• 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!

Anti-global warming debate

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

conor

Skilled Investigator
A while ago there was a thread in which many people seemed to be saying that global warming was not manmade, as if we had all been duped again by those powerful shadow men known only as 'them'. You know the ones - they're responsible for JFK, Roswell coverup, and now the fake ever-increasing, human influenced, melting of the polar icecaps.

Well, I'm from Ireland, and I don't care if someone is republican or democrat, whether people like al gore or bill o'reilly better.

I also happen to believe that the climate issue is one of the most pressing issues facing the world today.

Most of you live in America. Your country is one of the most powerful in the world. So if you believe that it's not happening, or your unwilling to do anything, then you really should watch this video.

 
Here we go again. Dosn't look like the pic will work. You may have to click on the link itself below.

<object width="400" height="225">


<embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7811562&server=vimeo.com&show_title=0&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></object>
.
 
Schuyler said:
Here we go again. Dosn't look like the pic will work. You may have to click on the link itself below.

<OBJECT width="400" height="225"></OBJECT><OBJECT width=400 height=225>
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7811562&server=vimeo.com&show_title=0&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></OBJECT>
.
Click to expand...
Watch the video I posted up. Seriously. I'll watch yours, so give me that courtesy
 
I just don't have it in me to go around and around a again. But I'll share this short article from Science Daily because it is recent. In summary (instead of reading it) it says that the Earth hasn't warmed as much as predicted in relation to CO2 levels and offers several reason why.
1. Climate sensitivity is misunderstood
2. Reflection of sunlight off haze particles in the atmosphere offset the predicted warming.
3. Slow response in temperature to the gases.

See the article for more explanation. I have no more energy to put into this conversation. I still have a hard time unravelling this thing even after the CRU debacle. So I just do the best I can.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119112050.htm
 
jkoci said:
Agreed. Maybe we should agree to disagree on this issue.

Here are a few comments on Warren Meyer.

Goldwater State: A few words about Warren Meyer's bona fides.
Click to expand...

Nice blogspot blog. I've got one, too. It does not address the issues as I see it. If you'll watch his video, he says right up front that he is as qualified to speak on climate issues as Al Gore. Al Gore's movie, by the way, is not allowed to be shown in Great Britain classrooms without a 30+ page rebuttal showing his many mistakes.

Now. The deal is that I have listened to climate change propaganda for a decade. I've been fed this stuff in newspapers, magazines, classrooms, and on the Net. I've been told continuously that the 'science is settled.' In an environment where we're also told never to trust the government, never to trust the establishment, never to trust authority on THIS subject, and THIS subject only I'm supposed to believe this hook, line, and sinker. Now I'm not 'courteous' if I don't submit to another round of propaganda on a subject I'm up to the eyeballs in. I've already got the litany memorized, okay? I've heard it all before. On ANY other subject we're all so quick to make up another 'conspiracy' where we are all being manipulated by the CIA, the NWO, the Bilderbergers, the Tri-Lateral Commission, or even Bohemian Grove, but on THIS subject we all just meekly roll over and play dead. WHY aren't you as skeptical about THIS as you are with everything else under the sun?

The thing is, I didn't just go watch a movie, get scared shitless, and then run around saying we're all gonna die. I looked into this. I downloaded and pored through the Climategate emails AND computer code. I looked at the graphs and saw how they were manipulated with 'adjustments.' I saw how the Medieval Warming Period, when it was hotter than it is now by far, just sort of disappeared because it was inconvenient to the cause. Same with the Roman Warming Period, which was even hotter. That's when Greenland was green instead of an ice sheet and grapes grew in Scotland.

Then I bounced this data off my own knowledge of paleo anthropology and Geology, recognizing that we are still coming off an Ice Age that blanketed North America and Europe with ice sheets a mile thick. And I've gone all over this the LAST time this came up. Just go look at the last thread and look at all the charts and graphs and data I provided. So here are my conclusions.

