-
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!
They Should Tell You Climate change
- Thread starter stonehart
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Burnt and Angelo have shown that they know VERY LITTLE about this topic... like the greenpeace lady!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Apparently Burnt took his ball and went home. Funny how one simple question totally stumped our climate experts. One would think they would know how much warming has occurred in the past 160 years since they keep babbling on and on about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
actually, i remember a time thirty years ago when the sun did not sting the way it does now, the way that people used to baste their bodies like turkeys when they went outside in the 60's and 70's to get that George Hamilton tan. now no one goes outside without SPF 75 because o that whole melanoma thing - fancy that? where'd that come from? but the other weather extremes are quite visible - we've been watching that on the news for the last couple of decades. we don't need just our anecdotal history to recognize the impact to study the impact on forests and the weather issues we face.
WSL > News and media > News > Extreme weather events fuel climate change
i think the other important way to explore this topic is the difference in sources of discussion, alongside those anecdotal personal statements. what's mainstreamed vs. what's eclectic is a good dividing line to help promote reasonable discussion.
i'm not sure if that's a feeding frenzy, and al gore was just the messenger of the moment. some attack jimmy carter, others take on al gore - it's a familiar refrain to stomp on the silly leftist drinking at the trough while we ignore the Conservative friends of the oil baron who continues to bleed society dry on a much more significant level. keep in mind that this carbon tax initiative is a global endeavour, and that all the other countries, well except for the super-polluters like Canada and the USA, want to and have, watered down those initiatives to pollute less. i'm curious to know just how that financial equation does get squared out. should the world not even make an attempt to reduce carbon or regulate industry. is that the other side of the equation?
do it anyway - you'll feel really good about it. in fact why not plant two?
nameless
Paranormal Adept
@Burnt State: I'm done burning them asbestos tiles with the left over diesel you gave me, what I want to know is can I do anything with the ashes, like fertiliser or something? Or should I chuck it in the fridge and dump it in the sea with the condoms?
@pixelsmith : If I smoke this joint \/ will i be contributing to f*cking up the environment. Are there any figures to back this up or should I just light this fella up?
@pixelsmith : If I smoke this joint \/ will i be contributing to f*cking up the environment. Are there any figures to back this up or should I just light this fella up?
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I wouldn't assume that. He's definitely exited - and good for him, because it was getting nowhere.
It's been interesting to read this exchange, this 'dialog' - though it has been Burnt that has been doing the heavy-lifting. It is not evident that anyone in the denier-mode possesses any in-depth understanding of the situation - though there is plenty of bombast to the effect that they do. No evidence to that, however - none.
As best as I can make out - to engage on this thread, one has to have the stamina to deal with a provocateur. There is not a serious conversation coming from certain quarters. I think Burnt's silence is that he is no longer bothering to have a non-conversation. I would see no more than that into his silence. [Later: Ooops, I see he popped in.
]Fact is - among scientists (as best as I can ascertain) - the conversation is on-going - as it usually is around anything of note and interest. The hypothesis hangs together perfectly - no reason to doubt it, not really - but its a working hypothesis, and the potential for unlooked for elements having an impact is huge, and any reasonable scientist knows that (if they're not backed into a corner by black-or-white thinking). The system corrects in ways we cannot imagine or observe. It's a tough call - but is almost beside the point. When the living conditions - air, water, earth - are being fouled to the point of being death-dealing to life - the handwriting is on the wall. When habitats are being erased - stuff is going to happen. We know that - we observe it all the time. This is science - science has been observing this for a very long time, like with volcanoes. CO2 is almost beside-the-point - almost. The livingness of the hypothesis has gotten strangled by dogmatic deniers.
I suspect the 'question' is being framed wrong. CO2 has an impact - it's ludicrous to argue otherwise, we know it does have an impact. There is just so much we really don't know (and that's where the denier gets the foothold) - and scientists can and do get up and running with ideas with all possibilities not fully factored in. IMO the 'public debate' is muddying the waters - and always has.
Anyway - I think the science is fine, as far as it goes. I also think computer models are problematic - I thought that back in the late 90's - and I haven't changed. I think they compute plenty fine - it's just the human scientist cannot program all the variables because they are all simply not known. Its a tough one - but I don't doubt we are impacting our planet in a negative way. The Pacific Gyre itself has got to be causing changes - but how to measure the changes - or even know what changes to measure. So it goes.
