• 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!

Listener Round Table

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Roro said:
That's the AGM response to every source and article that disagrees with their view point. Yet it's the AGM scientists that have verifiable scandals. It's fine for AGM scientists to have a bias and get paid for their work because they are on the side of good and right but the non-AGM scientists are on the side of bad and evil so unless they are doing their work for free in an absolute vacuum you can dismiss all their data.

Everyone is biased on both sides of this issue because everyone needs money to do research and live indoors and eat meals on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Except I'm not a supporter of AGM. I think there's something to UFOs too, but I don't use Billy Meier or the Galactic Federation of Light as a source.
 
C'mon guys - are you all seriously still arguing the global warming question? You just ain't gonna agree and myself personally made a class faux pa over volcanoes so, erm, well.......abductions anyone?
 
pixelsmith said:
non-debate and running away is a typical reaction from people who think CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the whole CO2 argument. CO2 causes plants to grow! When I am growing plants hydroponically, and they start to slow, I introduce CO2 amongst other gasses! It's a dang fertilizer not a pollutant If plants don't grow, we don't breath! Anywho, back to my corner. :oops:
 
I will break my vow of silence on this issue to sincerely ask: Do fossil records indicate substantial periods of earth's biological history when CO2 levels were higher than now? I suspect there is no tidy answer this question.
 
Jimi H. said:
Fact: The vast majority of scientists in the field totally accept man-made global warming, because they understand the chemistry and physics of the issue.
Click to expand...

Wow. This is so far from fact. I wish people would wake up and realize that there is no current science that proves man has anything to do with causing the globe to warm. These things go in cycles. Volcanoes put out so much toxic gas, ash, and other things that man can't even compare. Just because a few so-called scientists have come out to claim that man has caused a climate change in the last 100 years that the last millions of years of volcanoes could not, doesn't mean that it is a "vast majority". (and since when was Al Gore considered a scientist?) Most honest meteorologists will tell you it's a bunch of garbage, which is why the last batch of the so-called data for global warming had to be scrapped the last time it was scrutinized. Go ahead, ask any of them.
 
Derik said:
Wow. This is so far from fact. I wish people would wake up and realize that there is no current science that proves man has anything to do with causing the globe to warm. These things go in cycles. Volcanoes put out so much toxic gas, ash, and other things that man can't even compare. Just because a few so-called scientists have come out to claim that man has caused a climate change in the last 100 years that the last millions of years of volcanoes could not, doesn't mean that it is a "vast majority". (and since when was Al Gore considered a scientist?) Most honest meteorologists will tell you it's a bunch of garbage, which is why the last batch of the so-called data for global warming had to be scrapped the last time it was scrutinized. Go ahead, ask any of them.
Click to expand...

This is a common myth: Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

And regarding the "no consensus" myth:
Global Warming Petition Project
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Climate Change: Consensus

And the evidence?

Climate Change: Evidence


Any questions?
 
goggsmackay said:
C'mon guys - are you all seriously still arguing the global warming question? You just ain't gonna agree and myself personally made a class faux pa over volcanoes so, erm, well.......abductions anyone?
Click to expand...
The only difference between global warming and UFO's is that we can actually use real science to measure one but not the other. Ironically, you can't get consensus on one or the other. What the forums have taught me is that life is filled wth skeptics vs. believers and outside the discussion are the open minded and the indifferent. You bring your marbles and I'll bring mine and we can play or we can fight.
 
Derik said:
Still not buying it.

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming - Global Warming Hysteria
Friends of Science | Providing Insight into Global Warming
National Geographic: Melting Mars Means Man-Made Global Warming a Myth | NewsBusters

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Hmm...not so sure about these sources. I think I will stick with

NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Medical Association

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

The Geological Society of America

over these faux-science partisan lobbyists and hacks:

Friends of Science - SourceWatch
 
If you google the article title you will see that National Geographic has the article stating the same thing. Newsbusters has been a very reliable source for many years.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
 
boomerang said:
I will break my vow of silence on this issue to sincerely ask: Do fossil records indicate substantial periods of earth's biological history when CO2 levels were higher than now? I suspect there is no tidy answer this question.
Click to expand...
I think there is a stellar indicator in the Greenland Icecore Project. It is run by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. How they measure gases in the ice:
Analysing gasses in ice cores – University of Copenhagen

For even older records, one method developed at Cambridge involves tracing CO2 in sea shell fossils going back 20 mill., years:
".. by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

'We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice,' Tripati said. 'This suggests that the technique we are using is valid." Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

In other words, the data in the seashells are checked against the ice core data. The data is startling:
"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
 
@lancemoody At least Jim H is presenting a reasonable rebuttle to my claims. You're just being an ass.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I have to agree that Lance, despite your intelligence and dilligence in certain matters, it's almost like you are trying to mock people and denegrate them. It's great if you stick to the facts, but the name calling and laughing is surely a little beneath you man?

I'm trying to be fair but you do come across as very 'superior' often.
 
Derik said:
If you google the article title you will see that National Geographic has the article stating the same thing. Newsbusters has been a very reliable source for many years.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Well, Derik...yes, the article title reads
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Notice the singular, and a singular individual does not represent a consensus (obviously). This scientist also dismisses the radiative forcing of CO2:

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

541449_10200275025933975_239971327_n.jpg


It is also noteworthy that NatGeo has posted a link to another article
Global Warming Fast Facts

Which of course sends the notion that NatGeo somehow endorses the mars-is-warming-therefore-agw-is-false position to file 13 (read: wastebasket).
 
Back
Top