LOL after 60 pages its pretty obvious he doesnt have one
-
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!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
LOL after 60 pages its pretty obvious he doesnt have one
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
What has been stated endlessly here on this thread with absolutely no back-up is that the predictions of Climate Scientists 20 and 30 years ago have not happened. False. They are happening. Island nations are disappearing. Permanent changes in coastlines have begun - even here in the US. With Warming we were told that weather extremes would be more common - colder winters, more extreme precipitation events while drought and harvest fails occur elsewhere. The 'new normal' is now exactly that.
The following article tries desperately to convey an optimistic picture but the news is no longer ambiguous.We are in for an 'uncomfortable' planet at the very least. 'Uninhabitable' is starting to be stated more openly.`
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks
By CORAL DAVENPORT NOV. 30, 2014
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/w...0141201&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0
TEXT: "WASHINGTON — After more than two decades of trying but failing to forge a global pact to halt climate change, United Nations negotiators gathering in South America this week are expressing a new optimism that they may finally achieve the elusive deal.
"Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
"For the next two weeks, thousands of diplomats from around the globe will gather in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations summit meeting to draft an agreement intended to stop the global rise of planet-warming greenhouse gases. The meeting comes just weeks after a landmark announcement by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China committing the world’s two largest carbon polluters to cuts in their emissions. United Nations negotiators say they believe that advancement could end a longstanding impasse in the climate talks, spurring other countries to sign similar commitments.
"But while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding — events that could harm the world’s population and economy.
"Recent reports show that there may be no way to prevent the planet’s temperature from rising, given the current level of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and the projected rate of emissions expected to continue before any new deal is carried out.That fact is driving the urgency of the Lima talks, which are expected to produce a draft document, to be made final over the next year and signed by world leaders in Paris in December 2015. While a breach of the 3.6 degree threshold appears inevitable, scientists say that United Nations negotiators should not give up on their efforts to cut emissions. At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.
" “I was encouraged by the U.S.-China agreement,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of scientists that produces regular reports on the state of climate science. But he expressed doubts that the threshold rise in global temperature could be prevented. “What’s already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,” Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields. Still, absent a deal, “Things could get a lot worse,” Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, the aggregate cost “to the global economy — rich countries as well as poor countries — rises rapidly.”
"The objective now, negotiators say, is to stave off atmospheric temperature increases of 4 to 10 degrees by the end of the century; at that point, they say, the planet could become increasingly uninhabitable. Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are already reporting that 2014 appears likely to be the warmest year on record.
"Since 1992, the United Nations has convened an annual climate change summit meeting aimed at forging a deal to curb greenhouse gases, which are produced chiefly by burning coal for electricity and gasoline for transportation. But previous agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, included no requirements that developing nations, such as India and China, cut their emissions. And until now, the United States has never headed into those summit meetings with a domestic climate change policy in place. This spring, a report by 13 federal agencies concluded that climate change would harm the American economy by increasing food prices, insurance rates and financial volatility. In China, the central government has sought to quell citizen protests related to coal pollution.
"In June, Mr. Obama announced a new Environmental Protection Agency rule forcing major emissions cuts from coal-fired power plants. State Department negotiators took the decision to China, hoping to broker a deal for a similar offer of domestic action. That led to November’s joint announcement in Beijing: The United States will cut its emissions up to 28 percent by 2025, while China will decrease its emissions by or before 2030. “Our sense is that this will resonate in the broader climate community, give momentum to the negotiations and spur countries to come forward with their own targets,” said Todd Stern, Mr. Obama’s lead climate change negotiator. “The two historic antagonists, the biggest players, announcing they’ll work together.”
