• 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!

Politics of Global Warming

Free episodes:

He isnt.

He is on an 'away mission' for the good Dr Lewanbowsky, a true Skeptical Science disciple, and a prolific 'climate change' troll, so prolific his exploits are written about in blogs, as a prolific troll, activism is his life.

'The crisis' itself is a fraud, and a fraud is pushing it here, you cannot shame or embarrass this guy.
 
Last edited:
Okay - so here we go. I have been sent the text that manxman has placed in his signature -

Tyger at 14:12 PM on 11 September, 2012
Carrick we cross-posted, I think we just have to agree to disagree on McIntyre. That might sound lame, but I really don't think going down that road is conducive to constructive dialogue. Apologies for my sometimes intemperate and sometimes snarky remarks-- I get worked up about this stuff and with the web it is hard to remember sometimes that you are addressing a person. Got to go, my wife is getting impatient! Good night.

It's taken me a while to figure this out, since I came to the Paracast Forum in 2013 and only just started talking about global warming in 2014. I have finally clicked on the link and see that it goes to a blog conversation - and suddenly all the ranting manxman was doing about 'he/her' (referencing me) and someone called 'lebonowski' or something starts to make sense.

We are on the internet, pixel. I am not the only one in the world to have the handle 'Tyger'. (I know that for a fact because I sometimes try to sign up to a site using 'Tyger' and it's more often a taken handle than it is available). That there should be a 'Tyger' out there - posting on climate change (is he? because I didn't read it all), that he should be a scientist (is he?) and that there should be this lebonowski coincidence - what are the odds? I agree it may look strange - but it's more strange than real. And here we have the problem with all such speculation not grounded in actual facts.

There are a sprinkling of posters on this chat site who actually know my real-life identity - which is no-one else's business, actually. But your attempt at defamation of my posting persona on the Paracast is my business.
 
Last edited:
It wont work son, you are trying to pretend you havent seen all thats been written prior.

They are forgiving, but they are not that gullible son.


ps
Regards to the wife.
 
It wont work son, you are trying to pretend you havent seen all thats been written prior.

They are forgiving, but they are not that gullible son.

I have seen it but I thought you were doing another one of your paranoid rants - of which you have had many with me. That is why I put you both on ignore.

I am backing into the barn on this. I am 'only just' putting two-and-two together. Now I get why you have been posting on threads you agreed you would not - and pixel has been saying what he has been to me on my own thread! :rolleyes: For pity's sake.

I think you've gone too far. I now see you have replaced the 'Tyger' in your signature with 'Troll'.

I will have to read this other poster - 'Tyger' - sounds like an interesting dude. He is certainly arguing on the side I would be on over there. However, it is not me. He does mention the 'Skeptic's Handbook'. Are you and pixel familiar with that? One of my pen pals here on the Paracast Forum says this: "those two on Climate Change, Pixel and Manxman, are incorrigible ... I have actually wondered if they are part of something organized ... I know groups will receive information or canned editorials to post in their newspapers ..."

I do post on quite a number of topics here but it is only on the warming topic that you two go after me (or anyone who dares continue posting on the subject). This is a very curious experience. You are trying too hard to discredit me. I am only one very small person. Why is it so very important to get my pov trounced? Why attack me personally? Strange.
 
Last edited:
Its nothing personal, thats why i waited 3 months to bubble you.

I dont want you to go, i want you to try and debate, but you lack the knowledge, you are strictly copy and paste, or by link back to home territory.
You trolled me for a year, i didnt know the 'rulez' [ now i do ] you had the advantage of deception by gender, now you do not, you despise my posting on climate change because ive immersed myself for long months in both sides latest science, and both sides latest sophistry.
Whereas all you do is churn out copy and paste alarmist magazine articles, and call it science, oblivious to the sophistry.


And you will by any means, without any shame, try to silence the anti-dote of rational upto date science that sometimes follow your rampant alarmist sophistical postings.

