A show about the global warming debate, or what ever you want to call it

[conor]

I think, from other threads, that this would be a worthwhile endevour. It really seems like a divisive issue taht really gets under people's skin (I know it gets under mine!). Oh yeah, and this isn't a thread about the consensus in science about global warming, or what side of the fence you fall on. There are other threads for that! But I think it would make for an interesting show. Maybe not strictly paranormal, but I'm sure there's a few conspiracy theories about it, on both sides! Go on! You know you want to!

 

[Schuyler]

If you decide to do this, I can suggest a couple of names on the skeptic side.

Steve McIntyre would be ideal. He's the guy who demolished the hockey schtick. He's very knowledgeable about statistics. He's at www.climateaudit.com

Warren Meyer would be another excellent choice who is unusually good at presenting for the layman. He's at www.climate-skeptic.com He's the one who actually visited temperature recording sites and found them located in asphalt parking lots to record 'accurate' temperature readings.

A. W. Montford who writes the Bishop Hill Blog: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ and is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, the story of how McIntyre de-constructed Mann's Hockey Schtick. This is recommended reading for everyone.

Marc Morano at http://www.climatedepot.com/, who just earned an 'Accuracy in Media Award' for hiis handling of Climategeate: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100219103457.aspx would also be good.

Anthony Watts, a meterologist at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ also is well respected.

Just FYI.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I don't think that the Paracast is the right platform for a discussion about the causes of climate change. Even if it goes ahead, all that will happen will be a watered-down version of the forum threads. Not very productive, IMO.

 

[pixelsmith]

I don't think that the Paracast is the right platform for a discussion about the causes of climate change. Even if it goes ahead, all that will happen will be a watered-down version of the forum threads. Not very productive, IMO.

I agree, the forum is probably the best place to discuss the topic of AGW. New evidence of the scam comes forward everyday and the forum works pretty well for posting that information.

 

[Jonah]

On the bright side, I'm sure Exxon would be more than happy to sponsor the show with Schuyler's suggested guest list. At least Gene could make a few bucks...

I do think there is a connection between a subject that the Paracast devotes itself to that does relate to environmental prophesies. It would be an interesting discussion.

 

[pixelsmith]

On the bright side, I'm sure Exxon would be more than happy to sponsor the show with Schuyler's suggested guest list. At least Gene could make a few bucks...

I do think there is a connection between a subject that the Paracast devotes itself to that does relate to environmental prophesies. It would be an interesting discussion.

In 2002, Exxon Mobil donated $100-million — $10-million a year for 10 years running — to Stanford University “for research into global warming and renewable energy alternatives.”

Other academic institutions supported by Exxon Mobil include Columbia, George Washington, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, North Carolina, Texas and the Harvard Smithsonian (a “corporate partner”).

Also, MIT’s hurricane researcher, Kerry Emanuel, has accepted reimbursement payments from Exxon Mobile funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute for participating with NOAA’s Chris Landsea in a congressional staff briefing.

Climate Money, revealed that the US federal government has a near monopsony on climate research funding. Where a monopoly market consists of a single seller, a monopsony market consists of a single buyer. The only thing the government buys is policy-driven data and manufactured alarmism, and it has done so to the tally of more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 – and counting. By comparison, Exxon Mobil’s grants to “skeptics” of climate apocalypse is less that a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.

I suggest a little more research on your part Jonah.

 

[jkoci]

I don't think that the Paracast is the right platform for a discussion about the causes of climate change. Even if it goes ahead, all that will happen will be a watered-down version of the forum threads. Not very productive, IMO.

I agree. Let's stick with the paranormal.