"Other negotiators agree. “The prospects are so much better than they’ve ever been,” said Felipe Calderón, the former president of Mexico and chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a research organization. The aim of negotiators in Lima is, for the first time, to produce an agreement in which every nation commits to a domestic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, along the model of the United States-China agreement. Negotiators expect that by next March, governments will make announcements similar to those made by the United States and China. The idea is for each country to cut emissions at a level that it can realistically achieve, but in keeping with domestic political and economic constraints. World leaders would sign a deal in Paris next year committing all those nations to their cuts, including a provision that the nations regularly reconvene to further reduce their emissions.
"The problem is that climate experts say it almost certainly will not happen fast enough. A November report by the United Nations Environment Program concluded that in order to avoid the 3.6 degree increase, global emissions must peak within the next 10 years, going down to half of current levels by midcentury. But the deal being drafted in Lima will not even be enacted until 2020. And the structure of the emerging deal — allowing each country to commit to what it can realistically achieve, given each nation’s domestic politics — means that the initial cuts by countries will not be as stringent as what scientists say is required. China’s plan calls for its emissions to peak in 2030. Government officials in India, the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, have said they do not expect to see their emissions decline until at least 2040. While Mr. Obama has committed to United Nations emissions cuts through 2025, there is no way to know if his successor will continue on that path.
"That reality is already setting in among low-lying island nations, like the Marshall Islands, where rising seas are soaking coastal soil, killing crops and contaminating fresh water supplies. “The groundwater that supports our food crops is becoming inundated with salt,” said Tony A. deBrum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands. “The green is becoming brown.” Many island nations are looking into buying farmland in other countries to grow food and, eventually, to relocate their populations. In Lima, those countries are expected to demand that a final deal include aid to help them adapt to the climate impacts that have already arrived."
The following article tries desperately to convey an optimistic picture but the news is no longer ambiguous.We are in for an 'uncomfortable' planet at the very least. 'Uninhabitable' is starting to be stated more openly.`
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks
By CORAL DAVENPORT NOV. 30, 2014
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/w...0141201&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0
TEXT: "WASHINGTON — After more than two decades of trying but failing to forge a global pact to halt climate change, United Nations negotiators gathering in South America this week are expressing a new optimism that they may finally achieve the elusive deal.
"Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
"For the next two weeks, thousands of diplomats from around the globe will gather in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations summit meeting to draft an agreement intended to stop the global rise of planet-warming greenhouse gases. The meeting comes just weeks after a landmark announcement by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China committing the world’s two largest carbon polluters to cuts in their emissions. United Nations negotiators say they believe that advancement could end a longstanding impasse in the climate talks, spurring other countries to sign similar commitments.
"But while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding — events that could harm the world’s population and economy.
"Recent reports show that there may be no way to prevent the planet’s temperature from rising, given the current level of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and the projected rate of emissions expected to continue before any new deal is carried out.That fact is driving the urgency of the Lima talks, which are expected to produce a draft document, to be made final over the next year and signed by world leaders in Paris in December 2015. While a breach of the 3.6 degree threshold appears inevitable, scientists say that United Nations negotiators should not give up on their efforts to cut emissions. At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.
" “I was encouraged by the U.S.-China agreement,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of scientists that produces regular reports on the state of climate science. But he expressed doubts that the threshold rise in global temperature could be prevented. “What’s already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,” Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields. Still, absent a deal, “Things could get a lot worse,” Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, the aggregate cost “to the global economy — rich countries as well as poor countries — rises rapidly.”
"The objective now, negotiators say, is to stave off atmospheric temperature increases of 4 to 10 degrees by the end of the century; at that point, they say, the planet could become increasingly uninhabitable. Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are already reporting that 2014 appears likely to be the warmest year on record.
"Since 1992, the United Nations has convened an annual climate change summit meeting aimed at forging a deal to curb greenhouse gases, which are produced chiefly by burning coal for electricity and gasoline for transportation. But previous agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, included no requirements that developing nations, such as India and China, cut their emissions. And until now, the United States has never headed into those summit meetings with a domestic climate change policy in place. This spring, a report by 13 federal agencies concluded that climate change would harm the American economy by increasing food prices, insurance rates and financial volatility. In China, the central government has sought to quell citizen protests related to coal pollution.
