• 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!

They Should Tell You Climate change

Free episodes:

Funny how the actual chemistry etc about global climate change always gets forgotten. As if the explanation about global climate change is not already available to those who are genuinely interested in discussing the problem.

It's a bit (or a lot) like J C Johnson when he talks about how them brainwashed scientists are always using those goldang DNA-tests when looking for bigfoot.
 
Ps I am just being an idiot and I should just leave this thread to intelligent debaters with access to credible and accurate information .
 
Why is there focus on CO2 emissions and not pollution? It is because global warming will make them money through taxes and higher prices, while rearranging the social order and tackling pollution will cost them money.
Given that the whole CO2 doomsday scenario has been driven by the United Nations, you are probably onto something. We will know in a few years when it becomes obvious that Earth is now in a long term cooling phase. I suspect that the IPCC will be demanding an international tax to prevent catastrophic man-made global cooling. They'll probably still blame CO2 emissions since wealthier nations can burn fuel relatively cleanly but can't avoid emitting CO2.
 
Ps I am just being an idiot and I should just leave this thread to intelligent debaters with access to credible and accurate information .
If we had this attitude about all topics they would have to shut down this site, along with most of the internet. Wouldn't that be boring?
 
Given that the whole CO2 doomsday scenario has been driven by the United Nations, you are probably onto something. We will know in a few years when it becomes obvious that Earth is now in a long term cooling phase. I suspect that the IPCC will be demanding an international tax to prevent catastrophic man-made global cooling. They'll probably still blame CO2 emissions since wealthier nations can burn fuel relatively cleanly but can't avoid emitting CO2.
Yea, keep grasping for straws and conspiracies about the UN instead of looking at the science..
 
Last edited:
Yea, keep grasping for straws and conspiracies about the UN instead of looking at the science..

You are barking up the wrong tree. I always look at the science first. Hell, looking at the science has caused me to abandon my religion and become more skeptic than believer on all things paranormal. If the science actually confirmed the IPCC doomsday scenario, I would have accepted it and at least entertained the notion that the UN isn't totally evil. But that's not what happened.
Here are some science facts:
In 1990 the IPCC scientific consensus, which invented the global warming doomsday scenario, stated that by now, that means today, the ocean would be at minimum 1.5 feet deeper. Well, after 25 years the oceans are only 1.5 INCHES deeper than in 1990. That rate of sea level rise is consistent with the last several thousand years. People who, in 1990, "followed the science" wasted billions of dollars to protect themselves from the oncoming deluge.
The same scientific consensus said that by now Earth would be almost a full degree Celsius hotter and headed higher. The temperature peaked ten years ago at only about 0.3 degrees warmer and has been in a slow decline since. Once again, billions of dollars have been wasted, much of it on ugly bird-killing monstrosities, all in the name of "saving the planet".
The only actual proven climate science we have is that if CO2 is doubled, the greenhouse effect should increase the temperature by 1 degree Celsius. All the rest of the science is based on conjecture which is built into predictive models. It has been thirty years since the first models started predicting doom, and guess what? That's right, they have all been wrong. All of them. In every other field of science, a track record like that makes scientists scrap their theory and start again. So why not climate science? You don't need to be a Navajo scout to follow the trail of money and power.
So, when you suggest we "look at the science", you are really suggesting that we follow the politicians. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.
 
Funny how the actual chemistry etc about global climate change always gets forgotten. As if the explanation about global climate change is not already available to those who are genuinely interested in discussing the problem.

It's a bit (or a lot) like J C Johnson when he talks about how them brainwashed scientists are always using those goldang DNA-tests when looking for bigfoot.
Are we talking climate change or climate warming? And why are talking about just that, instead of the complete destruction of society and the living planet?
 
I used to hang on an astronomy oriented forum where, I swear, the average IQ must have been upwards of 140. After lurking there for months and then offering the occasional opinion about things technical or scientific, I learned to be exceedingly careful lest I be tersely corrected. A good percentage of the posters were high level engineers and a few--no kidding--rocket scientists. I found I had very little to say on the subject of star wars testing, software coding for the NASA space shuttle or R & D of liquid fuel rocket engines. Yipes !

Inevitably, the topic of climate change erupted. The thread endured for weeks before the mods finally shut it down. Absolutely no consensus was reached.
 
I used to hang on an astronomy oriented forum where, I swear, the average IQ must have been upwards of 140. After lurking there for months and then offering the occasional opinion about things technical or scientific, I learned to be exceedingly careful lest I be tersely corrected. A good percentage of the posters were high level engineers and a few--no kidding--rocket scientists. I found I had very little to say on the subject of star wars testing, software coding for the NASA space shuttle or R & D of liquid fuel rocket engines. Yipes !

