• 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!

They Should Tell You Climate change

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

And another one:

Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning' | David Robert Grimes | Science | theguardian.com

I am not a climate scientist, and that's why I defer to them to know what is actually happening. Those of you in this thread arguing the opposite should really try that. Find out what the experts say and listen to them.

Don't get your information from Greenpeace or the Cato Institute. They sway too far too far to one side of the argument. And it's not that I have given up arguing this - I have argued this point in several threads in this forum, feeling confident in what I posted. I just feel that at this point, those that throw out arguments like "It's snowing, therefore global warming is a hoax" have no grasp of what climate science actually is, meaning that the argument is a waste of breath (or typing in this case).

I'll keep reading this thread and re-reading the tired arguments against the idea that humans have affected the climate, but I have nothing else to add because I'm getting tired of the same old (and completely wrong) rebuttals.
 
aye that tends to happen when you repeatedly make the same false claims, in different threads on the same forum, its a nuisance isnt it.
 
manxman said:
tyger.

quote
It's been interesting to read this exchange, this 'dialog' - though it has been Burnt that has been doing the heavy-lifting. It is not evident that anyone in the denier-mode possesses any in-depth understanding of the situation - though there is plenty of bombast to the effect that they do. No evidence to that, however - none.
quote



tyger you seem to be under the impression that people who live in an enviroment that is not effected by the so called global warming aka climate change, need to PROVE that the status quo has not changed.

it is the IPCC making extraordinary claims, it is they that need to produce the extraordinary evidence, infact any legitimate EVIDENCE, that man is causing global warming..

and there's the problem, you have 2 american politically charged organisations whose goals are power/influence and money.

but
on the other hand american politic's and politicians are renowned for their honesty, fairness, and compassion for their populace, and the planet.
i mean america have a PROVEN track record of compassion for the planet and it's peoples, the goodwill to ALL men.
what american administrations have shown over the last 50 years is BEYOND question.

so more fool anyone who doubt's al gore's humanistic and planetary selfless commitment to making the world a better place.

and well done with the vid's, case closed, we all know youtube science, with no corroberating literature is a slam dunk.

temperature hasnt even increased 2 degree in the last 160 years, and you are posting propaganda scare vids of 5 and 6 degree rise's.
and you talk about speed of warming, when infact the earth has slightly cooled in the last decade.

how long have you been alive tyger, 2 decades maybe ?.
Click to expand...


But didn't Al Gore already prove everything? I mean he made that movie and got a Nobel price... it must be true then. He says that all facts are in. How can you still deny his claims, after all he invented the internet so he must be a smart fella.
 
Angelo you forgot I used to be an alarmist like you until I got the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
Angelo you forgot I used to be an alarmist like you until I got the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I guess I have something else to add, just to clarify my position since Pixel insists that anyone that disagrees with his (incorrect) view on the topic as an alarmist - it's not black and white, bro.
I have no idea how many times I have mentioned it - I am far from an alarmist. I don't think the world will end because of climate change in the next 50 years. All I am doing is pointing out that there is a scientific consensus among the experts (climate scientists, not politicians and think tanks) that human beings have had a measurable effect on the climate through our use of fossil fuels. That's it.
This is what gets me in trouble with people like you and hard core carbon credit wielding environmentalists. You're both the same in my opinion.
 
And I have proven there is no consensus nor is science conducted via consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1658245_687982451241242_539470399_o.jpg
 
I really like guys like Burnt and Angelo and their strong beliefs because I used to regurgitate the exact same talking points in defense of the CAGW theory that the trace amount of CO2 that humans contribute was somehow changing the normal chaotic climate cycle of the planet.. Then I realized that it is not about belief, it is about facts and actual recorded data that has NOT been manipulated or put thru a poorly designed computer model that only spits out what has been programmed into it. The IPCC and the models have been proven to be WRONG. TOTALLY WRONG... not to mention that the IPCC has been found to be corrupted by its leader and its bought and paid for "scientists". Yet believers of this new found religion for some crazy reason continue to believe instead of checking actual facts and data.
 
LINK: The climate change deniers have won | Nick Cohen | Comment is free | The Observer

The climate change deniers have won
Scientists continue to warn us about global warming, but most of us have a vested interest in not wanting to think about it

TEXT: "The American Association for the Advancement of Science came as close as such a respectable institution can to screaming an alarm last week. "As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do," it said as it began one of those sentences that you know will build to a "but". "Buthuman-caused climate risks abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes."

"In other words, the most distinguished scientists from the country with the world's pre-eminent educational institutions were trying to shake humanity out of its complacency. Why weren't their warnings leading the news?

"In one sense, the association's appeal was not new. The Royal Society, the Royal Institution, Nasa, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey, the IPCC and the national science bodies of 30 or so other countries have said that man-made climate change is on the march. A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it.

"When the glib talk about the "scientific debate on global warming", they either don't know or will not accept that there is no scientific debate. The suggestion first made by Eugene F Stoermer that the planet has moved from the Holocene, which began at the end of the last ice age, to the manmade Anthropocene, in which we now live, is everywhere gaining support. Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world's history.

"If global warming is not new, it is urgent: a subject that should never be far from our thoughts. Yet within 24 hours of the American association's warning the British government's budget confirmed that it no longer wanted to fight it.

