• 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!

Global Warming and Radiative Forcing

Forums New posts
Michael Allen

Michael Allen

Paranormal Adept
While I respect Stanton Friedman's work a great deal, I had a hard time taking him seriously on his research relating to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) when he doesn't address the key concept behind the CO2 rating as a GHG under the auspices of "radiative forcing." I fear that most of his commentary on GW will fall on deaf ears unless he addresses his reasoning behind the lowered status of CO2 as a GHG--particularly when thousands of man hours have already been invested in determining the radiative forcing of long-lived, well-mixed gases (like CO2 and Methane) that have a more dramatic effect on radiative forcing than others (i.e. water vapor).

I would like for Stanton Friedman to address this facet of GW so that I can make a better determination of his real understanding of the issue.
 
Michael Allen said:
While I respect Stanton Friedman's work a great deal, I had a hard time taking him seriously on his research relating to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) when he doesn't address the key concept behind the CO2 rating as a GHG under the auspices of "radiative forcing." I fear that most of his commentary on GW will fall on deaf ears unless he addresses his reasoning behind the lowered status of CO2 as a GHG--particularly when thousands of man hours have already been invested in determining the radiative forcing of long-lived, well-mixed gases (like CO2 and Methane) that have a more dramatic effect on radiative forcing than others (i.e. water vapor).

I would like for Stanton Friedman to address this facet of GW so that I can make a better determination of his real understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...


Stan Friedman is wrong about several things, one of them being AGW...

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------
Michael Allen said:
While I respect Stanton Friedman's work a great deal, I had a hard time taking him seriously on his research relating to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) when he doesn't address the key concept behind the CO2 rating as a GHG under the auspices of "radiative forcing." I fear that most of his commentary on GW will fall on deaf ears unless he addresses his reasoning behind the lowered status of CO2 as a GHG--particularly when thousands of man hours have already been invested in determining the radiative forcing of long-lived, well-mixed gases (like CO2 and Methane) that have a more dramatic effect on radiative forcing than others (i.e. water vapor).

I would like for Stanton Friedman to address this facet of GW so that I can make a better determination of his real understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...


I mean does anyone really agree with his assumption that ETs may be taking soil samples because they need our minerals? If there was a major operation occurring under our noses I think we would notice...not just a couple flying saucers grabbing soil samples here and there....We would already be dead if they wanted our resources.

Also, if ETs were watching us making sure we weren't causing trouble in the neighborhood (another one of Stan's theories) then why the hell wouldn't they do anything? If nukes got their attention why would they sit around until we have the capability to use the tech. on them?

Just some thoughts on Stan, although I still think hes one of the better researchers out there.
 
I think its a valid assumption, since we ourselves thrive on the relative abundance of minerals on our own planet. However soil samples are not necessary to determine the metallicity (if that's what you want to call it) -- spectrograph analysis of our sun from their home system would be sufficient to deduce the metallicity of the entire sol system---once a terrestrial planet is found in that system, these beings won't be sending small craft just to dig around in the dirt, they'd probably have enough information to begin prospecting.

There are other planets/planetoids/asteroids in our system rich in whatever resources they could extract from the earth--my guess is that if they are here, its not the minerals they are interested in...more like an interest in how our species may use those minerals, etc.

On the other hand, Zeta 1/2 Ret. are not heavy metal stars (different stellar generation), unlike our own sun and associated system which is metal rich--so these zeta ret. beings may have a long-term goal in maintaining some kind of watch over what becomes of our own planet.
 
Back
Top