• 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!

Bias in the Wall Street Journal - Climate Science

i did. and you should read the climategate letters and look over the climate model data w/notes before you post next time.
 
Still harping on that, eh? I leave the climate data review to the scientists and then I listen to what they have to say about it. But keep on going with your blinders on and stick you fingers in your ears.

Are you going to bring up Al Gore soon? Or maybe how you've done YEARS of research on this topic and that you know it's a scam? We have a lot of new forum members, you should show them how much smarter you are about this topic than everyone else.

Anyway, when you decide to actually look over the letters and explain why so few actual climate scientists agree with your political based view of science, let me know.
 
Also Pixel, I just want to know why you disagree with the 255 scientist, and agree with the 16. That would be interesting to know. The scientists make a compelling, fact based argument. The others use many logical fallacies.
 
i did read your links. you should read what these "scientists" have to say in the climategate letters and in their data sets. but then you were never interested in facts.
 
your 255 scientists do not provide facts that were derived from utilizing the scientific method, they don't even have the original data to support their "consensus", they destroyed it.
 
Okay, well, discussing this with you is useless since you bring up the same tired arguments. I do encourage everyone else to take a look.
 
what do you want from me? i read the letters and the warmists bring up the same old debunked non scientific bullshit.
 
no one has ever seen ANY proof that humans are causing any kind of cooling, warming or change in climate.
 
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

I personally have some concerns the whole GW, now climate change thing is a scam.

And here is where i smell a rat.
Down under the govt has the usual powers one expects from a govt.
They can tell an industry to do something, and it must be done, for example occupational health and safety, they can insist that every company spend money on OHS programs and staff training.
They simply pass legislation and it must be done, If they wanted to address the carbon footprint issue they could do the same, just say to auto makers, by the year X, you need to be producing X amount of hybrids, or to the energy companys, by the year X you need X percent of your product to be generated by green methods.
Instead its all about a Tax.
And the tax is a round robin exercise, govt taxes polluter, polluter passes cost to consumer, govt gives consumer money to compensate for increased prices, the only "change" is money changing hands

In addition studys have shown population growth will swallow any emissions reductions that may occur.

Its all about the money, and didley squat about actually reducing emissions.
 
Also Pixel, I just want to know why you disagree with the 255 scientist, and agree with the 16. That would be interesting to know. The scientists make a compelling, fact based argument. The others use many logical fallacies.

The larger numbers dont always mean correct facts

Galileo was a minority, but he was still right
 
The larger numbers dont always mean correct facts

Galileo was a minority, but he was still right

That may be true Mike, but read the letters first. One of them states facts (255 scientists), and the other uses logical fallacies (16 scientists).
A majority does not mean truth, I'm just looking at what these letters say about the whole politicising of the science.
 
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Dont get me wrong i'm all for best practise when it comes to pollution, but im inclined to think the sun plays a bigger part in climate than emissions

And as you can guess i'm royally pissed that the govt has imposed a "weather tax", rather than simply telling the relevant industrys to clean up their acts
 
The very first paragraph has my eyes popping out of my head

All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action.

Thats like saying i should be absolutely certain the kitchen is on fire before pulling the pin on my fire extinguisher, is the same as saying i should never use the extinguisher.

Its NOT the same

Sitting at the lights waiting for a green signal is not the same as sitting imobile at the intersection forever, what a stupid premise to open with
 
science never absolutely proves anything

By this logic the earth might be flat........ since science cannot absolutely prove its not


Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes,

Which is exactly what weve seen, instead of policy and legislation to actually address the issue the very core of which is overpopulation.

This issue is being used as a means to justify a tax, the planet has had climate change cycles all throught its history, from ice ages to warm ages and back again.

If the govts were really alarmed by the issue, they would address the causes, but they dont. That should tell us something.

I think we are being conned
 
You're kind of stretching the analogy. None of those are really the same thing and you're sort of using a strawman argument.

Mate thats the premise they use in their opening paragraph

All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action

I contend its they who are stretching the analogy to spin this.

That opening paragraph is a disgraceful example of stretching the facts to fit the argument

That last sentance is pure BS they compare a variable with a fixed value and say they are equal..........
They do the same with the first sentance, "uncertainty" is a variable , "never " is a fixed value, yet they are spun as being equal

Reading both letters im struck that the 16 dont have to resort to this dishonest doublespeak to make their case
 
Back
Top