"In June, Mr. Obama announced a new Environmental Protection Agency rule forcing major emissions cuts from coal-fired power plants. State Department negotiators took the decision to China, hoping to broker a deal for a similar offer of domestic action. That led to November’s joint announcement in Beijing: The United States will cut its emissions up to 28 percent by 2025, while China will decrease its emissions by or before 2030. “Our sense is that this will resonate in the broader climate community, give momentum to the negotiations and spur countries to come forward with their own targets,” said Todd Stern, Mr. Obama’s lead climate change negotiator. “The two historic antagonists, the biggest players, announcing they’ll work together.”
"Other negotiators agree. “The prospects are so much better than they’ve ever been,” said Felipe Calderón, the former president of Mexico and chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a research organization. The aim of negotiators in Lima is, for the first time, to produce an agreement in which every nation commits to a domestic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, along the model of the United States-China agreement. Negotiators expect that by next March, governments will make announcements similar to those made by the United States and China. The idea is for each country to cut emissions at a level that it can realistically achieve, but in keeping with domestic political and economic constraints. World leaders would sign a deal in Paris next year committing all those nations to their cuts, including a provision that the nations regularly reconvene to further reduce their emissions.
"The problem is that climate experts say it almost certainly will not happen fast enough. A November report by the United Nations Environment Program concluded that in order to avoid the 3.6 degree increase, global emissions must peak within the next 10 years, going down to half of current levels by midcentury. But the deal being drafted in Lima will not even be enacted until 2020. And the structure of the emerging deal — allowing each country to commit to what it can realistically achieve, given each nation’s domestic politics — means that the initial cuts by countries will not be as stringent as what scientists say is required. China’s plan calls for its emissions to peak in 2030. Government officials in India, the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, have said they do not expect to see their emissions decline until at least 2040. While Mr. Obama has committed to United Nations emissions cuts through 2025, there is no way to know if his successor will continue on that path.
"That reality is already setting in among low-lying island nations, like the Marshall Islands, where rising seas are soaking coastal soil, killing crops and contaminating fresh water supplies. “The groundwater that supports our food crops is becoming inundated with salt,” said Tony A. deBrum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands. “The green is becoming brown.” Many island nations are looking into buying farmland in other countries to grow food and, eventually, to relocate their populations. In Lima, those countries are expected to demand that a final deal include aid to help them adapt to the climate impacts that have already arrived."
Distressed over crop failure, farmer lights own funeral pyre
The cocoa crisis: why the world’s stash of chocolate is melting away | Life and style | The Guardian
California drought sets off crop-failure alarms#!
California Alfalfa: Drought Will Affect Producers, Markets For Years To Come » Blog Archive
flipper
Paranormal Adept
This is why just debating the climate works for those who want to continue to destroy the planet.
flipper
Paranormal Adept
Yes colder and wetter due to global warming is exactly what I have been experiencing
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
The shift will create economic ripples. In the past, when it seemed we were shifting to renewables, the gas prices would fall and business-as-usual would proceed. This time is probably different. The climactic changes that are happening are so obvious (and the scientists are becoming increasingly uniform in their grave predictions) that we are likely as a world finally lurching towards a new paradigm of energy generation. We can only hope that the scientists really are wrong in this last item: that it is not 'too late'.
Why the sudden drop in gas prices matters
12/01/14 09:16 AM—UPDATED 12/01/14 09:48 AM
LINK: Why the sudden drop in gas prices matters | MSNBC
TEXT: "It was nearly three years ago when then-presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich settled on his top campaign issue: the disgraced former House Speaker said he would push an energy policy that would lead to $2.50 gas.
Indeed, in February 2012, the Georgia Republican said we’d already be paying $2.50 per gallon if it weren’t for the Obama administration overseeing “an anti-American energy government.” Gingrich added, “If you want $10 a gallon gasoline … Barack Obama should be your candidate.”
