• 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!

Actual science of (New World - Climate Change)

Forums New posts
P

pixelsmith

Guest
A couple of us are no longer allowed to participate in the "New World - Climate Change" thread so I am starting this one to discuss what is going on "over there" and what real science says about the topic.

@Tyger, you are not allowed to post on this thread. Your free speech is not recognized here.

Quote of the Week: “politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment.” Richard Tol, who withdrew his name from the IPCC AR5, economics section, because it was too alarmist, even though he was coordinating lead author

The Race: The final results need to be tallied, but it appears that both the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) lost the big race in declaring that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

Atmospheric temperature measurements by satellites, confirmed by weather balloons, just do not play the game that some of those who report surface temperatures play. One of the two atmospheric temperature reporting entities, Remote Sensing Systems, reports that 2014 was not the hottest year ever (since 1978). Could it be that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not cause temperature change as previously attributed? We are still waiting for independent confirmation from the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. See links under Measurement Issues

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #162 | Watts Up With That?
 
Lets take a look at our first break down...

Tyger: "The problem with two posters who have been dive-bombing this thread with anti-AGW arguments is that this thread is not for arguing AGW. The thread's prime reason for existence is to look at the world coming under AGW in all aspects: environmental, societal, political, economic, etc. It's an exploratory discussion I would like to have that up to now has been blocked and choked off by the anti-AGW spamming."

Pixel: You assume an anthropogenic signal is causing warming that is of concern. Yet you do not state how much is caused by humans.

Tyger: "Notice to all: if you have an interest in debating the validity of AGW as a theory or it's science, there are innumerable threads on the site that have engaged that debate. Repeat: innumerable threads are available to take up that debate. This thread - the only one of it's kind - is not engaging the debate. This thread is looking at how the world will change under AGW - in fact, how it is changing under AGW, both as an accepted 'fact' in science and as a political/public perception reality (the two are different, the latter proceeds 'as if' ' - is a societal decision based on the tipping point when science drives public policy)."

Pixel: You again state AGW changing the world is an accepted fact. AGW is accepted indeed, it is barely measurable but it is NOT changing the world.

Tyger: "P.S. The constant hectoring within this thread by two posters (Pixel and manxman) simply betrays ignorance. The 'if' is not new - and has been there from the outset of the thread. Had the trolls bothered to actually read the thread posts - and comprehend what they were reading - such a comment would not be made. Nothing is being posted to assuage anyone. One of the problems is the trolls - contrary to their claims - do not understand the tentative nature of science. However, even with that tentative nature, there reaches a tipping point when science drives public policy, and we have reached that tipping point given the overwhelming evidence of changes in climate taking place world-wide. Arguing that is best done on threads already dedicated to that debate. That is not what is taking place here.The problem with two posters who have been dive-bombing this thread with anti-AGW arguments is that this thread is not for arguing AGW. The thread's prime reason for existence is to look at the world coming under AGW in all aspects: environmental, societal, political, economic, etc. It's an exploratory discussion I would like to have that up to now has been blocked and choked off by the anti-AGW spamming."

Pixel: You are wrong again. We are not anti-AGW, we are anti-CAGW. There is nothing empirically proven via the scientific method that indicates human contributions of CO2 are causing catastrophic or worrisome warming of the planet.


Sorry you can't reply to this @Tyger... that's the way it goes..
 
Just for the record gene hasnt stopped me from posting there, if im one of the couple you mention, but now its about the fantasy consequences of fantasy warming, he can knock himself bandy ive no interest in it..
 
Pixel where do you stand on climate change? I stayed out of the other thread so lets start with the basics of what you think is going on and why?
 
Climate change is normal and nothing can stop it. We can thank climate change for helping the evolutionary process. Ironically the poster child for stopping climate change is the polar bear which evolved because of a changing climate.
 
AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming is real but barely measurable in terms of how much warming humans have caused.

CAWM Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam designed to control populations in various ways and to redistribute wealth.

People concerned about global warming are generally well meaning but misinformed.
 
Tyger: "Since Pixel simply refused to 'go with the flow' of the premise of this thread, he's created his own thread for AGW/CAGW or whatever it is that his interest is. I believe he views his thread to be the direct 'answer' to all the stuff that will be posted over here, so if you are interested in debating the science/viewpoint as you see it, you can over over to Pixel's thread, linked below..." blah blah blah..

Pixel: No, you cried to the Mods and I was told to refrain from posting on your thread. Out of respect to Gene and another Mod I will comply.

You continue to say that AGW is changing the world and that it is an accepted science which is a lie. I can't reply to that on your thread so I have to do it here. @Tyger it is YOU that has caused the creation of this thread because you are unable to defend your fake science or debate the topic with someone who knows a whole lot more than you.

@Tyger If you want to reply to this then please do it on your Climate Change thread.
 
Tyger: "Climate Change is the raison d'être for the thread. It is a given, not a debate. [In order to avoid the fruitless back-and-forth of 'my scientists' and 'your scientists'.] There are innumerable threads where that "debate" can be waged, but not here. [In order to keep the thread clear of the aimless never-ending debate for some. I am not a proselytizer about Global Warming. I've no interest in convincing anyone of a viewpoint.] It is generally accepted that we are undergoing a change in climate worldwide. It is happening way ahead of schedule, by thousands of years - far faster than it would have ever happened 'on its own terms'. The deciding factor? CO2 produced by humans. We - our activities - appear to have been the kick that has gotten the ball rolling."


Pixel: The bold (my emphasis) is pure bull$hit. Who made this schedule? LMAO! There is NO deciding factor that CO2 has gotten the climate change ball rolling. This is absolutely false. @Tyger is flat out wrong. CO2 is a beneficial trace gas necessary for all life on earth. The earth is CO2 starved right now.
 
So if you just step back for a moment and look at the optics of this thread please tell me what this says about how to debate in a civil manner. Why not just debate the point and not the person? What is there to be gained by debating the person?

Why not just collect your data and lay out the argument so that those who want to support your position can do so without aligning themselves with an intimidation campaign? Certainly your position is strong enough to stand on its own without resorting to high school tactics. I'm sure your training did not teach you that.
 
I prefer to address the one least informed person who is passing their bull$#it off as some sort of scientific fact.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ok, i'm not too sure of the value of that, but as you know we debate a lot of "questionable" facts on this forum as it is in fact devoted to paranormal issues so there's a lot of people that feel really strongly about things e.g. linda cortile was abducted by aliens, billy meier is the reincarnation of Christ, 9-11 was an inside job etc.. we also know that the best way to prove someone wrong is to provide evidence and debate that point, providing evidence that the perspective is inaccurate. sometimes when there is no resolution, people butt heads, get sarcastic and then walk away from threads that are unproductive because you are arguing against a belief. while I have no problem identifying that certain belief systems are wrong, even dangerous, I don't see value in attacking the individual who is purveying such views. I don't see it as a healthy practice in the forum, nor does it send out positive messages to the rest of the members as to how to get your point across. just sayin'.
over
and,
out.
 
manxman said:
Just for the record gene hasnt stopped me from posting there, if im one of the couple you mention, but now its about the fantasy consequences of fantasy warming, he can knock himself bandy ive no interest in it..
Click to expand...
So, you argue on the basis of skewed manipulated information (an invalid 2007 documentary), and when you get called out, you just find the next thread that suits your agenda?

You know, if you can't back it up, maybe it would be better to simply acknowledge that you've been manipulated?
 
jimi.

Before you even start debating climate change of any sort, it is first beholden of you to show the planet is warming, i think it is, as far as i can assertain, that rise is 0.1 degree in the last century, thats what the worldwide weather station raw data shows, thats indisputable, the only temperatures that are rising are those surrounding the weather stations in urban and semi urban concreted jungles, the heat island effect.

Global warming is a myth, Quote Dr R. Connolly.

Now i know you will have all the answers, nasa this nasa that, homogenization this homogenization that.
So im not going to waste the time with you, i agree 100% with the 5 Connolly family members.

So i will be using the Connolly's rubbutals to your armchair 'science', if you do not agree with their rubbutal i will put your point/s directly to a family member, you could use the comments facility there yourself, they very much welcome comments both at their new website now they are publishing, or thru commenting directly on their papers that are curruntly under open peer-review.

Links to there papers are on their site.

Global warming is a myth, even tho global temps have risen 0.1 degree, in a century, thats below the expected norm, HOW can that be ?.
Let a family of scientists who have since 2009 been re-doing the science on the bedrock of Global Warming alarmism, the Global Temperature, and have now published for peer-review explain.

Their site is family effort, all 5 Connolly's work/retired in their respective sciences daily, aswell as spouse's.
A whole think tank of science's in one extended but close family.

Summary: "Urbanization bias" Papers 1-3


How do you cling on to global warming now jimi, you wont be able to fault the science, so you will just have to kid yourself the planet has, and still is cooking, and that Co2 is relevent in some way.
No doubt you will shout and flap your arms, about anything but the connolly's papers.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you answered my question:

"So, you argue on the basis of skewed manipulated information (an invalid 2007 documentary), and when you get called out, you just find the next thread that suits your agenda?"

I mean, if someone challenges a source I use for argumentation, I'll be sure to back it up, and if I can't, I'll have to conceed that it wasn't a good source, no?
 
No jimi thats the 4th post youve purposefully mis-reprisenting what i claimed, thats why ive ignored you, and with nothing more than the UKs most vocal enviromental jihadist monbiot, by extention cook et al.

You created your own strawmen so you can jackboot me down with them, reality is now your trolling me,so you can go **** yourself

quote.

How do you cling on to global warming now jimi, you wont be able to fault the science, so you will just have to kid yourself the planet has, and still is cooking, and that Co2 is relevent in some way.
No doubt you will shout and flap your arms, about anything but the connolly's papers.


Summary: "Urbanization bias" Papers 1-3

.
 
Last edited:
pixelsmith said:
AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming is real but barely measurable in terms of how much warming humans have caused.
...
Click to expand...
A little Freudian slip there, Pixel? :D

Anyways, I'm glad to see that you now acknowledge the most basic laws of energy, which say that if you add energy (in this case energy previously stored in the ground), a system heats up.

And here's something to consider, something which I frankly find almost impossible to grasp because the number is sooo big:

In 2014 the US consumed 18.89 million barrels of oil pr. day !! WOW!
How much oil is consumed in the United States? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2012 world consumption:
Countries - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Huge amounts of energy are being released into the atmosphere, Pixel. So, it is obvious that a status quo cannot be upheld, despite the natural stabilizing mechanisms that the Earth has. To think that such energy additions make no difference is terribly naive. The Earth is really not that big, as astronaut upon astronaut have remarked, having seen that lone blue ball from the outside. Likewise, we can actually climb up a mountain and reach very thin air where few can breathe, that's how small Earth actually is, and how thin the atmosphere is.
 
Last edited:
manxman said:
No jimi thats the 4th post youve purposefully mis-reprisenting what i claimed, and with nothing more than the UKs most vocal enviromental jihadist monbiot, by extention cook et al.

You created your own strawmen so you can jackboot me down with them, reality is you can go **** yourself.

quote.

How do you cling on to global warming now jimi, you wont be able to fault the science, so you will just have to kid yourself the planet has, and still is cooking, and that Co2 is relevent in some way.
No doubt you will shout and flap your arms, about anything but the connolly's papers.
Click to expand...
Better watch that blood pressure, Manx!
 
Back
Top