• 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!

How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

Free episodes:

It's a report that dares to point out that human societies are incredibly shortsighted and nearly incapable of sustainably populating planet Earth. In numerous regions around the world -- including California, India, Oklahoma, Brazil, China and many more -- human populations are rapidly out-growing the capacity of their local water systems. Even though keeping populations alive requires food... and growing food requires water... almost no nation or government in the world seems to be able to limit water consumption of local populations to levels which are sustainable in the long term.


Instead, the endless greed of the "grow-consume-profit" business model that dominates the global economy leaves no room for any hint of balance with nature. The overriding philosophy of modern business is to dominate nature with chemicals, mining and monoculture to maximize profit while kicking any really large problems down the road for the next generation to deal with.


The result is a world where nobody thinks about the long-term implications of today's trends because everybody's too busy trying to extract a buck or two out of the very system that will destroy their future.



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047865_mega-cities_water_supply_human_civilization.html#ixzz3LLa39DIK


If you are reading this, you are living in a time of great historical significance: You will be witness to the unfolding of the "era of collapse" across human civilization. This era has already begun, and although it may take a century to see it all unravel, future historians will view this era as a time of unbridled destruction of the planet at the hands of over-extended human societies grounded in self-delusion.
 
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."- excerpt, UN Agenda 21


Sounds like the proper solution to me

1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.


Agenda 21 - Preamble - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)


4.5. Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by unsustainable consumption and to the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal of minimizing depletion and reducing pollution.

(a) To promote patterns of consumption and production that reduce environmental stress and will meet the basic needs of humanity;
 
I support Agenda 21 500 percent

What part of what i quoted doesnt make complete sense as a managment practise for our eco system

the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal of minimizing depletion and reducing pollution.

demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level

You on the other hand have demonstrated a support for

The unbridled destruction of the planet at the hands of over-extended human societies grounded in self-delusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you out of your mind Mike?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you honestly have to ask, mikes made it very clear he is a reductionist, the funny part is tyger giving him likes, like a turkey voting for christmas, as if he thinks he will be one of the 800 millon human perfect scenario.

Ol mad mike just steers clear of telling us in which order the world will be reduced for the good of mankind after the Palistinians and ALL Muslims ofcourse.
 
Mike mentions Agenda 21. I don't know all the details but having nations sign-on to a program of sustainability seems to be a step in the right direction. The USA is signatory. So of what relevance to the discussion is questioning @mike's sanity or inserting reductionism, or Palistine or Islam into the discussion?

Is this a case where we're all in favor of cleaning up the environment and making our world sustainable, but we have differences of opinion on how to do that? Or has it become a personality conflict? Is there no common ground? Maybe someone could explain to me what the big differences of opinions here are really all about?
 
No Randal the thread NOW has sweet FA to do with the IPCC 's extraordinary claims of runaway Global Warming leading to Catastrophic Climate Change, causing mankinds extinction, ALL due to manmade CO2 emissions, and all within the next 100yrs ...
Perhaps the discussion needs to be reframed again with specific points rather than lumping it all together under climate change. CO2 emissions are only one aspect of that discussion, so making it all about that isn't appropriate unless it's been agreed that the discussion should be limited CO2 is emissions. That doesn't seem to have happened. IMO climate change is going to happen with or without people involved. However that doesn't mean that humans have had no impact on it. So is that what the discussion is really about? In what ways do humans affect climate change? Does it really have to be all about the global conspiracy or nothing at all? Does it all come down to convincing people that we should either panic or ignore it altogether? Is there no middle ground here to recognize valid points both pro and con in an attempt to clear the smoke?
 
The only smoke around will be the smoke blown up your azz Randal, you have just opened pandora's box.

I have nothing lose if you can lead me to the light Randal, what position are you starting from. [be very careful with this reply, mad mike might stop 'liking' your posts]

You have to have a position, no clever talk can change that requirement, if you do not take a position, you will be granted one.


This is my prediction.

No matter how logically you take this discussion, no matter hw well crafted your effort may be too understand all points of view, no matter how polite you try to stay.

This will all turn to shit for you in less than 2 pages, assuming the 2 jihads to their cause's dont noise bomb them.

I look forward to your heroic refocusing effort with anticipation.
You have my respect for even wanting to have a rational conversation with our progressive's, our futures visionary's.
 
Last edited:
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.
These guys are total hypocrites and don't know $#it about the underlying scam. Start with UN Agenda 21 and follow the money.

It was in fact pixelsmith who brought Agenda 21 into this debate, ive simply responded to that claim.

Looking at the specific plan

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont see anything wrong with it, and as far as i can see the basis of the rejection from the tinfoil conspiracy brigade is simply that it tramples on their sense of sovereign rights.

The idea of the UN telling (insert national identity here) us how to run our country is offensive to them.

But this is a global problem, and it requires a global body to implement it, It cant be done any other way or national interests would interfere in the process.

The same people screaming Agenda 21 evil plan to kill us all , are the same ones who made a song and dance about the so called Fema death trains etc etc

Misery Index: FEMA Coffins Conspiracy [Debunked All 3 Locations]

FEMA Camps - Debunking FEMA Camp Myths - Popular Mechanics

FEMA Ordered 102,000 Boxcars With Shackles!, page 7
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps the discussion needs to be reframed again with specific points rather than lumping it all together under climate change. CO2 emissions are only one aspect of that discussion, so making it all about that isn't appropriate unless it's been agreed that the discussion should be limited CO2 is emissions. That doesn't seem to have happened. IMO climate change is going to happen with or without people involved. However that doesn't mean that humans have had no impact on it. So is that what the discussion is really about? In what ways do humans affect climate change? Does it really have to be all about the global conspiracy or nothing at all? Does it all come down to convincing people that we should either panic or ignore it altogether? Is there no middle ground here to recognize valid points both pro and con in an attempt to clear the smoke?


Well said, and recognised

We cant simplistically cherry pick small samples like CO2 from the larger issue confronting us and use that to say "nothing to worry about"

That is fiddling while rome burns,

Meaning
To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.

And burn it does. we know the impact Human emissions , atmospheric and otherwise are having on the eco system.
We know the depletion of natural resources is at unsustainable levels and showing no signs of being brought back into balance.

Those trying to make the focus on CO2 are in effect trying to blinker the audience, so's to hide the other factors that are inseperable from their CO2 argument

In trying to shift the focus to what they see as unimportant factors, they distract us from the urgent priorities that are part and parcel of the larger crisis.
 
How silly is climate change? Watch the video.
In times past, people understood that the human mind and states of collective human experience influence cosmic and earthly phenomena. How might today's 'wars and rumors of wars', global 'austerity measures', and the mass protest movements breaking out everywhere play into the climate 'changing'?
 
Mike if you knew anything at all you would know CO2 IS the focus. You will probably be surprised that I might agree with nearly everything else you do. 10 more years digging and you might catch up to where I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aye righto having a runaway global warming debate without co2 included, is like having a strawberry tart, with no strawberry.

There is no other alledged warming due to anything else apart from natural sun cycles, i think weve been thru and agreed aerosols need knocked on the head, what else is there, hard to tell if he is a wack job, or completely taking the P.

Funny stuff climate debate not including co2, the mind boggles.

He obviously means lets talk pollution, not climate, and at a long stretch he may connect local weather patterns to pollution.
 
Mike and Tyger have no business being on this thread. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top