inferior to the data we can gather in the modern age. So my point is we can't necessarily even tell what causes an ice age now, so we are unlikely to be able to make a comparison with what's happening now and anything in the past, given the difference in available data.
So in short, yes there is data about the historical climate, but not as much and not as good.

Chris brought up something I wish I'd said myself which is never mind what man might have done in 250 years, a single large event like a major volcanic eruption's output can literally dwarf decades of man's output into the atmosphere.
That's not to say what we do does not count, only that nature (as usual) can be the biggest badass in town, hands down every single time!

 

[Frank Stalter]

Nice job on your roundtable boys. Caught most of it, very good work.

"Ironically, using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.- Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D."

I'd like to see a source for this. I'm highly skeptical of AGW, but this seems a little off in the other direction.