Stanton Friedman - Show

[plumbbob12]

After listening to Stanton Friedman’s tirade about the “myth of global warming” in order to hawk his book “Science is wrong”, I am left somewhat confused. I must first warn all that it is not my intent to discuss the belief system of whether or not global warming is real or not. After all, as we have discussed in the past, one cannot debate a belief system. No amount of evidence or data will sway a true believer. So whether or not one “believes” in global warming or does not believe is a moot point. This applies to scientists as well, as they too are human, and are subject to the motivational beliefs that the rest of the population uses to get through their lives.
Additionally, I really enjoy listening to Friedman, and respect his research as it applies to his field. Where I have an issue is the idea that Stanton is applying his graduate degree in physics to fields he knows little about. I am reminded of Budd Hopkins story of his bout with the late Carl Sagan. Hopkins said it best by stating that Sagan was the Pope of science, and that if he determined that Hopkins paintings were crap, then the public would believe it, although he was not an authority as an artist.
Friedman is doing the same by chiming in about his peer review of climate change. Stanton is not a climate scientist. He makes very elementary statements about CO2 being less of a green house gas than H2O, or CH4. This is well understood, and is learned in first year chemistry. Stanton talks like this is a big secret, and that climatologists are somehow hiding this fact from the public. It worries me when well respected folks such as Friedman uses there position to comment on subjects as if they experts in this field. By the way, I feel the same when Al Gore talks like he is the expert on the other side of this issue. As I have already stated, I have nothing but respect for the work Friedman has done in the UFO field, and in the Physics of nuclear energy, which he is an expert in. Maybe we should have our sports figures comment on international trade agreements’, or popular movie stars run the country, (opps too late)… To sum up, I don’t listen to Paracast to hear political viewpoints. I get the real world all day. I like the Paracast interviews on UFO, abduction, and other subjects that one does not find in other news formats, (other than George Snoorys show, which is popular to those in the most shallow end of the gene pool) pb

 

[pixelsmith]

I am still listening to the show and appreciated hearing Stanton's thoughts on the global warming farce. That whole scam has been exposed and gore should return his prizes, awards and profits gained from his bogus claims. He should also be held accountable for lying before Congress.

 

[plumbbob12]

You’re a true believer. Good for you. Like I said, my point was not to debate the "belief" in whether global warming it is real or not. If we discussed the data and science, then this thread would get very boring. My point is the idea of non-experts acting as if they were expert in fields they were not educated in. All I would suggest would be to read peer reviewed science which is discussed at the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
Cheers. pb<o></o>

 

[pixelsmith]

You’re a true believer. Good for you. Like I said, my point was not to debate the "belief" in whether global warming it is real or not. If we discussed the data and science, then this thread would get very boring. My point is the idea of non-experts acting as if they were expert in fields they were not educated in. All I would suggest would be to read peer reviewed science which is discussed at the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
Cheers. pb<o></o>

peer review data involving noaa on a dot gov site... good one!!! very funny!!!

 

[Ezechiel]

Cool show !

His answer about a cost/effective way to address the phenomenon and get some form of disclosure was right on ! Unleash the Washington Post and New York Times dogs.

Next question should be how do you structure the investigation in order to get some yields ? What are the best leads and what are the weaknesses of the armored steel coverup ?

With the communication technology available today, how would a Deep Throat originating in Wright-Patterson AFB operate to avoid tracing by the NSA ?

Why hasn't this been attempted in the last 40 years ? Probably because its not worth it at this time and damage to an already fragile society would be greater than the gains.

But the best reason is that we'd lose the Paracast

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Cool show !

His answer about a cost/effective way to address the phenomenon and get some form of disclosure was right on ! Unleash the Washington Post and New York Times dogs.

Next question should be how do you structure the investigation in order to get some yields ? What are the best leads and what are the weaknesses of the armored steel coverup ?

With the communication technology available today, how would a Deep Throat originating in Wright-Patterson AFB operate to avoid tracing by the NSA ?

Why hasn't this been attempted in the last 40 years ? Probably because its not worth it at this time and damage to an already fragile society would be greater than the gains.

But the best reason is that we'd lose the Paracast

If anything, more attention focused on UFOs would increase our listenership, maybe even result in more frequent episodes. Remember, too, that UFOs aren't the only odd events we focus on.

