P
pixelsmith
Guest
Here is a pretty good article about the paper you provided for us. The scientific nature of its content is somewhat lacking, as is all "proof" of CAGW.
Popular Technology.net: Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS
-
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!
Stanton Friedman - Show
- Thread starter plumbbob12
- Start date
Free episodes:
Here is a pretty good article about the paper you provided for us. The scientific nature of its content is somewhat lacking, as is all "proof" of CAGW.
Popular Technology.net: Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Thanks for the link to some guy's blog.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
no problem. thanks for your link to the paper! BTW- The lead author was a computer programming student with no Exert Credibility in Climate Change. LMAO!!!
Prall is a Systems Programmer!!
Harold is Program Officer at William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Schneider was Professor of Environmental Biology and originally not too bad of a researcher actually. He was indeed a POS eugenicist tho.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Okay, enough climate change stuff, unless it directly refers to what was discussed on the show. Pixel and I are close to derailing this discussion, if we haven't already. Some of us agree with Friedman, some of don't, when it comes to climate change.
---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------
One more thing though. Where did you read this, because I decided to look, and there's nothing that leads me to think this is true. Can you point out a source for this? It would be appreciated.
Thanks.
---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
You say it again. Where did you read this?
---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------
One more thing though. Where did you read this, because I decided to look, and there's nothing that leads me to think this is true. Can you point out a source for this? It would be appreciated.
Thanks.
---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
You say it again. Where did you read this?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Going "Gore" on me now?... the debate is over... VERY typical and not at all surprising. You forget to add "catastrophic human induced" to your "climate change". BIG difference Angelo as the climate has been changing for over 4 billion years before humans even arrived.
---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------
startpage searches leading to their own bios and such. I think startpage is better than google.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
So you're just going to call him a eugenicist and not support it with anything? Fine, I'm not going to force you to do it since you got banned over this EXACT same issue the last time. Let's forget about it an move on. The other forum members are smart enough to look him up and see what the truth is. Anytime the topic of climate change comes up you manage to make yourself look bad, so continue if you want to.
Good luck.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I guess it would be you that is looking badly Angelo. The actual science as derived from the Scientific Method speaks for itself. Your "science" is not based on Scientific Method. Since your "side" has no actual SCIENCE they resort to producing videos like this. Enjoy!
Guys I wish you would stop this. There are already too many threads detailing the same thing on this topic. We've heard it over and over and over again.
Again, this thread is not intended to be an argument for or against AGW!! It is merely highlighting the fact that people who are in no way experts in the field of climate are weighing in on this like their opinion is supposed to be considered equally. And that is just plain ridiculous.
So let me try and steer this another way although I may be ignored again. Who or what organization should be looked at as the experts in this topic?? Apparently Pixel doesn't consider the IPCC to be credible. He also doesn't seem to give an approval stamp to any scientific organization that has endorsed the IPCC's conclusions. And let me add that nearly every major scientific organization has endorsed the AGW. To what degree doesn't matter at the moment. And we must also understand that they could be wrong, ..... we are humans after all. So perhaps somehow the cart is being placed in front of the horse.
So, I want to know, from anybody, especially Pixel: who are we to look at when considering this matter?? Who are the people that are going to give us the least biased evidence and conclusions?? Who?? Who are the experts that you can trust??
For Christ sake we can't even agree on the data much less conclusions. Perhaps it is too much of a complex thing to even know for sure. Hubris does run rampant at times throughout the scientific community.
Again, this thread is not intended to be an argument for or against AGW!! It is merely highlighting the fact that people who are in no way experts in the field of climate are weighing in on this like their opinion is supposed to be considered equally. And that is just plain ridiculous.
So let me try and steer this another way although I may be ignored again. Who or what organization should be looked at as the experts in this topic?? Apparently Pixel doesn't consider the IPCC to be credible. He also doesn't seem to give an approval stamp to any scientific organization that has endorsed the IPCC's conclusions. And let me add that nearly every major scientific organization has endorsed the AGW. To what degree doesn't matter at the moment. And we must also understand that they could be wrong, ..... we are humans after all. So perhaps somehow the cart is being placed in front of the horse.
So, I want to know, from anybody, especially Pixel: who are we to look at when considering this matter?? Who are the people that are going to give us the least biased evidence and conclusions?? Who?? Who are the experts that you can trust??
For Christ sake we can't even agree on the data much less conclusions. Perhaps it is too much of a complex thing to even know for sure. Hubris does run rampant at times throughout the scientific community.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Unbeleivable.
Pixel and Angel,...you are proving my post right. You guys are just yelling at each other, just like everyone else on this subject!
There's people for it ....and people against it.
There's evidence for it,....and there's evidence against it.
And both sides seem to be "fundamentalist" in thier beleifs.
Which brings me back to my original statement, there is most certainly something fishy here.
Leaders on both sides are doing thier damndest to polarize this subject to hide something, to misdirect peoples attention.
In this kind of hostile climate, there is no way the average Joe or Josephine can get real, unaltered, unfiltered, unbiased information to make up their own minds.
And I think this is by design. Why the hell else would leaders and experts get people so riled up, so pissed off, so "I'm right and you're just STUPID" kind of attitude about something that should be carefully studied, discussed, and tested in a rational, unemotional manner?
Instead they are pushing the emotional aspects to this, NOT the data. On EITHER side.
So the real question comes down to, "What are they hiding?"
Angel and Pixel, you guys can yell at each other, call each other stupid or whatever...but it's not going to answer a single question. Worst of all, it's just going to perpetuate the unecessary angst and confusion over whatever reality there is on global warming.
So you guys want to continue to act like Trolls? Or do you want to find out what's really going on?
---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------
Excellent post!
Pixel and Angel,...you are proving my post right. You guys are just yelling at each other, just like everyone else on this subject!
There's people for it ....and people against it.
There's evidence for it,....and there's evidence against it.
And both sides seem to be "fundamentalist" in thier beleifs.
Which brings me back to my original statement, there is most certainly something fishy here.
Leaders on both sides are doing thier damndest to polarize this subject to hide something, to misdirect peoples attention.
In this kind of hostile climate, there is no way the average Joe or Josephine can get real, unaltered, unfiltered, unbiased information to make up their own minds.
And I think this is by design. Why the hell else would leaders and experts get people so riled up, so pissed off, so "I'm right and you're just STUPID" kind of attitude about something that should be carefully studied, discussed, and tested in a rational, unemotional manner?
Instead they are pushing the emotional aspects to this, NOT the data. On EITHER side.
So the real question comes down to, "What are they hiding?"
Angel and Pixel, you guys can yell at each other, call each other stupid or whatever...but it's not going to answer a single question. Worst of all, it's just going to perpetuate the unecessary angst and confusion over whatever reality there is on global warming.
So you guys want to continue to act like Trolls? Or do you want to find out what's really going on?
---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------
Excellent post!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
The topic was once again brought up by our hosts in Stanton's interview.
Historical evidence going back millions of years is a great place to start. There is evidence of much greater warming, cooling, CO2 levels, mass extinctions, evolution of species after extinctions, etc etc etc... Our puny contributions of CO2 or pollution will be shrugged off by this planet very easily.
Do you want to try and control continental drifting, seismic and volcanic activities as well? Maybe a continental drifting tax would help?
---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------
Trolls? Angel is supporting his view (not very well) and I am supporting mine. I see no evidence of trolling except maybe your last provocative comment suggesting we are trolls.
---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------
pixelsmith said:
I had planned for the 10:10 video to be my last contribution on the subject. If you all want to continue on the CAGW scam, I am all for it. Fire away or go and research it more. But please try your research from a historical viewpoint rather than a political one.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Although I don't agree with Pixel on this at all, he's not really trolling.
So, that Stanton Friedman, what a guy!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I like Stanton. I could listen to him for a couple more hours.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
There we go. Back on track.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
crickets chirping...
P
pixelsmith
Guest
yay.. a Federal worker.. nuff said.
you are still sitting in a higher concentration of CO2 than what is outside.
we were discussing Stanton... please stay on topic.
... crickets chirping...
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
I jumped to page 6 because I predicted pages 1-5 would be filled to the brim with the usual global warming sparring from the usual suspects.
Imagine my surprise at being absolutely right. You'd have to imagine it, because it doesn't exist.
So with all that taken care of, on to Stanton... who brought nothing really new. Well, except for this upcoming swanky conference he's going to, that sounded interesting. Bit of a mixed bag though. I mean WTF is Jean Chretien doing there? The man should take his cues from Mulroney and stay in obscurity.
One thing I did like though was when Gene challenged Stan on the ETH with other concepts like interdimensionality or time travel or whatever and Stan's answer basically boiled down to "Yes, that could be true but I don't care. I'm interested in this." I was so happy to hear that. Seems to me there's been alot of dumping on the ETH lately (espescially around here) and I've never understood why. It's not like it's LESS valid than the other theories nor is it presented as the ONLY theory available but what Stan is saying (and I agree with him on this) is that there are cases where the ETH seems the most likely explanation. And those are the cases he persues.
Okay that was a bit rambly... I'm on my first coffee of the day here. The point is, maybe the problem with Ufology as a whole is that we're always trying to cram it all into one box. It's clearly not working. We should let the ETHers persue their cases and the IDHers, CTHers and others persue their own cases and judge the results of each on their own merits.
Imagine my surprise at being absolutely right. You'd have to imagine it, because it doesn't exist.
So with all that taken care of, on to Stanton... who brought nothing really new. Well, except for this upcoming swanky conference he's going to, that sounded interesting. Bit of a mixed bag though. I mean WTF is Jean Chretien doing there? The man should take his cues from Mulroney and stay in obscurity.
One thing I did like though was when Gene challenged Stan on the ETH with other concepts like interdimensionality or time travel or whatever and Stan's answer basically boiled down to "Yes, that could be true but I don't care. I'm interested in this." I was so happy to hear that. Seems to me there's been alot of dumping on the ETH lately (espescially around here) and I've never understood why. It's not like it's LESS valid than the other theories nor is it presented as the ONLY theory available but what Stan is saying (and I agree with him on this) is that there are cases where the ETH seems the most likely explanation. And those are the cases he persues.
Okay that was a bit rambly... I'm on my first coffee of the day here. The point is, maybe the problem with Ufology as a whole is that we're always trying to cram it all into one box. It's clearly not working. We should let the ETHers persue their cases and the IDHers, CTHers and others persue their own cases and judge the results of each on their own merits.