• 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 Happy Fun-Time

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

And when figuring human impact you are counting the effects of deforestation, argicultre and suburbam sprawl right? Those count. And ftr Ive never seen Gores movie nor heard him speak.
 
TerranceQuestion said:
And when figuring human impact you are counting the effects of deforestation, argicultre and suburbam sprawl right? Those count. And ftr Ive never seen Gores movie nor heard him speak.
Click to expand...


That's a very good point even if one could show that man was not adding to the warning trend, the removal of trees on such a level has to alter drainage basins and alter the ecosystem.

Our nervous system does have a capacity to acclimate to changes to our body and work around them...as does earth...but we both have breaking points as well.
 
I am going to assume you are meaning CO2 when referring to "carbon". I am confused as to your statement about an alternative energy that "uses less carbon" do you mean "emits less carbon dioxide"? I never said it is bad for you to use alternative energy but most are subsidized and I am against that. Do you realize (geologically speaking) not long ago this planet was very close to losing all plant life because of a LACK of CO2? Plants die off at around 180-200 ppm of CO2. We are at 395 ppm today. A large greenhouse will add CO2 up to around 1200 ppm. An office cubicle can run around 4000 ppm. Humans have adverse affects when exposed to around 10,000 ppm. As you can see you are getting worried over a non-issue because you have indeed been brainwashed. Right now, we could use more CO2 to grow more food for starving populations. Are you against feeding starving people? More CO2 would be beneficial at this time. I would like to see CO2 levels stay around 700 ppm.
 
Human impact is normal, as is beaver impact, elephant impact, giraffe impact, locust impact, cow impact, starfish impact, carp impact, goat impact, cane toad impact, bark beetle impact, rat impact, astroid impact, etc etc etc... all of these living organisms have harmful impacts on the planet according to humans. How do you put a carbon tax on an animal, insect or astroid?

Our planet could give a shit if we or any of the above are here or not. Take away all life on earth and it will still be here and the sun will still rise and set.

I agree alternative energies should be explored. I think various forms of magnetics are the energy resource of the future.
 
Cow and pig methane is responsible for a large portion of green house gases. The main reason for deforestation in the Amazon is cattle land. Without humans those cows would be unable to sustain the numbers they have so we add more methane while reducing the air cleaning trees.

Well like geo-thermal. It doesnt require coal based power to operate which is cool.

We need to treat the Earth with bread politics - naan violence ;-)
 
pixelsmith said:
Human impact is normal, as is beaver impact, elephant impact, giraffe impact, locust impact, cow impact, starfish impact, carp impact, goat impact, cane toad impact, bark beetle impact, rat impact, astroid impact, etc etc etc... all of these living organisms have harmful impacts on the planet according to humans. How do you put a carbon tax on an animal, insect or astroid?

Our planet could give a shit if we or any of the above are here or not. Take away all life on earth and it will still be here and the sun will still rise and set.

I agree alternative energies should be explored. I think various forms of magnetics are the energy resource of the future.
Click to expand...

Pixel all those creatures you mentioned do indeed have an impact on earth in some small way true and having been doing so (on a local level) for millennia in small increments but they never wiped out half the amazon. I suppose though in one sense you have a point. earth is going to be o.k. it is its current inhabitants that need worry. So maybe we should put things in that perspective when this subject gets discussed.
 
TerranceQuestion said:
Cow and pig methane is responsible for a large portion of green house gases. The main reason for deforestation in the Amazon is cattle land. Without humans those cows would be unable to sustain the numbers they have so we add more methane while reducing the air cleaning trees.)
Click to expand...

So this is all china and india's fault then. Their demand for beef is growing.ever upward and I guess one can't blame them for wanting something that historically wasn't readily available to them.

Is there a cowgenics movement in existence ?
 
Id say people in general. I think the answer is to price beef out in favor of chicken and goat. I know its off topic but considering how bad for you beef is im kinda shocked people eat as much as they do.