[many of your postings are on a par with Billy Mieir UFO photo's and stories, when it comes down to their age and worth. ]

We both know YOUR game plan, alot of others do now to, remember when you played peek--a-- boo about going on the paracast show, that was really funny that, i would of bet my house you wouldnt, no matter what happened, you couldnt.

Now that would be something eh professor.

regards to the wife.
 
Last edited:
He isn't.

He is on an 'away mission' for the good Dr Lewanbowsky, a true Skeptical Science disciple, and a prolific 'climate change' troll, so prolific his exploits are written about in blogs, as a prolific troll, activism is his life.

'The crisis' itself is a fraud, and a fraud is pushing it here, you cannot shame or embarrass this guy.

You are seriously deluded, manxman.

Need I point out that the only 'method' you have of 'debate' is to use highly charged words and make accusations. Your denier mode has absolutely nothing solid to stand on - so you resort to (rude and inflammatory) rhetoric. Right there you give yourself away.

Its nothing personal, thats why i waited 3 months to bubble you.

You trolled me for a year, i didnt know the 'rulez' [ now i do ] you had the advantage of deception by gender, now you do not, you despise my posting on climate change because ive immersed myself in both sides science and sophistry.

And you will by any means, without any shame, try to silence the anti-dote of rational upto date science that sometimes follow your rampant alarmist sophistical postings.

regards to the wife.

I have no interest in what you post or where - except on my threads - and the reason I have had to have 'my threads' is because you have proved to be hectoring and rude (to put it mildly). Both you and pixel.

I do not despise your posting - it simply does not belong on my threads.

I have no problem with the debate threads. Go debate the science on the debate threads. Of course, you can't because no one will debate the science with you or pixel. It is you and pixel who are silencing and shutting down threads. You thought you had silenced me and shut down my threads - when I was simply on spring break. It is you who object to my posting on global warming and are attempting to silence me.
 
Last edited:
I don't want you to go, i want you to try and debate, but you lack the knowledge, you are strictly copy and paste, or by link back to home territory.
Can you accept that this is not going to happen? Can you take 'no' for an answer?

Sorry, but I am not debating. It's all been said - much better than I could say - on the countless other climate change threads archived on this chat site. Some so recent they are not even archived.

You seem to be on a mission to convert. Sorry. Not interested. [Door slammed on your foot.] My interest is quite other - I am interested in what the situation will be - and is as we speak. That's legitimate. But you seem to be taking personal offense that even one person on this chat site will voice a view contrary to yours.

Why is it that climate change is your target - and not occultism, mysticism or ufology and contactees? Why does climate change burn in you like a fire in the pit of your belly? Why must I comply with your view? It's not me that is the activist - it's you.
You trolled me for a year
Really? How's that? Explain, please.
And you will by any means, without any shame, try to silence the anti-dote of rational upto date science that sometimes follow your rampant alarmist sophistical postings.
Your 'science' - or the links you post - are very weak. I don't have the time for them. Sorry. That you think that they are sterling rebuttals tells me the intellectual level you're working at. I don't have the time. As I say, sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you keep asking, and pressing. As has pixel. Same comment applies there - very weak intellectual grasp of the science and the situation. I am not interested in convincing you of anything. Understand that?
regards to the wife.
No 'wife' to give regards to, bub. :rolleyes: You are so ignorant (and rude) it's pathetic, manxman.
 
The derail has finished.

I have read hundreds of your online posts in climate change debate, or rather your ''pretense'' at climate debate.

When i said i know the rulez, i meant i know the rulz.

Move on.

regards to the wife.
 
