• 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 or Global Hot Air!

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Not really, it sticks a headline saying that climate change theory is in chaos, but then both the scientists quoted right at the end agree that the results don't seriously challenge the idea of man made climate change. Says more about the agenda (and quality) of the Daily Mail.
 
No one in their right mind can deny that we for sure speed up 'global warming'. Yet some guys still do....sad sad World we live in..
 
dyingsun said:
No one in their right mind can deny that we for sure speed up 'global warming'. Yet some guys still do....sad sad World we live in..
Click to expand...

So it must be all that humanity waste so lets just starve most world population with price increase in name of Global Warming and let the wealthy elite have a playground for all themselves as they can afford these new tax grabs?
 
The science of climate change and society's response to it are two different things. On one hand, I don't doubt climate change is occurring, on the other I think a lot of responses to it are useless, such as carbon trading, but I don't think there's some conspiracy to push climate change so people can make a buck, rather than it being a reflection of our economic system, which can recouperate practically anything into a moneymaking opportunity regardless of the seriousness of the situation.
 
dyingsun said:
No one in their right mind can deny that we for sure speed up 'global warming'. Yet some guys still do....sad sad World we live in..
Click to expand...

No one in their right mind should believe that we puny little humans have any significant impact on Earth's climate.

The climate changes, the Earth warms, the Earth cools, the continents drift, etc etc... all normal planetary functions. I would be worried if all these things stopped happening.

The Earth is actually in a CO2 starved state right now. (388 ppm) We could double it and be better off.
 
pixelsmith said:
No one in their right mind should believe that we puny little humans have any significant impact on Earth's climate.

The climate changes, the Earth warms, the Earth cools, the continents drift, etc etc... all normal planetary functions. I would be worried if all these things stopped happening.

The Earth is actually in a CO2 starved state right now. (388 ppm) We could double it and be better off.
Click to expand...

Another outspoken critic of Global Warming and free speech at last in the science community!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...scientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Peaceful living,;)
BF
 
pixelsmith said:
No one in their right mind should believe that we puny little humans have any significant impact on Earth's climate.

The Earth is actually in a CO2 starved state right now. (388 ppm) We could double it and be better off.
Click to expand...

That's right. Just go on about your business. No way possible that 7 billion puny humans spewing choking emmissions about the planet could have any ill effect. Please double the CO2, it will be great!! Maybe even triple it, .. no worries. We are but ants.
 
It can't be denied that climate change is natural and cyclical. Human pollution of the environment is something else entirely and should be addressed aggressively. If global warming enthusiasts would just stick to the pollution factor they'd be better served IMHO as the factors controlling climate change (mainly solar activity) are beyond human control or even mild influence. If we focus on pollution and conservation we'd address many of global warming proponents concerns in the process. It won't effect the rate or frequency of climate change I'm afraid but maybe everyone would feel like they're doing something and would feel better.
 
The carbon dioxide Greenhouse effect is real; look at Venus (I think it was looking at the conditions on Venus that started the whole CO2-Greenhouse-effect-on-earth theory). The question is, are man's activities adding enough CO2 to our atmosphere to significantly increase the Greenhouse effect; enough to account for the warming-trend we see. Or would the same warming trend still be occuring even if our CO2 contribution were nil.
Next, even if it is mostly caused by us, what can we do about it? Are all those carbon-capture/offset/tax schemes at all realistic?
I've got some ideas on this stuff, but it's a complicated subject (ie. long).
 
softbeard said:
The carbon dioxide Greenhouse effect is real; look at Venus (I think it was looking at the conditions on Venus that started the whole CO2-Greenhouse-effect-on-earth theory). The question is, are man's activities adding enough CO2 to our atmosphere to significantly increase the Greenhouse effect; enough to account for the warming-trend we see. Or would the same warming trend still be occuring even if our CO2 contribution were nil.
Next, even if it is mostly caused by us, what can we do about it? Are all those carbon-capture/offset/tax schemes at all realistic?
I've got some ideas on this stuff, but it's a complicated subject (ie. long).
Click to expand...

I am hoping we can get CO2 levels up to about 1200 ppm soon. The people who believe CO2 is at alarming levels should simply stop breathing.

BTW - this should not be under Conspiracy Theories. It is a conspiracy fact.
 
Did someone here ring the bell?

Now where -did- that Schuyler get off to?

persistent-fail.jpg
 
pixelsmith said:
I am hoping we can get CO2 levels up to about 1200 ppm soon. The people who believe CO2 is at alarming levels should simply stop breathing.

I never said I thought CO2 was at alarming levels.
Though I don't know where you get your desired target level of 1200 ppm CO2. Just what is supposed to be the benefit of this level? So you can grow pot faster? Are there any other gases besides CO2 you'd like to add to our atmosphere?
Click to expand...
 
softbeard I was not referring to you specifically.

Any level between 400 and about 1400 ppm would be fine.
I am not sure why you reference growing pot but pot and other plant life would indeed grow better at levels in the 1200 ppm range.
 
pixelsmith said:
softbeard I was not referring to you specifically.

Any level between 400 and about 1400 ppm would be fine.
I am not sure why you reference growing pot but pot and other plant life would indeed grow better at levels in the 1200 ppm range.
Click to expand...

I still don't see why you think '400 and about 1400 ppm' as an optimal CO2 concentration. You may think such a CO2 concentration would only make your lawn greener and the summers longer, but I suspect you would get some effects you hadn't been expecting.
I referenced growing pot because it's the archetypal scenario of plants growing faster with more CO2.
Fortunately, I think for everyone, we wouldn't see CO2 concentrations in those ranges even if you managed to burn all the coal & oil accessible; so this arguement is moot.
But the questions in my original post remain.
 
TClaeys said:
That's right. Just go on about your business. No way possible that 7 billion puny humans spewing choking emmissions about the planet could have any ill effect. Please double the CO2, it will be great!! Maybe even triple it, .. no worries. We are but ants.
Click to expand...




Just a good question. How many of those 7 billion actually have cars ect....??? most of that population is 3rd world.
 
softbeard said:
I still don't see why you think '400 and about 1400 ppm' as an optimal CO2 concentration. You may think such a CO2 concentration would only make your lawn greener and the summers longer, but I suspect you would get some effects you hadn't been expecting.
I referenced growing pot because it's the archetypal scenario of plants growing faster with more CO2.
Fortunately, I think for everyone, we wouldn't see CO2 concentrations in those ranges even if you managed to burn all the coal & oil accessible; so this arguement is moot.
But the questions in my original post remain.
Click to expand...

There is no optimal or normal amount. CO2 concentrations vary drastically from indoors to outdoors and from region to region from century to century etc... If you work in a cubicle you are in about 4000 ppm. If you are in a submarine it can get up to about 10,000 ppm before it gets to be a problem for humans.
 
Back
Top