1. People blaming America for this suck (including Americans). Go to Hell.
2. the data has been MANIPULATED to show greater warming than has happened. Most all the warming is in the manipulations--not the data.
3. Warming is actually good. CO2 is a fertilizer. Cooling is bad. An ice sheet will cover Ireland--again.
4. The science is NOT settled. THOUSANDS of scientists disagree.
5. This whole thing is being crammed down our throats and too many of us like it.

 
Schuyler. Thanks for you thorough and in depth analysis on this subject. I too have long thought that we are being fed a bunch of lies and half truths, probably to serve some kind of hidden agenda.
 
I take it no one has watched all of the film I posted up. Typical. Climategate was manipulated because a reckless scientist felt it nessecary to do so to get his point forward because the media, in a search for some type of skewed version of balance, have given equal weight to people who have done little to no scientific research. I'm not that skeptical Schuyler because of the wealth of valuable research that has been done OVER 50 YRS in the subject that pretty much shows a consensus - we are affecting the climate, emissions need to be cut, which means, shock horror, more government intervention in our lives.

And that what that debate really boils down to. It's the old 'How much do you want the government to infringe upon your life.' It is essentially a philosophical debate.

Schuyler, it seems to me that your issue is one of semantics. When the media use a soundbite like 'global warming', they are boiling down on-going scientific research and complex data to a short two word indicator. So, it is misleading to call it global warming. But it stands for something which is rarely diputed by scientists because of the exhaustive scientific research, and it is this: we are effecting the earth and the environment in a way which, if it continues unabated, will make the earth an uncomfortable place to live, to say the least. CO2 is not a bad thing. But in excessive quatities it is.

This debate seems to be about philosophy and who can shout the loudest.

Or maybe it's the illuminati:O
 
conor said:
OVER 50 YRS
Click to expand...

O whoopee. Over 50 years, and that makes everyone think we know so much. The earth has been through cycles of warming and cooling over billions of years. Most of them more severe and happened before we were even a passing thought.

So, we have measured the temperature for the last 100 years or so. Wow, so we have empirical data covering a whopping 0.000002% of the temperature history of earth -- and with that are trying to establish a trend. Use those type of figures anywhere else but global warming and you would be laughed out of the room for having "insufficient data".

Now, I don't want dirty air, and yes I want clean water and so forth and so on. Great, practical reasons to be "earth friendly" and do the correct things within reason to eliminate as much waste and toxins in the air and water as possible. No argument. But don't try to throw me this bs line that we are causing warming -- the earth is doing it and will continue to go through cycles long after we are gone -- without our help. I don't think we could warm or cool the earth if we wanted to. Think about it, we can't even kill or create a small rain clould if we wanted to. Pretty arrogant to think we can effect the temperature of an entire planet. The earth is much too powerful and diverse.

The earth has warmed over the past 50 years -- so we are in a warming cycle. Should this be a surprise? After all, we are actually STILL in an ice age who's peak of glacial coverage was some 18,000 years ago (a few seconds, geologically speaking). The ice has been receding for 18,000 years. Must have been warming during that time, don't you think? No rocket science here. The ice will return again -- may have already started, there is some argument there you know. The beginning of an ice age begins with increased precipitation (which takes warmer air on average to carry more moisture) and makes more snow until the ice covers more of the land.

In the mean time, let's make the most of it. There are millions upon millions of acres in Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Scandinavia, etc..., that have rich, fertile soil that is now permafrost. Imagine the great crops that will grow there when it thaws and also all that nice fresh, clean water from the melting ice. Sure, some people may have to move -- what's new about that?

Relax. The earth is resilient. It will survive. If we dirty it up too much we may not be here a couple hundred years from now, but the earth will be just fine -- it will drop us like a bad habit and keep right on rolling.
 
Conor, thanks for the post. With respect to Dr. Oreskes presentation, at approximately 29 minutes she raises a series of excellent questions which go directly to the global warming debate -- key issues surrounding the debate which have been discussed previously on this forum. Unfortunately, the remaining 30 minutes of her presentation is largely a tirade directed at the Marshall Institute, Drs. Seitz and Singer and their connection with Big Tobacco, and the politics surrounding the debate. Practically no time is spent addressing the questions she raises earlier in the presentation.

I personally do suspect that CO2 emissions have impacted the climate over the past 50 years, but think it is very unclear to what degree (probably less so than some may suspect or argue; the weather is complex). The overall, long term cycle is that of warming, and the long term temperature charts presented are fairly persuasive. Critically, we need to be careful when discussing legislation and other responses which potentially may hurt the economy -- not to say that economic arguments are dispositive on issues such as this. The unfortunate reality is that economic dislocation often impacts the poor of the world first and foremost, and one of the largest drivers of 'localized' pollution is poverty (think of Mexico City and the pollution surrounding it).

There is an interesting presentation by Lord Monckton posted on YouTube which you may want to watch. Monckton argues against manmade global warming, as you may suspect. Importantly, he discusses the relationship between the potential economic impact associated with suggested remedial efforts and actual potential improvement in the global temperatures, accepting the statistics offered by advocates of global warming. In short, he believes you get very little bang for your buck -- an enormous economic impact for little environmental improvement. One also needs to query whether key players like China and India will ever go for the proposed solutions (answer: China certainly not). To be clear, this does not argue in favor of pollution or heightened CO2 levels; it argues in favor of being smart about what we are doing.

As a side note, I personally am a vegan, in part due to the environmental issues surrounding the consumption of animal products, and the damage done to the earth's ecology (including rain forests). If this is a cause you are genuinely concerned about, perhaps veganism is something you can consider. In addition, all the electricity we use in our home in the U.S. is sourced from renewable resources (wind and hydro). If there are similar programs in Ireland you may want to sign up.
 
I'll be willing to wager, that we will still be having a debate about the fallacies of Climate change five years from now. We'll never find consensus, and it's not likely to happen, unless scientifically without a shadow of a doubt you can prove the Earth oceans are warming at a rate that is Catastrophic to us humans. We can repudiate the evidence to a certain degree, because in reality where is should be warming according to the models that where forecast in the past. There is a significant decrease in Temperatures in certain countries during the summer months.

However, below the line of the Equator during the summer months countries that are below that line are having warmer and hotter summers and during spring and winter months. There climates are experiencing more rain and snow. I'm aware of this because I visited a Island of the coast of Africa during the summer just gone. This Island I visited is within a group of Islands called the Canary Islands. I was talking to a women of Moroccan decent. She had a shop, and she was telling me the weather was awful until summer arrived, and Personally she couldn't remember such bad weather in here lifetime. Those Islands experience ten month of sunshine all year round normally.So it puts what I'm saying in a better context.

Look it's obvious climate change man made or not is happening at some level. Our we wouldn't be getting all hot and cold our having this debate. My country of birth had terrible floods this year, and from what I've gathered have broken records in terms of how much rain has fallen. In the past few months don't forget. Many countries in the northern hemisphere, and some countries in the southern hemisphere who are not accustomed to snow in larger amounts, experienced snow falls that where way above the norm. The infrastructure experienced serious strain for a number of Weeks. Lot of it was due to the lack of Grit supplies for the roads. I would hate to see how certain countries would cope if the spell lasted longer than it did.

In conclusion. There is evidence for this Planet's having had twists, movements and differences of climate at certain times in the past, and probably will undergo in the future. As a species we are not oblivious to this fact. Hope not. Because research can tell you a hell of lot if you the take the time.


But the fundamental questions everyone wants hopefully to know. Are we the causing this climate changes by our actions? and how do we solve the problem?
The jury is still out because we know 95 percent of Co2 is created by the Earth and five per cent by us.. Our five percent though nominal, does not help with the overall schemes of things. Polluting our atmosphere with the overuse of electrical power. The overuse of fossil fuels. The spraying and use of gases for domestic or commercial purposes and certain other pollutants. I guess. You'd be a fool to believe this will do very little harm in the long run.

We are not in a self contained bubble. Nature will feel the effects of man made pollution somewhere. All this crap magically does not fly of into space. Yet I wouldn't be over confident, that we are the root cause of the problem. But like I said before. We are not contributing our helping our wonderful and beautiful planet by polluting it.
 
I just don't have it in me to go around and around a again.
Click to expand...

I would gladly go around and around on this with anyone. I also have been researching this for a decade and continue to debate AGW on a daily basis. Until I get specific questions, I will let good old George Carlin speak on the subject.
 
Okay, so instead of arguing about climate change, perhaps we can have a productive conversation of things we can do to lessen humanity's negative impact on the planet.
-Planting trees is always good, they absorb heat, intercept airborn particles and absorb carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. In other words, they clean the air naturally.
-Reduce the use of plastics which don't degrade and are difficult to recycle.
-Better planning of suburban and urban areas to include more green spaces.
-Developing and utilizing alternative energy resources.

Edited to note: I think people on both sides of the climate change are being used so that larger issues will never be addressed. If we poison this planet so that it can't support any life except the rats and the cockroaches, climate change becomes a moot point. And so does the continued survival of humanity.
 
My own take on this is that for the past 100 years or so we seen a rapid technological improvements. Which i beleive have benefits and negatives. The benefits are obvious but the negatives can not always be seen. Personally I feel if you take into account the amount of crap we spew out into the Oceans, the Atmosphere and probably space (eventually) we can only expect an ill effect from all of this. I have not listened to either video, not seen Al Gores video, but i do feel we cannot throw our collective hands up and say. Nothing to do with me, not my country. Some of thie results from all of our essential activity:) are not going to be visible to us right away and anything that gets in the way of our perseved freedom is brushed aside as Government interference (and it works) this is not going to be our planet forever, it's basically a long term rental. Shouldn't we at least try to keep it clean for the next tenents?
Cheers John
 
Red said:
Okay, so instead of arguing about climate change, perhaps we can have a productive conversation of things we can do to lessen humanity's negative impact on the planet.
-Planting trees is always good, they absorb heat, intercept airborn particles and absorb carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. In other words, they clean the air naturally.
-Reduce the use of plastics which don't degrade and are difficult to recycle.
-Better planning of suburban and urban areas to include more green spaces.
-Developing and utilizing alternative energy resources.

Edited to note: I think people on both sides of the climate change are being used so that larger issues will never be addressed. If we poison this planet so that it can't support any life except the rats and the cockroaches, climate change becomes a moot point. And so does the continued survival of humanity.
Click to expand...

-Trees are great. They absorb heat, BUT they also radiate heat.
-Plastic sucks.
-Some Greenies want to eliminate green spaces because of the energy/fuel it takes to maintain the space.
-Alternate resources are good too but we have a LONG way to go. Wind and solar power basically suck. Electric cars are bullshit. My 1947 plymouth is FAR more green than any hybrid.
-Climate Change is good. I would be really worried about the planet if it didn't change.
 
pixelsmith said:
-Trees are great. They absorb heat, BUT they also radiate heat.
-Plastic sucks.
-Some Greenies want to eliminate green spaces because of the energy/fuel it takes to maintain the space.
-Alternate resources are good too but we have a LONG way to go. Wind and solar power basically suck. Electric cars are bullshit. My 1947 plymouth is FAR more green than any hybrid.
-Climate Change is good. I would be really worried about the planet if it didn't change.
Click to expand...

Please site your source on trees radiating heat. I know evergreens may generate small amounts of heat and carbon dioxide when it is very, very cold. This would still be nothing like the heat bubbles caused by large urban areas.
Green spaces don't necessarily have to be manicured parks. They can be natural landscapes using native plants that don't require much care.
Requiring new construction to be better insulated and energy efficient would go a long way towards decreasing our energy consumption, and its viability would not be dependent on the emergence of new energy resources.
 
Why would ANYONE think that human industrial activity might have a harmful effect on this planet?

The sooner humans go extinct, the better. Seriously, as a species, we're beyond screwed. A virus with shoes, as Bill Hicks one said. And not worthy of this gorgeous planet and all it holds. Violent, stupid monkeys that don't understand the meaning of enough. No worries, the planet will have the final say, as did I in this thread.

dB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top