Last edited:
You keep adding more and more text to the same post. Curious way of handling your responses to my posts.
[many of your postings are on a par with Billy Mieir UFO photo's and stories, when it comes down to their age and worth. ]
I am posting what is in the media in a particular vein. You can disagree or not. Your free choice. Why does the mere posting upset you so?
We both know YOUR game plan, alot of others do now to, remember when you played peek--a-- boo about going on the paracast show, that was really funny that, i would of bet my house you wouldnt, no matter what happened, you couldn't.
In case you hadn't noticed - I am not in charge of the Paracast - Gene is (and Chris). They decide who gets on and who doesn't. I said I was willing - other women said no they were not. Discussion over. Though it wasn't because it went into pm's. Who knows, might one day happen. Never know what the future may bring.
Now that would be something eh professor.
Well, I would have a ton to say about chat sites, trolling and spamming - and the shutting down of conversation, and the airing of valid pov's. Lot to be said on that score, for sure. Especially given the delusion you are currently laboring under, with the intent to savage someone's posting persona.
 
The derail has finished.
Is it now? Taking higher ground, are we?
I have read hundreds of your online posts in climate change debate, or rather your ''pretense'' at debate.
Have you? Has it been edifying for you? Seems not. But of course, it's all a question whether you have actually understood what I have posted and on that you score a zero because I have never debated climate change. :rolleyes: Whew! This is taking a lot to get through to you, manxman - does your wife have this trouble with you? (If you have a wife - which I suspect not - if it matters to you).
When i said i know the rulez, i meant i know the rulz.

Move on.
You started it, fella. What's the issue now? You poke and poke and poke - and as long as I don't respond you continue to poke and poke and poke - until I start getting pm's to put the puppy in his place. I come on - de-cloak you, am able to read your nonsense - respond - and you want to 'Move on'. Really. Is that all it takes? Who'd a thunk it! :rolleyes:
regards to the wife.
Jerk.
 
STOP feeding him pixel, you are playing HIS game.
Okay, boys, what have you been up to? Have you been engaging in a smear campaign against me based on bogus information? Because I post on climate change? Lordy!

Manxman posted this when I queried pixel thusly: "How have I "deceived moderators and forum members here"? This is going to completely derail this thread but that is always your aim anyway. This is starting to go too far. How am I being deceptive and why should I be banned?"

At no time have either of you answered my post - these are rather serious charges you have leveled against me. You have stated that I have deceived the moderators (and forum members) and that I should be banned. Could you lay all that out for me, please? Chapter and verse, if you would.

When I confront you with your nonsense, you backpedal and skittle away (like rats and cockroaches and other lowlife do with the light of day - not saying that you are any of those - but the comparison seemed apt). Suddenly - when I want answers - I am playing a game? I'm not the one playing games, boys.
 
Now the ''real' Tyger come's out to play.

Not very lady like son.

Move on, i dont wont you banned i want to show you up for the clueless C&P'er you are on a level playing field, debate me on the greenhouse effect, you havent the knowledge, activist spam is all you are.

Red on the inside and green on the out, socialist=communist, hence ''do i say'' without debate, ''what i say is true'' without debate.
 
Last edited:
Now the ''real' Tyger come's out to play.
How is that? That I want you to lay out - chapter and verse - how I have deceived moderators and forum members and thereby deserve to be banned? That's the 'real Tyger'? Could you explain, please?
Not very lady like son.
What does a lady do, manxman? Take it lying down? You have been trying to smear me - and apparently (if I may read-between-the-lines) for quite some time. I am calling you out on this. Get your facts straight before you launch into character assassination.
You have something to answer for, manxman. You have engaged in a smear campaign. Explain yourself, please. Explain your reasoning. Explain.

I am waiting.
debate me on the greenhouse effect, you havent the knowledge.
Well, if I'm actually this 'Other Tyger' that you think I am and have been telling the moderators I am, and anyone else who will listen - from the little I've read, 'I' should have more than enough knowledge and expertise to debate the issue. BUT.......now read this slowly and carefully - I am not that 'Other Tyger' nor am I interested in debating with you. Got it?
 