"At the time, the average price for a gallon of gas was $4.25. Yesterday, despite Americans’ outrageous willingness to reject Gingrich’s candidacy and re-elect President Obama, it was $2.77 – and falling. Several states, including Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, “could soon see sub- $2 gas, says Tom Kloza, senior analyst with the Oil Price Information Service.”
"Given that this is one of the year’s biggest economic stories, it’s worth appreciating what’s going on here. As Brad Plumer explained, the latest moves from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (better known as OPEC) have played a big role. [Underline is quote within article.]
" "OPEC – a cartel of oil producers that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela – had a big meeting in Vienna on November 27. Before the gathering, there was speculation that OPEC countries might cut back on their own oil production in order to prop up prices. But in the end, the cartel couldn’t agree on how to respond and did nothing. Oil prices promptly nosedived, with the price of Brent crude now hovering around $70 per barrel."
"As recently as the summer, that price was over $100 per barrel. But the fact remains that prices were falling before OPEC’s Friday announcement, driven in large part by Economics 101: less demand + higher supply = lower prices. In this case, economic slowdowns in much of the world have dampened demand, as supply has expanded considerably, especially within the U.S.
"More generally, as Chris Mooney noted, the Obama administration’s improved fuel-efficiency standards also mean consumers are using less gas: “The sales-weighted fuel economy of vehicles in the U.S. increased from 20.8 miles per gallon in 2008 to 25.3 miles per gallon in 2014.” So, who wins and who loses from all of this? highlighted some of the “losers” of this story. [Underline is quote within article.]
" "As the American economy has struggled to recover in the last few years, the exceptions have been oil-rich states like Texas and North Dakota, which have enjoyed low unemployment and strong real estate markets. But is the “Texas Economic Miracle” just an artifact of high energy prices and improving technologies to extract petroleum from the ground? Or is Texas’ low-tax, low-regulation approach really the recipe for economic success? Seeing how the Texas economy fares now that prices are slumping will be a test. […]
" "[In addition,] Russia’s economy is already facing its sharpest challenges in years, as Western sanctions imposed after Russian aggression toward Ukraine crimp the nation’s ability to be integrated in the global economy. Russia is a major energy producer, and the falling price of oil compounds the challenge facing its president, Vladimir Putin."
"Given Russia’s already precarious economic state, this is about the last thing Putin needed.
"As for the Republican argument that Obama created higher gas prices on purpose – a common GOP refrain in 2011 – the right’s arguments were foolish at the time. They look even worse now."
Why the sudden drop in gas prices matters
12/01/14 09:16 AM—UPDATED 12/01/14 09:48 AM
LINK: Why the sudden drop in gas prices matters | MSNBC
TEXT: "It was nearly three years ago when then-presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich settled on his top campaign issue: the disgraced former House Speaker said he would push an energy policy that would lead to $2.50 gas.
Indeed, in February 2012, the Georgia Republican said we’d already be paying $2.50 per gallon if it weren’t for the Obama administration overseeing “an anti-American energy government.” Gingrich added, “If you want $10 a gallon gasoline … Barack Obama should be your candidate.”
"At the time, the average price for a gallon of gas was $4.25. Yesterday, despite Americans’ outrageous willingness to reject Gingrich’s candidacy and re-elect President Obama, it was $2.77 – and falling. Several states, including Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, “could soon see sub- $2 gas, says Tom Kloza, senior analyst with the Oil Price Information Service.”
"Given that this is one of the year’s biggest economic stories, it’s worth appreciating what’s going on here. As Brad Plumer explained, the latest moves from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (better known as OPEC) have played a big role. [Underline is quote within article.]
" "OPEC – a cartel of oil producers that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela – had a big meeting in Vienna on November 27. Before the gathering, there was speculation that OPEC countries might cut back on their own oil production in order to prop up prices. But in the end, the cartel couldn’t agree on how to respond and did nothing. Oil prices promptly nosedived, with the price of Brent crude now hovering around $70 per barrel."