Inevitably, the topic of climate change erupted. The thread endured for weeks before the mods finally shut it down. Absolutely no consensus was reached.

i think you are awarding atleast 40+ more to the average BAUTian I.Q., to be fair, ive made several 100 post's there myself, proud to say ive caused much friction and ruffled feathers., smug baastards, only one way to deal with them is to be sure you can quote an authority that out-ranks them, before you pull the pin and dump a verbal hand-grenade into the mix..
 
Last edited:
I used to hang on an astronomy oriented forum where, I swear, the average IQ must have been upwards of 140. After lurking there for months and then offering the occasional opinion about things technical or scientific, I learned to be exceedingly careful lest I be tersely corrected. A good percentage of the posters were high level engineers and a few--no kidding--rocket scientists. I found I had very little to say on the subject of star wars testing, software coding for the NASA space shuttle or R & D of liquid fuel rocket engines. Yipes !

Inevitably, the topic of climate change erupted. The thread endured for weeks before the mods finally shut it down. Absolutely no consensus was reached.

It's not just the "rocket scientists" who are split on the issue. A survey of the American Meteorological Society, which includes nearly all of the meteorologists in the country, showed that only about 64 percent were convinced that man-made global warming was occurring. The only real consensus is with politicians.
 
Are we talking climate change or climate warming? And why are talking about just that, instead of the complete destruction of society and the living planet?
The IPCC created a doomsday scenario based on global warming. They predicted the oceans rising by 20 feet, massive droughts, super hurricanes, disease and starvation, all based on the Earth warming significantly. All of the policy actions they have pushed have been based on a catastrophic warming of Earth. After realizing that the world isn't burning up, they have changed the language to "climate change" in order to appear less wrong. The term "climate change" doesn't resonate with the public, and therefor doesn't gain them political advantage, so they are in the process of changing it again. As the world continues to not warm, watch how they try to get you to focus on "extreme weather events".

And why aren't we talking about real problems threatening society? Good question. My cynical guess would be that there's no money in it.

As far as "destroying the living planet". I defer to the great American philosopher, George Carlin, " Save the Planet? The planet is fine. The people are fucked"
 
Are we talking climate change or climate warming? And why are talking about just that, instead of the complete destruction of society and the living planet?
Indeed. I've been talking about it all for quite some time, as many have. Otoh., many choose to turn the blind eye, perhaps because they were not raised to take responsibility for anything except themself, and thus they simply don't understand the concept of working together, or taking common responsibility.

What aggravates me so much about environmental matters is, that many are far more concerned with making up excuses for why they or anyone else shouldn't give a damn, than about helping to create an atmosphere where environmental concerns matter, not least politically. It's very destructive behavior.

I honestly think it's objectively stupid to neglect environmental problems. And I sense a disconcerting lack of empathy with those who neither care about the people (or the animals) that are affected by it directly. Thus we find most deniers and liars on the right wing, where everything is about individualism and money, not about taking responsibility for each other, the planet, and our common future. The people who shout 'treehuggers' and 'bleeding hearts' etc are basically dickheads without compassion, intelligence, or a sense of responsibility. In my opinion of course, but seriously, they are..

I think the loss of species and entire ecosystems in this day and age is a tragedy and a scandal, one that later generations will curse us for. They'll be less kind in their wording than I am now.

There are so many aspects to the tragedy. For instance, imagine when the big animals are gone, we will not only lose the results of millions of years of evolution, we will lose the objects that shape our language. What will 'a lion's share' mean to people in the future?
I always recommend reading Emerson's Nature, it's such a fine insight into how our language and thinking is shaped by, and connected to, the natural world.

Climate change and global warming has the ability to change ecosystems on such a large scale that the consequences are almost impossible to grasp. Thus it is so very important. Local pollutants are easier to grasp and manage. Climate change is a global situation akin to the vanishing ozon-layers, and it has drawn out the same kind of denials, because it's not something that is simple enough that everyone can understand it with 'common sense', and observe it directly, and so they start arguing from an ignorant 'common sense' point of view.

In short, the topic is very, very important, one of the most important environmental issues imo.
 
Last edited:
..As the world continues to not warm, watch how they try to get you to focus on "extreme weather events"...
Bullshit. Either you're ignorant or you're trying to pass lies. Global warming is a reality.