Sophistry for ''i dont know enough to debate you on the most fundamental basic point of my claims''
No sophistry (I know that's a new word you recently learned) from my end, anyway. You are engaged in plenty of sophistry and in a logical fallacy. You want me to be this Other Tyger - yet at the same time you want me to not know enough to have a debate. Can't be both. But in that very contradiction you are proving that you know you have been lying about my identity. Shame on you.

Point: You are not answering my question - how have I been deceptive? why do I deserve to be banned?

You don't get it. But this I do get - you are a time waster. I haven't the time for you. If you want to understand climate change do the research for yourself, read all the climate change threads on this chat site to witness the debate. Stop obsessing on me and what you think I do or do not think. Get over it. Move on. Yep. Take your own advice.
 
Last edited:
Do yall see the troll now, how it works. you recognise the troll yet.

Do you see false stacking up about banning, twice now ive told him, and Goggs ages ago, do you see the modus operandi, of a clueless spammer.
All there to create noise.

Has'nt got an topic climate debate in him.

Only a troll could turn a good thing into a bad thing with sophistry.

Its his favourite subject, but does'nt want to talk about it in detail, because it never stacks up, sophistry never does, clueless, thats why.
 
Last edited:
Do yall see the troll now, how it works. you recognise the troll yet.
How am I a troll? You have accused me of something. I am asking you to explain yourself, to come clean with what you've been casting about - and I am the troll? I'm not the troll, manxman. If you've been doing what I now suspect, you're the troll - and you've been trolling against me. Explain yourself. Say it out loud to me.
Do you see false stacking up about banning, twice now ive told him, and Gogs ages ago, do modus operandi, clueless spammer.
It's pixel who made the accusations of deception and suggested banning. I am asking for an accounting, please.
Has'nt got an topic climate debate in him.
Guess not. :rolleyes: Can you accept that? And MOVE ON.

Put me on ignore. What is your problem, manxman? It's starting to look like you have a serious problem of some kind.
 
Moving on.

Dr postma's 3rd paper on the the Greenhouse Effect Theories fraudulent Physic's.

Maybe you can pick fault with Dr Postma's work Dr Tyger.

Maybe explain how the sun never warms the earth more than -18c, as per mann/trebreth.
but still melts ice.

And the absurdity of an atmosphere warming the planet has only been around 30yrs, before that everyone was taught in science at school that atmosphere's cool planet's, and have done since shortly after the big bang.



← The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality
The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 4: Heat Flow →
The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 3: In Pictures
Posted on 2012/11/07 by Joseph E Postma
We have been discussing the problem with flat Earth models and understanding that they artificially invent an atmospheric greenhouse effect. What I haven’t shown yet is an actual schematic (drawing/ picture, etc) of a flat Earth model from climate science.

From this link, we find a peer-reviewed climate science publication demonstrating their understanding (lack thereof) of how energy comes in and goes out of the system Earth; their model is copied in the figure below:


Global Energy budget from the climate science point of view.
From: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)

My own model is copied once again, below, for comparison. But let us first take a look at the surface in the figure above. Yes, it is flat – it is circular, but it is a flat circle. But because it has numbers all over the place and even drew in clouds and rain, you honestly get tricked into accepting it because your sense-perception functions accept that such things (clouds and rain) occur in reality. On the other hand, your senses only ever experience the Earth as flat, and so no one actually has an intuitive sense-based understanding that the Earth is actually spherical; therefore, it just doesn’t consciously register that you should have rejected this model based on a flat Earth. Whether by accident or on purpose, you get tricked into accepting everything that follows about this diagram, even though it has nothing to do with real reality; it takes advantage of the inherent rational limitations of sense-perception.

Take a look at the incoming power of Sunshine in the climate science model: it denotes a value of 341 W/m2. What is this value? It is our old friend of P divided by 4; or in other words 341*4 = 1364 W/m2, which is (rounding for error) the actual value of sunshine power that I show in the reality-model below of 1370 W/m2. So there you have it right there: the input power of sunshine is diluted by the factor of four.