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Last edited:
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
actually i'm just uninterested in talking with you as you never answer any questions, and just post rhetorical questions, and insults that are not worth responding to. you don't take time to dialogue or engage in the discussion in a critical manner. you lump large swaths of people into some type of war of words over conspiracist passages from limited eclectic websites and i find it tiresome to keep deconstructing those and chasing them back to their oil sources only to have you not respond to that criticism. so there is no exchange.
so there is no exchange.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
oh no, let the strings get pulled and please imagine a contemplative sherlock holmes, playing his violin at the window, high on a 7% solution, right out of the conan doyle canon, waiting for morning to creep through the darkness before he goes to bed.
i like to think that it's not an emotional appeal so much as a moral one. i think that gets confused a lot.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
nameless, everyone knows that the excess fertilizer gets dropped off at the African nation of your choice, after all, that's where the west has been dumping all its excess fertilizer for decades. we thought it would be a win-win situation, take our overflow of chemistry and pour it on the land so you can grow more to help with all that famine stuff you've been experiencing. of course then after that, so much fertilizer showed up that it needed to be housed in large piles, and then it started leeching into the soil. now the soil is burnt and toxic and all our good intentions went into destruction.
just light it and pass it around to see if it will help spark some common ground and better insights into the situation. at the very least something that size should wipe everyone's memory and then we can forget we even had this conversation. that would be preferred.
nameless
Paranormal Adept
I hope one day at the end of this thread, pixel smith and burnt and all the people of this thread will sit down and light up this bad boy as we watch a giant meteor plummet towards us as we forgot to set up some kind of early warning defence array that gave us more than 5 minutes to react;
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Some very prescient stuff - we are already experiencing some of this. We are at 1.54 degree increase. It's never been the actual increases - it's always been the pace of the increase. We are approaching 2 degrees and like the man says - it's at this point that we don't know how the system will trigger the pace of changes. Climate scientists have already expressed surprise at the rapidity of the ice melt - unexpected speed-up with that - and so it will be with the whole system.
One degree increase....'the pace of change is what is unprecedented'.....prognostications coming true: antarctic ice-free for half the year, massive flooding in the Bay of Bengal, hurricanes begin hitting the south Atlantic, droughts in the American midwest cause shortages in global grain and meat markets... the emergence of new deserts in the US is in fact happening.....
Two degrees increase....."If the world warms by two degrees, some of the changes to the biosphere are no longer gradual." This is what we are approaching......as the system changes it both speeds up and becomes something we cannot totally predict.......most importantly, we cannot predict the human response.........
Three degrees increase......"If the world warms by three degrees the Mediterranean and parts of Europe will wither in the summer's heat."
Four degrees increase - now it's getting serious - we will have reached the tipping point to unrecognizeable....."If the world warms by four degrees oceans will rise and glaciers will disappear, cutting off fresh water to billions."
Five degrees increase - "the twilight zone of climate change" - pure speculation at this point as so many unknowns.... "If the world warms by five degrees the planet reaches a nightmare vision of life on Earth as traditional social systems break down."
Six degrees increase - if temperatures rise by 6 degrees or more we are in the doomsday scenario - our lives would never be the same again....."If the world warms by six degrees, oceans will turn into marine wastelands and natural disasters become common events."
6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction? - YouTube
Yet NASA scientists have run models - computer models (not my favorite tool - I am biased against them) - that work out an 8 degree increase by 2100. That's amazing - truly amazing - way past 'doomsday'. Again, this has everything to do with the pace of the increased emissions being produced (China is the big player here, I would think) and the subsequent pace of the temperature rise. I for sure will not live to 2100 - but it's within the realm of possibility that I might be alive and kicking in 2050, or even 2060 - not likely, but possible. This should all be experienced in our life-times - as it already is. So I think we will know soon enough who has been wrong and who has been right since it's very clear that the deniers hold the keys and they will not let go, so we are in for the ride whether we like it or not.
One degree increase....'the pace of change is what is unprecedented'.....prognostications coming true: antarctic ice-free for half the year, massive flooding in the Bay of Bengal, hurricanes begin hitting the south Atlantic, droughts in the American midwest cause shortages in global grain and meat markets... the emergence of new deserts in the US is in fact happening.....
Two degrees increase....."If the world warms by two degrees, some of the changes to the biosphere are no longer gradual." This is what we are approaching......as the system changes it both speeds up and becomes something we cannot totally predict.......most importantly, we cannot predict the human response.........
Three degrees increase......"If the world warms by three degrees the Mediterranean and parts of Europe will wither in the summer's heat."