In turn hemp manufacturing would help, it has one of the highest rates of photosynthesis but its illegal all over. I do think if we reduced the methane and deforestation things like cars and coal burning fuels would kind of take care of themselves.
 
So a question for our resident futurist (mike) anything in the works for artificially created (synthetic) meat ?
 
Lab-grown meat will create up to 96 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions.
Before the end of the year, Dutch scientists are promising a high-profile debut for a burger made from meat grown not on a farm but in their laboratory.
Synthetic or lab-grown meat involves taking a small amount of cells from a living animal and growing it into lumps of muscle tissue in the lab, which can then, in theory, be eaten as meat by people.
As well as saving an animal, lab-grown meat also reduces the negative environmental impact of modern-day intensive meat production, including land use, animal feed and greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast to vegetarian, non-animal based alternatives to meat like soya, tofu, Quorn or other vegetable proteins, artificial meat has a much higher protein content as well as tasting and having a more similar texture to slaughtered animal meat.
The technology behind lab-grown meat has been around since the late 1990s, but producing an affordable and tasty meat product has proved elusive --- until now with two different researchers in the US and Europe maintaining they are both confident they are close to a breakthrough.
Click to expand...

: Update: Lab-grown Meat

Fake meat: is science fiction on the verge of becoming fact? | Science | The Guardian

Michael Mansfield : Abolishing meat is an ethical issue that requires everyone's attention - Commentators - Voices - The Independent

The advent of so-called "in-vitro" or cultured meat could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals - if people are willing to eat it.

So far the scientists have not tasted it, but they believe the breakthrough could lead to sausages and other processed products being made from laboratory meat in as little as five years' time.
Click to expand...
Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory | The Sunday Times

I have lots more links, but i figure that should cover the bases
 
My contrarian view: the science isn't settled. The whole "you must be a flat earther" argument, if you disagree with so-called climate change, is political correctness at its worst. The statistical data accumulation is suspect & the methods of data analysis are fraught with fraud ("climategate").

First we were told of the perils of global cooling. Then, global warming. Now, of climate change. The polar caps are not melting; in fact there is more ice than ever recorded. True, where that ice is located is shifting. Doom? I say not.

Why are so many, IMO, willing to conduct pseudo-science? There's a whole lot of money at stake. So-called climate change has become more of a political philosophy & life outlook than settled science.

Just my two cents. :)
 
TerranceQuestion said:
And Earth may not give a shit but Id rather we and all the above were along for the ride. Ive no reason to believe I cant make a difference.
Click to expand...
often times one person can make a difference. what are you doing to make a difference in regards to climate change?
 
TerranceQuestion said:
Id say people in general. I think the answer is to price beef out in favor of chicken and goat. I know its off topic but considering how bad for you beef is im kinda shocked people eat as much as they do.

In turn hemp manufacturing would help, it has one of the highest rates of photosynthesis but its illegal all over. I do think if we reduced the methane and deforestation things like cars and coal burning fuels would kind of take care of themselves.
Click to expand...
you can remove all cattle of the planet and there will still be huge amounts of methane released from underground. you can reduce the amount of deforestation by giving people electricity so they do not have to cut trees for heating and cooking, this would also save many lives from people cooking in small huts and breathing in smoke everyday.
I totally agree about hemp. It can be used for many many things including oil.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
To all the people arguing with Pixel on this topic. Please don't hurt yourselves. It's best to agree to disagree...
Click to expand...
This is a typical stance taken by "warmists" because there is no scientific proof that humans are causing any significant warming or cooling of the planet. Global temps have flatlined for 17 years now yet CO2 levels continue to rise which suggests that some other influence is stronger than CO2. (like the sun.. Duh) The oceans are not rising any faster than they used to, they are not becoming more acidic, there is no link between CO2 and extreme weather, and there is not a single species that has gone extinct do to global warming.

It is very hard to find someone to debate the CAGW hypothesis because it is faith based science rather than observed data/scientific method based science.
 
I didn't say anything apart from it's best to agree to disagree. You can trot out all the evidence you want, but it's only useful if it's free of political bias.
 
Back
Top