Here's an article that is written in plain language:
Global Warming: United Nations Climate Report Proves Earth Is Suffering | Politics News | Rolling Stone

..
As far as "destroying the living planet". I defer to the great American philosopher, George Carlin, " Save the Planet? The planet is fine. The people are fucked"
Like I said above, what aggravates me so much about environmental matters is that many are clearly far more concerned with making up excuses for why they shouldn't give a damn, than about helping to create an atmosphere where environmental concerns matter, not least politically.

If we deny the problem in our language, we also deny the opportunity to change it. Be part of the problem, or part of the solution.
 
Last edited:
Why is there focus on CO2 emissions and not pollution? It is because global warming will make them money through taxes and higher prices, while rearranging the social order and tackling pollution will cost them money.

Yes why indeed is a question I have asked myself many times over... we are killing our biosphere far faster in a thousand different ways that CO2 if it is indeed a problem can not be the biggest one of all.

To simply focus on CO2 as the reason for climate change is to exclude all other possibility's such as sun cycles etc.. Now personally I think in years to come we will find that the current climate change is in fact due to not one but a myriad of different factors.
 
Indeed. I've been talking about it all for quite some time, as many have. Otoh., many choose to turn the blind eye, perhaps because they were not raised to take responsibility for anything except themself, and thus they simply don't understand the concept of working together, or taking common responsibility.

What aggravates me so much about environmental matters is, that many are far more concerned with making up excuses for why they or anyone else shouldn't give a damn, than about helping to create an atmosphere where environmental concerns matter, not least politically. It's very destructive behavior.

I honestly think it's objectively stupid to neglect environmental problems. And I sense a disconcerting lack of empathy with those who neither care about the people (or the animals) that are affected by it directly. Thus we find most deniers and liars on the right wing, where everything is about individualism and money, not about taking responsibility for each other, the planet, and our common future. The people who shout 'treehuggers' and 'bleeding hearts' etc are basically dickheads without compassion, intelligence, or a sense of responsibility. In my opinion of course, but seriously, they are..

I think the loss of species and entire ecosystems in this day and age is a tragedy and a scandal, one that later generations will curse us for. They'll be less kind in their wording than I am now.

There are so many aspects to the tragedy. For instance, imagine when the big animals are gone, we will not only lose the results of millions of years of evolution, we will lose the objects that shape our language. What will 'a lion's share' mean to people in the future?
I always recommend reading Emerson's Nature, it's such a fine insight into how our language and thinking is shaped by, and connected to, the natural world.

Climate change and global warming has the ability to change ecosystems on such a large scale that the consequences are almost impossible to grasp. Thus it is so very important. Local pollutants are easier to grasp and manage. Climate change is a global situation akin to the vanishing ozon-layers, and it has drawn out the same kind of denials, because it's not something that is simple enough that everyone can understand it with 'common sense', and observe it directly, and so they start arguing from an ignorant 'common sense' point of view.

In short, the topic is very, very important, one of the most important environmental issues imo.

I'm glad I don't live in the same world as you. It sounds like a very sad and scary place.
 
Bullshit. Either you're ignorant or you're trying to pass lies. Global warming is a reality.

Here's an article that is written in plain language:
Global Warming: United Nations Climate Report Proves Earth Is Suffering | Politics News | Rolling Stone


Like I said above, what aggravates me so much about environmental matters is that many are clearly far more concerned with making up excuses for why they shouldn't give a damn, than about helping to create an atmosphere where environmental concerns matter, not least politically.

If we deny the problem in our language, we also deny the opportunity to change it. Be part of the problem, or part of the solution.

An insignificant amount of global warming WAS a reality, though never proved to be significantly caused by humans. Even the IPCC is scrambling to explain the "pause", offering more speculation, but not much else.
After 17 years without any warming, and thirty years of failed global warming doomsday prophesy, it is safe for you to put down the pipe and leave mommies basement.
 
98a195adf9745a36953c26d9065eda5fe4b228736488cf90a6f0a4da8d301519.jpg


That is All ... keep it civil
 
I have an absurdly simple-minded observation planned by which to gauge the impact of global warming on my life as an individual. There is a particular spot on the Texas coast where waters of the bay meet the land in a way such that changes in water level should be obvious. I have not been there in decades. Tides at these latitudes are slight. I plan to someday re-visit this site and, quite simply, look down and see if the water is visibly closer to a nearby paved road. We are told to expect catastrophically rising sea levels. And quite frankly--I want to see it for myself. This area is pancake flat and any rise in water levels should be obvious.

I know, I know- this is incredibly simplistic. I do believe reports that the north polar cap is thinning and glaciers are retreating (Many have been for centuries). Geological time scales swallow up those of the human. I suppose what I need is a kind of aha moment, a "kick in the pants" visual to accompany the rhetorical drama.
 
Back
Top