 

[Thabtos]

If anything, more attention focused on UFOs would increase our listenership, maybe even result in more frequent episodes. Remember, too, that UFOs aren't the only odd events we focus on.

As long as you stay away from the mysteries of colon health, we're good.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As long as you stay away from the mysteries of colon health, we're good.

We restrict that strictly to our advertisers.

 

[Ezechiel]

If anything, more attention focused on UFOs would increase our listenership, maybe even result in more frequent episodes. Remember, too, that UFOs aren't the only odd events we focus on.

Oooops very true

And don't underestimate the role of dissonance in creativity and innovation. Like a rubic cube, if you don't consider all the angles you might never get a resolution.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You’re a true believer. Good for you. Like I said, my point was not to debate the "belief" in whether global warming it is real or not. If we discussed the data and science, then this thread would get very boring. My point is the idea of non-experts acting as if they were expert in fields they were not educated in. All I would suggest would be to read peer reviewed science which is discussed at the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
Cheers. pb<o></o>

Don't try providing any such links to pixelsmith. According to him, any that go against what he thinks is correct have been compromised in one way or another.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

After listening to Stanton Friedman’s tirade about the “myth of global warming” in order to hawk his book “Science is wrong”, I am left somewhat confused. I must first warn all that it is not my intent to discuss the belief system of whether or not global warming is real or not. After all, as we have discussed in the past, one cannot debate a belief system. No amount of evidence or data will sway a true believer. So whether or not one “believes” in global warming or does not believe is a moot point. This applies to scientists as well, as they too are human, and are subject to the motivational beliefs that the rest of the population uses to get through their lives.
Additionally, I really enjoy listening to Friedman, and respect his research as it applies to his field. Where I have an issue is the idea that Stanton is applying his graduate degree in physics to fields he knows little about. I am reminded of Budd Hopkins story of his bout with the late Carl Sagan. Hopkins said it best by stating that Sagan was the Pope of science, and that if he determined that Hopkins paintings were crap, then the public would believe it, although he was not an authority as an artist.
Friedman is doing the same by chiming in about his peer review of climate change. Stanton is not a climate scientist. He makes very elementary statements about CO2 being less of a green house gas than H2O, or CH4. This is well understood, and is learned in first year chemistry. Stanton talks like this is a big secret, and that climatologists are somehow hiding this fact from the public. It worries me when well respected folks such as Friedman uses there position to comment on subjects as if they experts in this field. By the way, I feel the same when Al Gore talks like he is the expert on the other side of this issue. As I have already stated, I have nothing but respect for the work Friedman has done in the UFO field, and in the Physics of nuclear energy, which he is an expert in. Maybe we should have our sports figures comment on international trade agreements’, or popular movie stars run the country, (opps too late)… To sum up, I don’t listen to Paracast to hear political viewpoints. I get the real world all day. I like the Paracast interviews on UFO, abduction, and other subjects that one does not find in other news formats, (other than George Snoorys show, which is popular to those in the most shallow end of the gene pool) pb

Of some interest because it is related to what you're talking about and was posted on this very board just a few days ago.

Mocked Meteorologist Gets Last Laugh

 

[pixelsmith]

Don't try providing any such links to pixelsmith. According to him, any that go against what he thinks is correct have been compromised in one way or another.

thinks? if IPCC, NOAA, NASA, EPA, and several others that are involved in the scam called global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate disruption, it has already been proven their data has been compromised.

---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

thinks? if IPCC, NOAA, NASA, EPA, and several others that are involved in the scam called global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate disruption, it has already been proven their data has been compromised.

so lets say the senior environmentalists at the UNs IPCC are correct in their conclusions.. what then do we take away from this claim in 1989?

San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989 - 3F General News

GRIM FORECAST
A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect...

That was quite awhile ago, would you like me to start listing predictions by other top scientists in the past few years?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

There are two issues here. One is whether there is global warming, and most scientists seem to agree there is. The other issue is the actual impact, and that's in the realm of guesswork.

 

[tyder001]

I find it odd that folks including scientist who understand (or have a grasp on what they have researched) are so easily convinced that mankind causes global warming. We do not! It is a naturally occurring cycle that has been going on as long as the earth has been here. There are ages of fire and ages of ice and we are in the midst of another change. Now, does mankind contribute to it? Yes, but how much and what steps need to be taken given the political climate of governments is debatable. I really think that as a species our destiny is in the stars. Meaning going off planet at some point.

 

[pixelsmith]

There are two issues here. One is whether there is global warming, and most scientists seem to agree there is. The other issue is the actual impact, and that's in the realm of guesswork.

All scientists agree global warming AND cooling happens. All scientists agree there is an actual and very real impact that goes with warming and cooling. The issue is whether CO2 generated by humans is causing it. I find that highly unlikely since Nature provides well over 95% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

There are two issues here. One is whether there is global warming, and most scientists seem to agree there is. The other issue is the actual impact, and that's in the realm of guesswork.

I agree with that. One of my best friends is extremely in the global warming skeptic camp. He won't accept even a scrap of evidence that humanity could be impacting climate whatsoever (I've been having a bit of success as of late easing the extremity of his arguments though). I don't take it that far. Imo our actions are influencing things some. But it seems to me that the evidence implies that our impact is nowhere near as much a contributing factor to climate as guys in the Gore camp claim. We're players, but small players. There are much larger forces at work that we have no control over. There is evidence all over the place that much of this is about politics and economics.

 

[plumbbob12]

Thanks for the link. Interesting, but once again, weather is not climate. Also, I think the jury is still out on what a warmer earth will do as it relates to temperature extremes. The global warming might just make more water vapor, which equals more snow, which equals more reflection of light, which equals a very quick ice age. The problem is that no one knows yet what will happen until it starts to happen.
As for the old argument that the rest of our solar system is heating up, which disproves global warming, the radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its eleven year cycle, But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend. It’s a matter of degree, (not just temperature degree), that makes the argument for man-made global warming. This supports my original topic of having experts argue these kinds of issues. Laypeople tend to get sidetracked in beliefs, and knee jerk reaction to talking points. pb<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

[pixelsmith]

weather is not climate.

climate is basically weather in 30-40 years spans. that said, 30 - 40 years ago we were experiencing colder weather and we were warned of a looming Ice Age. therefore, today, one could say it is not warming and the climate is not changing.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I liked the show, and I always enjoy listening to Stan. I don't share many of his conclusions, but I feel that he's the kind of guy you could listen to for hours while having a beer or two.

That said, I tend to take issue with how human he portrays these alleged extraterrestrials and his motivations. He's a nuclear physicist, so for him it makes perfect sense to think these aliens are powering up their ships with nuclear fusion, and most of our visitors must come from our own galactic neighborhood (20-30 light years away tops). They might be mining our ores or natural resources, while keeping tabs on our technological developments, etc. In short, the same way WE might conduct ourselves when (being optimistic here) we become a star-faring civilization.

The problem I have with this, is a failure to acknowledge the possibility that an alien intelligence might operate under systems of Logic that would seem, well... alien to us. Their motivations might be completely unknowable to a human mind.

In other words, an alien intelligence is, by its very definition, CRAZY.

And maybe that's one of the reasons governments are keeping a policy of debunk and ridicule toward the phenomenon: because to a person who understands life as contest in the accumulation of power, nothing is scarier than the prospect of being at the mercy of a mighty madman.

 

[plumbbob12]

Red-Pill: great post.
You touched upon the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century idea of Manifest Destiny, where by western man wiped out the American Indian, and developed there Greek form of dualistic logic as the end all of human thought. Being a closet anthropologist, I have attempted to read old accounts of hunter gather tribes that existed before the pollution of western though, and we would be very hard press to understand there world view, even though a lot of these tribes have lasted for 50 to 100 thousand years. I agree with your comments on Stanton regarding his physical outlook on the UFO phenomena. I can’t say that I disagree with his ideas, but we have to be open minded that the old saying: “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but it is stranger than we CAN imagine” could very well define our experience with alien intelligence. I often think what advanced intelligence might be like for some kind of life form that lives under the mile thick ice caps of Jupiter’s moon Europa. They would have developed there reality without ever knowing that a universe of stars and the empty vacuum of space exist just above them. We would have such different world views, that I doubt if we could ever communicate. Good stuff. pb
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>