"David Cameron, who once promised that if you voted blue you would go green, now appoints Owen Paterson, a man who is not just ignorant of environmental science but proud of his ignorance, as his environment secretary. George Osborne, who once promised that his Treasury would be "at the heart of this historic fight against climate change", now gives billions in tax concessions to the oil and gas industry, cuts the funds for onshore wind farms and strips the Green Investment Bank of the ability toborrow and lend

"All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can't call us "global warming deniers " because "denier" makes us sound like "Holocaust deniers", and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.

"Tempting though it is to blame cowardly politicians, the abuse comes too easily. The question remains: what turned them into cowards? Rightwing billionaires in the United States and the oil companies have spent fortunes on blocking action on climate change. A part of the answer may therefore be that conservative politicians in London, Washington and Canberra are doing their richest supporters' bidding. There's truth in the bribery hypothesis. In my own little world of journalism, I have seen rightwing hacks realise the financial potential of denial and turn from reasonable men and women into beetle-browed conspiracy theorists.

"But the right is also going along with an eruption of know-nothing populism. Just as there are leftish greens, who will never accept that GM foods are safe, so an ever-growing element on the right becomes more militant as the temperature rises.

"Clive Hamilton, the Australian author of Requiem for a Species, made the essential point a few years ago that climate change denial was no longer just a corporate lobbying campaign. The opponents of science would say what they said unbribed. The movement was in the grip of "cognitive dissonance", a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.

"When 21 December came and went, and the Earth carried on as before, the group did not despair. Martin announced that the aliens had sent her a message saying that they had decided at the last minute not to flood the planet after all. Her followers believed her. They had given up so much for their faith that they would believe anything rather than admit their sacrifices had been pointless.

"Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.

"The politicians know too well that beyond the corporations and the cultish fanatics in their grass roots lies the great mass of people, whose influence matters most. They accept at some level that manmade climate change is happening but don't want to think about it.

"I am no better than them. I could write about the environment every week. No editor would stop me. But the task feels as hopeless as arguing against growing old. Whatever you do or say, it is going to happen. How can you persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards to limit (not stop) the rise in temperatures? How can you persuade the human race to put the future ahead of the present?

"The American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Eril M Conway quoted a researcher, who was asked in the 1970s what his country's leaders said when he warned them that C02 levels would double in 50 years. "They tell me to come back in 49 years," he replied.

"Most of the rest of us think like the Washington politicians of the Carter era. And most of us have no right to sneer at Dorothy Martin and her cult either. We cannot admit it, but like them, we need a miracle to save us from the floods."
 
I wish it was warming, it would be awesome if it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pixelsmith said:
I really like guys like Burnt and Angelo and their strong beliefs because I used to regurgitate the exact same talking points in defense of the CAGW theory that the trace amount of CO2 that humans contribute was somehow changing the normal chaotic climate cycle of the planet.. Then I realized that it is not about belief, it is about facts and actual recorded data that has NOT been manipulated or put thru a poorly designed computer model that only spits out what has been programmed into it. The IPCC and the models have been proven to be WRONG. TOTALLY WRONG... not to mention that the IPCC has been found to be corrupted by its leader and its bought and paid for "scientists". Yet believers of this new found religion for some crazy reason continue to believe instead of checking actual facts and data.
Click to expand...
what's wrong with this discussion is that it stems from the premise that if you can find one fault then the whole thing is corrupt - you're familiar with this type of faulty logic right? so if priests have been found guilty of sexual assault it doesn't mean that the all the priests are guilty, or that the entire premise or foundation of the church is problematic. in fact in statistical research priests are the safest people you can leave your kids with up against teachers, scoutmasters, doctors and a host of other community and professional workers who interact with children. similarly, individual police who have been found to be corrupt doesn't mean we should throw the idea of the police out the door, or that we can make blanket statements such as all police are corrupt, violent etc.; that's just silly.

similarly, when different climate deniers on blogs or here hang their hat on these isolated examples from these large unwieldy bodies, where individuals in the organization, whether by design or accident, delete data at NASA or recreate data or fudge data, i'm underimpressed to say the least. it's a repeating refrain that's held onto over and over again and that tune is old and boring. let's get some other sources that in fact are not paid for by the energy/oil industry but that do belong to reputable bodies whose longstanding tradition has been the pursuit of accuracy in the field.

these silly one off dismissals are entirely not accurate at all, and if anything, are entirely as misleading as those who make those faulty statements about priests, the police, climate scientists etc..
 
Angelo, You might as well post stuff from The Onion. You get your climate science from a political body that has been proven to be corrupt? REALLY?! wow dude...
 
The IPCC reports that we may see an increase in golf in Canada due to climate change... the horror!! Can you imagine?!
 
yes phil plait is the go to man for a fair unbiased opinion on the report.

this is how grim it is, and these are supposed to be scare headlines.

Food production rates are already getting lower, with crop yields dropping. Most studies project yields dropping even more over time, with half the studies showing a 10 percent or (far) more drop by the end of the century. More people (millions) will be displaced due to coastal and waterway flooding as sea level rises.

10% ruduction in crop yields by end of century, i mean ffs, predicting 86 years infront worse case scenario, your kids will be dead, and your grand children will be 70.
you great grand children will be 40/50.
your great great grand children will 20 or 30, leave them some gardening dvd's in your will.

rising sea levels by century end a few millimetre's.

heres an idea, tell your grand kids to make sure they buy/biuld a property 50 above sea level, and make sure it has a big garden or pasture, problem's solved for several generation.
 
Many IPCC scientists are jumping from that sinking ship before they too lose all credibility!
 
Back
Top