"As recently as the summer, that price was over $100 per barrel. But the fact remains that prices were falling before OPEC’s Friday announcement, driven in large part by Economics 101: less demand + higher supply = lower prices. In this case, economic slowdowns in much of the world have dampened demand, as supply has expanded considerably, especially within the U.S.
"More generally, as Chris Mooney noted, the Obama administration’s improved fuel-efficiency standards also mean consumers are using less gas: “The sales-weighted fuel economy of vehicles in the U.S. increased from 20.8 miles per gallon in 2008 to 25.3 miles per gallon in 2014.” So, who wins and who loses from all of this? highlighted some of the “losers” of this story. [Underline is quote within article.]
" "As the American economy has struggled to recover in the last few years, the exceptions have been oil-rich states like Texas and North Dakota, which have enjoyed low unemployment and strong real estate markets. But is the “Texas Economic Miracle” just an artifact of high energy prices and improving technologies to extract petroleum from the ground? Or is Texas’ low-tax, low-regulation approach really the recipe for economic success? Seeing how the Texas economy fares now that prices are slumping will be a test. […]
" "[In addition,] Russia’s economy is already facing its sharpest challenges in years, as Western sanctions imposed after Russian aggression toward Ukraine crimp the nation’s ability to be integrated in the global economy. Russia is a major energy producer, and the falling price of oil compounds the challenge facing its president, Vladimir Putin."
"Given Russia’s already precarious economic state, this is about the last thing Putin needed.
"As for the Republican argument that Obama created higher gas prices on purpose – a common GOP refrain in 2011 – the right’s arguments were foolish at the time. They look even worse now."
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Do your own damn research. Google "CO2 record harvests 2014" or "CO2 greening 2014"
P
pixelsmith
Guest
WHY haven't you hypocrites junked your cars and computers? You piss n moan yet continue to support big oil. WTF?
Erno86
Paranormal Maven
Due to my foofighter sighting {one night in November of 1976, approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.} I'm an advocate of fusion power technology --- whereas --- oil should only be used for greasing frying pans and lubing ball bearings.
Erno86
Paranormal Maven
Unfortunately...the people of Maryland have to rely on a major portion of our electricity from the --- imho --- an obsolete form of fission power, generated from the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
No...fusion won't light my house tonight, but the fusion plasma encased foofighter did light-up the sky the night of my sighting; along with the visible communication form that fusion power can be harnessed as a clean power source.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Agenda 21 is what is driving the global warming scam and the EnviroNUTS here on this forum. They just don't know it. Here is a short primer.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Watch every second of this video. It ties global warming and lots of conspiracies together. I welcome discussion only after you have viewed this shocking video. Please feel free to prove any part of it wrong.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger, Mike, Burnt, Maudib, other warmists here please watch the video above and tell me what part is bullshit and why. Watch every second or don't bother commenting.
I guarantee many WTF moments. This is why I told Tyger to forget everything he thought was true. We really are living in a Matrix.
I guarantee many WTF moments. This is why I told Tyger to forget everything he thought was true. We really are living in a Matrix.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
What would you experience from global cooling then? Warmer and dryer weather?Yes colder and wetter due to global warming is exactly what I have been experiencing
flipper
Paranormal Adept
Here is a discussion with James McCanney about the weather. He says that there is global cooling due to the sun's lack of output. It is about the first 10 minutes before he starts talking about the landing on the comet:
Meria Heller Show - James McCanney - 11.23.14 - PRN.fm - PRN.fm
This is the best that I could due to find the map that he talks about:
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
Meria Heller Show - James McCanney - 11.23.14 - PRN.fm - PRN.fm
This is the best that I could due to find the map that he talks about:
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
P
pixelsmith
Guest
So global warming causes cooling weather and global cooling causes warming weather but It can also be the opposite but either way humans are causing or maybe the sun?