Then, factoring in losses from reflection and the atmosphere, the power of heating at the surface is listed as only 161 W/m2, which is a temperature of -42oC. That’s minus forty two Celsius. So how is the difference made up then, given that this entirely unrealistic and fictional power of Sunshine is literally freezing cold? The difference between reality and fiction is made up by inventing another fiction, “back radiation” heating, on the right hand side of the figure, which requires a power of an additional 333 W/m2 of heating for the system. This figure is literally just stuck right on to the side of their diagram out of nowhere, with no justification other than that it is required to make the model work, to “save the appearances”. And thus the greenhouse effect is born. With 161 W/m2 plus 333 W/m2 of heating power, the climate science model can now get up to 494 W/m2 worth of heating power, which is 32.5oC. Note that this still isn’t even as warm as reality and the reality-based model below of +49oC of heating power, and I don’t need to do anything to my model to make it work – it works because it represents reality.



A realistic energy model which is rational, not insane and fictional.
A question I have for you is: If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick? Even forget about paying attention to the numbers and what they mean, and just based visually on the aesthetic and the shapes within the model, which would you pick as the model which looks like reality? Does the picture below help make the decision?


Earth is illuminated on only one side with the full power of sunshine. It also rotates.

There is a difference in how my model presents incoming sunshine relative to this picture (from “the top” vs. from “the side”), however, my model is an abstract representation of reality that is meant to nonetheless capture the actual physics of the energy processes involved; it is a “mind object” or “mental object” that captures the actually real properties of the system as they actually exist. For a scientist thinking intelligently and rationally, rather than irrationally through sense-perception, the abstract reality model validly represents the actual processes involved, and it needs to invent nothing to save the appearances. Rotation and day and night are implicit in the comprehension of the reality model.

The point is: use your brain, not sense-perception devoid of reason. What makes more sense: a flat Earth which invents additional heating out of nowhere, or, a spherical Earth which represents the actual system and invents nothing?

About these ads
Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate, climate change, climate models, climate science, climate scientists, cold sunshine, environment, greenhouse, science. Bookmark the permalink.
 
Last edited:
And this, folks, is the politics of global warming debate. The 'playbook' begins and ends with smearing the other side, the scientists and any layperson who speaks the scientific view. It is well worth seeing the documentary that just came out on 'The Merchants of Doubt'. What you have been witnessing on this thread is a perfect example of the 'playbook'. The documentary gives some harrowing details of exactly how individuals who support the view of AGW have been targeted by the corporate PR juggernaut.

Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt" (Part 1 of 6)
TEXT: "Uploaded on Nov 1, 2010: Proceed to Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILII3m...
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Oreskes is also a co-author, along with Erik M. Conway, of the book, "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." "
 
Last edited:
Moving on.
Unfortunately you have not 'moved on', manxman. This thread is not debating the science. Got that? This thread is about the politics of global warming. Got it? Your post is off-topic.
Dr postma's 3rd paper on the the Greenhouse Effect Theories fraudulent Physic's.
Take this to a climate change debate thread. This is not a thread about the validity of various views - about this paper or that paper, etc. Can you accept that? Is it possible? Probable? Perhaps not.

I know why you won't. You want to be around me. I'm where the action is. Thank you. You want to be on any thread I start. This is very flattering but does not get the dialog anywhere for you. By focussing on me you are losing a lot of posters who would converse with you on the correct thread. Think about that. Okay? Can you do that for me? You have such a keen need to debate this stuff, you should get some playmates. I'm not one. Can you accept that?
Maybe you can pick fault with Dr Postma's work Dr Tyger.
Maybe Dr Tyger would. You need to go talk to him. On the right thread. (That is, if Dr Tyger is posting here).

Why do I know that this will just go on and on. It will. Manxman has proven, if nothing else, that he has an obsession and is on a mission. Beware of the religious fanatic.
 
Back
Top