Four degrees increase - now it's getting serious - we will have reached the tipping point to unrecognizeable....."If the world warms by four degrees oceans will rise and glaciers will disappear, cutting off fresh water to billions."
Five degrees increase - "the twilight zone of climate change" - pure speculation at this point as so many unknowns.... "If the world warms by five degrees the planet reaches a nightmare vision of life on Earth as traditional social systems break down."
Six degrees increase - if temperatures rise by 6 degrees or more we are in the doomsday scenario - our lives would never be the same again....."If the world warms by six degrees, oceans will turn into marine wastelands and natural disasters become common events."
6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction? - YouTube
Yet NASA scientists have run models - computer models (not my favorite tool - I am biased against them) - that work out an 8 degree increase by 2100. That's amazing - truly amazing - way past 'doomsday'. Again, this has everything to do with the pace of the increased emissions being produced (China is the big player here, I would think) and the subsequent pace of the temperature rise. I for sure will not live to 2100 - but it's within the realm of possibility that I might be alive and kicking in 2050, or even 2060 - not likely, but possible. This should all be experienced in our life-times - as it already is. So I think we will know soon enough who has been wrong and who has been right since it's very clear that the deniers hold the keys and they will not let go, so we are in for the ride whether we like it or not.
tyger.
quote
It's been interesting to read this exchange, this 'dialog' - though it has been Burnt that has been doing the heavy-lifting. It is not evident that anyone in the denier-mode possesses any in-depth understanding of the situation - though there is plenty of bombast to the effect that they do. No evidence to that, however - none.
quote
tyger you seem to be under the impression that people who live in an enviroment that is not effected by the so called global warming aka climate change, need to PROVE that the status quo has not changed.
it is the IPCC making extraordinary claims, it is they that need to produce the extraordinary evidence, infact any legitimate EVIDENCE, that man is causing global warming..
and there's the problem, you have 2 american politically charged organisations whose goals are power/influence and money.
but
on the other hand american politic's and politicians are renowned for their honesty, fairness, and compassion for their populace, and the planet.
i mean america have a PROVEN track record of compassion for the planet and it's peoples, the goodwill to ALL men.
what american administrations have shown over the last 50 years is BEYOND question.
so more fool anyone who doubt's al gore's humanistic and planetary selfless commitment to making the world a better place.
and well done with the vid's, case closed, we all know youtube science, with no corroberating literature is a slam dunk.
temperature hasnt even increased 2 degree in the last 160 years, and you are posting propaganda scare vids of 5 and 6 degree rise's.
and you talk about speed of warming, when infact the earth has slightly cooled in the last decade.
how long have you been alive tyger, 2 decades maybe ?.
quote
It's been interesting to read this exchange, this 'dialog' - though it has been Burnt that has been doing the heavy-lifting. It is not evident that anyone in the denier-mode possesses any in-depth understanding of the situation - though there is plenty of bombast to the effect that they do. No evidence to that, however - none.
quote
tyger you seem to be under the impression that people who live in an enviroment that is not effected by the so called global warming aka climate change, need to PROVE that the status quo has not changed.
it is the IPCC making extraordinary claims, it is they that need to produce the extraordinary evidence, infact any legitimate EVIDENCE, that man is causing global warming..
and there's the problem, you have 2 american politically charged organisations whose goals are power/influence and money.
but
on the other hand american politic's and politicians are renowned for their honesty, fairness, and compassion for their populace, and the planet.
i mean america have a PROVEN track record of compassion for the planet and it's peoples, the goodwill to ALL men.
what american administrations have shown over the last 50 years is BEYOND question.
so more fool anyone who doubt's al gore's humanistic and planetary selfless commitment to making the world a better place.
and well done with the vid's, case closed, we all know youtube science, with no corroberating literature is a slam dunk.
temperature hasnt even increased 2 degree in the last 160 years, and you are posting propaganda scare vids of 5 and 6 degree rise's.
and you talk about speed of warming, when infact the earth has slightly cooled in the last decade.
how long have you been alive tyger, 2 decades maybe ?.
Last edited:
flipper
Paranormal Adept
When did most of the rise take place? Is it an even distribution of temperature rise over the one hundred and sixty years or did 99.9% take place in the last 10 years?
no it didnt.
it took place since 1978, the last 36 years, hth.
allegedly.
according to the ipcc data, and they then extrapolate [guess] that temperatures will rise by more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, when your kids will be dead, and your grand children will be pensioners, and the gore familie's multi-billionaire's, along with all the other familie's of todays ''warming'' parasite's.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
97% consensus is bullshit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk