• 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!

Thanks, Internet! Conspiracy theorists (and skeptics) thrive online

Forums New posts
pixelsmith said:
YAY!! Those Canadians are really stepping up. For Earth Day, where everyone was supposed to turn out their lights for one hour to "save energy" they saved a whopping.... oh wait... they INCREASED energy consumption by 1.01 percent... nice try tho right? ;p
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information pixelsmith?

Earth Hour savings nearly double over 2010 - British Columbia - CBC News

Earth Hour results: The numbers are in - Yahoo! News

Although not huge, there was a decrease in the use of power, so before you go spouting off about my country, get your facts straight please.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------
pixelsmith said:
nope... you (probably) gave me a red mark. go find it yourself.
Click to expand...

I actually have not touched your reputation at all, so please provide your link.
 
There are many links available if you bother to look rather than accept what main stream media feeds you.

Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)
Polar Ice Projection System 2.0: Ice Thickness
Huge Increase In Thick Ice Over The Last Three Years | Real Science
Arctic Ice Thickness Makes A Huge Gain Global Warming Freezes More Ice!

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

A great read from a former Carbon Accounting Modeler:
David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It JoNova

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

If you make it to the last link on JoNova's website check out the skeptics handbooks, they are a wealth of information from a former PRO AGW person who actually checked into the science and politics surrounding this world wide scam.
Skeptics Handbook JoNova
 
All: hope this is not too long, but I am copying some very well respected, peer reviewed papers on climate change for those of you who might be on the fence on this. Please, if in doubt, don't just look at the resource, but choose some of the papers and read for yourself about how humans are directly impacting the climate of our planet. Cheers.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p>
  1. Anthes, R.A., Corell, R.W., Holland, G., Hurrell, J.W., MacCracken, M.C., & Trenberth, K. (2010, February 12). Hurricanes and Global Warming—Potential Linkages and Consequences. <CITE>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,</CITE> 87: 623-628. Accessed April 15, 2010.
  2. Arctic Council. (2004). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report. Accessed March 22, 2007.
  3. Balachandran, N., Rind, D., Lonergan, P., & Shindell, D. (1999). Effects of solar cycle variability on the lower stratosphere and the troposphere. <CITE>Journal of Geophysical Research,</CITE> 104(D22), 27, 321-327, 339.
  4. Bender, M. A., Knutson, T. R., Tuleya, R. E., Sirutis, J. J., Vecchi, G. A., Garner, S. T., and Held, I. M. (2010). Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 327(5964), 454-458.
  5. Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 320(5882), 1444-1449.
  6. Cazenave, A. (2006). How fast are the ice sheets melting? <CITE>Science,</CITE> 314, 1251-1252.
  7. Clement, A.C., Burgman, R., Norris, J.R. (2009, July 24) Observational and model evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 325 (5939), 460-464.
  8. Dessler, A., Zhang, Z., Yang, P. (2008, October 23). Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008. <CITE>Geophysical Research Letters,</CITE> 35, L20704.
  9. Emanuel, K. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. <CITE>Nature,</CITE> 436, 686-688.
  10. Foucal, P., Frölich, C., Spruit, H., and Wigley, T. (2006). Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate. <CITE>Nature,</CITE> 443, 161-166.
  11. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Kharecha, P., Lacis, A., Miller, R., Nazarenko, L., et al. (2007). Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS model E. <CITE>Climate Dynamics,</CITE> 29(7), 661-696.
  12. Hansen, J., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J., Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A., Lo, K., Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G.A., and Tausnev, N. (2005, June 3). Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 308, 1431-1435.
  13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. A Report of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers. A Report of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  15. Joint Science Academies. (2005). Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Global Response to Climate Change. June 2005.
  16. Jouzel, J., Masson-Delmotte, V., Cattani, O., Dreyfus, G., Falourd, S., Hoffmann, G., Minster, B., et al. (2007). Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years. <CITE>Science</CITE>, 317(5839), 793-796.
  17. Labitzke, K., Butchart, N., Knight, J., Takahashi, M., Nakamoto, M., Nagashima, T., Haigh, J., et al. (2002). The global signal of the 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere: observations and models. <CITE>Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,</CITE> 64(2), 203-210.
  18. Laštovička, J., Akmaev, R. A., Beig, G., Bremer, J., & Emmert, J. T. (2006). ATMOSPHERE: Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 314(5803), 1253-1254.
  19. Lau, K. M., and H. T. Wu. (2007). Detecting trends in tropical rainfall characteristics, 1979-2003. <CITE>International Journal of Climatology,</CITE> 27.
  20. Lean, J. L., & Rind, D. H. (2009). How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades? <CITE>Geophysical Research Letters,</CITE> 36, L15708.
  21. Lean, J. L., & Rind, D. H. (2008). How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. <CITE>Geophysical Research Letters,</CITE> 35(18).
  22. Luthcke, S.B., Zwally, H.J., Abdalati, W., Rowlands, D.D., Ray, R.D., Nerem, R.S., Lemoine, F.G., McCarthy, J.J., and Chinn, D.S. (2006). Recent Greenland ice mass loss by drainage system from satellite gravity observations. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 314, 1286-1289.
  23. Mann, M. E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M. K., Bradley, R. S., Miller, S. K., Rutherford, S., & Ni, F. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. <CITE>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,</CITE> 105(36), 13252-13257.
  24. Manvendra K. Dubey, Petr Chylek, Charlie S. Zender, & Chris K. Folland. (2010, February 12). Global Warming and the Next Ice Age. <CITE>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,</CITE> 89 (12), 1905-1909.
  25. McGranahan, G., D. Balk and B. Anderson. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. <CITE>Environment & Urbanization,</CITE> 19 (1), 17-37.
  26. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  27. Oren, R., Ellsworth, D. S., Johnsen, K. H., Phillips, N., Ewers, B. E., Maier, C., Schafer, K. V., et al. (2001). Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. <CITE>Nature,</CITE> 411(6836), 469-472.
</o:p>
 
  1. Ramanathan, V., & Feng, Y. (2008). On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. <CITE>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,</CITE> 105(38), 14245-14250.
  2. Rind, D., Lean, J.L., Lerner, J., Lonergan, P., and Leboissetier, A. (2008). Exploring the stratospheric/tropospheric response to solar forcing. <CITE>Journal of Geophysical Research,</CITE> 113, D24103.
  3. Robock, A., Marquardt, A., Kravitz, B., & Stenchikov, G. (2009). Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. <CITE>Geophysical Research Letters,</CITE> 36, L19703.
  4. Sabine, C. L. (2004). The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 305(5682), 367-371.
  5. Schimel, D. (2007). Carbon cycle conundrums. <CITE>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,</CITE> 104(47), 18353-18354.
  6. Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H., et al. (2007). Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 316(5828), 1181-1184.
  7. Shepherd, A., and Wingham, D. (2007). Recent sea-level contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 315, 1529-1532.
  8. Soden, B. J. and Held, I.M. (2006, July). An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. <CITE>Journal of Climate,</CITE> 19: 3354-3360.
  9. Stainforth, D. A., Aina, T., Christensen, C., Collins, M., Faull, N., Frame, D. J., Kettleborough, J. A., et al. (2005). Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature, 433(7024), 403-406.
  10. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. (April 2006). Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. Accessed April 13, 2007.
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Climate Change. Accessed March 22, 2007.
  12. U.S. Geological Survey. (2009, December 29). Volcanic gases and their effects. Volcano Hazards Program. Accessed March 29, 2010.
  13. Velicogna, I., and Wahr, J., (2006). Measurements of time-variable gravity show mass loss in Antarctica. <CITE>Science,</CITE> 311 (5768), 1754-1756.
  14. Weir, J. (2002, April 8). Global Warming. Earth Observatory. Accessed April 13, 2007
 
One only need to see IPCC, Mann, Hanson etc and realize these are not worth the bother. They are NOT well respected and are actually the laughing stock of real scientists.

Follow the money... follow the money.
 
Double Nought Spy said:
All you need is You Tube. All pre-thunk and everything.
Click to expand...

I have read nearly every paper plumbbob supplied us above. When you research each one and find out who funded them... it is quite alarming. Just look at the list of known crooks... IPCC.. Mann, Hanson, NAS, EPA, etc etc... it is a virtual who's who of corruption. LMAO.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------

I had to thank plumbbob for his links... he makes my point very nicely. Thank You!!!

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------



PLEASE by all means post more!!!
 
dude... that is how i got to the Anti AGW side. I was the most annoying PRO AGW person on the net... I handed out over a hundred DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth. THEN I read about government funded scientists being paid ONLY if they supported AGW, then I researched the IPCC which is NOT a scientific body. The first IPCC report was not too bad. I researched scientific papers on both sides for several years and still do to this day.

Let me ask the PRO global warming people here why you feel CO2 is a poison that should be regulated? After all this IS the foundation of all AGW/Climate Change theories.
 
pixelsmith said:
One only need to see IPCC, Mann, Hanson etc and realize these are not worth the bother. They are NOT well respected and are actually the laughing stock of real scientists.

Follow the money... follow the money.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you think that those trying to disprove climate change are doing so for some benevolent reason? You don't think oil companies have any stake in it at all? Last time I checked, Exxon Mobile had a lot more money than the World Wildlife Fund.
 
Oil companies are in a win win situation. If fossil fuels are bad, they can charge more, if they are good, they can charge more... what is your point?

You cannot disprove "climate change". It of course has been happening for 4-5 billion years.
 
I was the most annoying PRO AGW person on the net... I handed out over a hundred DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth. THEN I read about government funded scientists being paid ONLY if they supported AGW, then I researched the IPCC which is NOT a scientific body. The first IPCC report was not too bad. I researched scientific papers on both sides for several years and still do to this day.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a ton of truth to that statement.. but whose to benefit from (let us call it climate change). It is obvious to me that BP has Obama in their pockets. So who is going to benefit?? Why would the gov't want to sideline the oil companies??
 
CO2 is THEE main argument for the "warmists". How is this life giving trace gas on this planet a bad thing?
 
Pixel twist call it climate change rather then global warming, as you well know, some areas are going to get quite cold, while others heat up.... as you well know.
 
hak said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a ton of truth to that statement.. but whose to benefit from (let us call it climate change). It is obvious to me that BP has Obama in their pockets. So who is going to benefit?? Why would the gov't want to sideline the oil companies??
Click to expand...

It is all about control. Simply put, If CO2 is bad and we EXHALE CO2, then WE are bad, therefore WE need to be controlled. It is no longer so much about money for the elite anyway... it is all about control of the masses and the transfer of wealth to gain control over these masses.

btw... who doesn't have obomba in their pockets?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------
hak said:
Pixel twist call it climate change rather then global warming, as you well know, some areas are going to get quite cold, while others heat up.... as you well know.
Click to expand...

as you well know... back in the 60's and 70's the scary scenario was Global Cooling. Obamas now chief science czar Holdren ran around crying that the next ice age was coming and that the population needed controlling, (ECOSCIENCE), then when it didnt get colder they had to change the scary scenario to Global Warming, well... we all know that it only warmed for a short time and not all that much (it has been far warmer in the past) so then they changed the scary scenario to Climate Change, well.... that was not the best idea because climate has been changing normally for a few billion years... so now we call it (as you well know or should know) Global Climate Disruption... which is the dumbest term I have ever heard because WE are the ones that are supposed to be disrupting the climate... not natural events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought etc etc etc...
 
still not making any sense... your going into overarching conspiracy theories which tend to make me glassy eyed. Are you suggesting population control is the key issue? Because the best proven method for that is to educate women.
The transfer of wealth in America has been going on for the last 30 years.... gain control over the masses.. they already have control.. so how does this work with climate change?
 
Back
Top