• 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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

So before we identify the media as biased I think that there is more to be gained by exploring the interests of oil and who actually stops people from speaking altogether. That's a much more suspicious position.
Click to expand...

Right. What I'd give to hear a real and honest gentlemanly debate on the subject with no axes to grind and no ad hominem attacks, strictly the facts, ma'am, with respect for opponents and so on.

Speaking with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, personally I can't imagine that we human beings aren't having an effect on the natural world, that seems a little too twee to me. At the same time, there are plenty of people who manipulate real issues for nefarious PR purposes. Finally, human hubris versus Nature is perhaps the scariest and stupidest game around. I mean, come on, we human beings can be incredibly short-sighted and stupid. The Fukushima Plant design, anyone?
 
So it's been nice and clear here the last few days and the harsh cold is starting to lift, but the forecast says clouds beginning again in a few days along with colder temperatures. I wonder how many of those clouds will be chemtrails or "persistent" contrails". I don't think the airlines have stopped for the last few days, so where are all the contrails? Wouldn't it be a little more than coincidental if the weather reports for more clouds just happen to coincide with a new bunch of persistent contrails? I'll keep you posted.
 
ufology said:
So it's been nice and clear here the last few days and the harsh cold is starting to lift, but the forecast says clouds beginning again in a few days along with colder temperatures. I wonder how many of those clouds will be chemtrails or "persistent" contrails". I don't think the airlines have stopped for the last few days, so where are all the contrails? Wouldn't it be a little more than coincidental if the weather reports for more clouds just happen to coincide with a new bunch of persistent contrails? I'll keep you posted.
Click to expand...
In the past two days we have had two what would have been bright blue clear days with a strong sun. On the first day their was not a cloud or haze in the sky. BEAUTIFUL! On the second day the aerial entities returned leaving their XYZ white trail behind them and hazing up the sky.:( I think that it is part of the paranormal.
 
Before ever hearing of 'chemtrails', Canadians were the first to formerly complain to their federal government over what they identified as chemical spraying. In November 1999, an Opposition Defence Critic presented a petition to Parliament signed by 550 residents of Espanola, Ontario. The largely native community demanded an explanation and an end to aerial spraying by photo-identified USAF tankers, which they claimed was sickening children and adults over a 55 square mile area.

Laboratory tests of rainwater falling through the sky plumes being paid in X's and grid patterns over Espanola found levels of aluminum seven-times higher than federal health safety limits. The U.S. Air Force denied flying over Espanola. The Canadian Forces, which do not operate large squadrons of aerial tankers, eventually responded, saying, 'It's not us.' (.
The "HOLMESTEAD" - Chemtrails - Spray Tankers Tracked by Radar, Lab Tests Raise Concerns.
A TALE OF TWO TOWNS

During their visit to Canada, the Italians were especially interested in the experience of Espanola. Repeatedly overflown by photo-identified U.S. Air Forcer tankers spraying lingering white plumes that made people sick over 50 square-miles in the spring and summer of 1991, this small community west of Sudbury, Ontario was the first to petition a national government to stop chemtrail spraying. "I'm convinced people here have died as a result of this spraying, including a close friend," says an activist involved in the early protests there.
Vincent said that a village north of Venice has experienced an aerial onslaught similar to Espanola's. In the Belluna valley, "people started complaining" after many took ill following heavy chemtrailing there.
Italian Chemtrail Researchers Come To Survey US-Canada
 
Burnt State said:
So before we identify the media as biased I think that there is more to be gained by exploring the interests of oil and who actually stops people from speaking altogether. That's a much more suspicious position.
Click to expand...

I disagree, there is just as much to gain from pushing global warming or climate change agenda. Look into carbon trading etc... Whenever there is a profit motive involved there can never be an unbiased discussion of the issue at hand. What we need is a completely unbiased media that lets both sides present its views and let the people decide for themselves.
 
Most of the media is owned by entertainment conglomerates so being critical about the interests of other arms of the same corporation is impossible. I think that when you have a nation that has gagged its scientists from speaking freely, that's the primary indicator as who is trying to manipulate what. Thinking critically about carbon credits: while I'm sure there's lots of ways for the ultra wealthy to manipulate that system I find the idea that this is some type of green conspiracy to be conspiracist thinking in the first place. Let's face it - the idea of stopping poorer nations from pumping more carbon into the planet is an environmental agenda issue. What's more damaging - to continually mine, frack, and drill into mountains or to engage in carbon credits?

I think at the end of the day this entire discussion is impossible. Either you believe the species currently attempting to live on this planet is getting screwed over royally by the interests of energy billionaires, or you think everything's just fine, that the billionaires should be allowed to do what they do; because, it's those crazy environmentalists who are the real evil. What's more probable? What's more rational?

Here's the tar sands - does this look good, and right and healthy or is this the evil?

tar_sands_ex_-37-1.jpg


I'm entirely tired and bored with the discussion to be honest. Either you love the planet and want our environment to be healthier or you are on the side of the billionaire who wants deregulation so they can frack up your backyard if they need to. Those are my choices. I realize other people make their own variables. Good luck to all is what I say. I'm done with this discussion. It keeps circling back to defending the billionaire and calling the environmentalist the demon. Well I am the environmentalist and I know the environmentalists and we don't live in the same world as those who believe in green conspiracies. Please, think about it - saving trees, cleaner air - is that what this conspiracy is about? Or should the billionaire be given the free hand; because, they have proven over decades and decades of outright environmental slaughter and toxicity that they are to be trusted with your, our best interests?
 
Burnt State said:
Most of the media is owned by entertainment conglomerates so being critical about the interests of other arms of the same corporation is impossible. I think that when you have a nation that has gagged its scientists from speaking freely, that's the primary indicator as who is trying to manipulate what. Thinking critically about carbon credits: while I'm sure there's lots of ways for the ultra wealthy to manipulate that system I find the idea that this is some type of green conspiracy to be conspiracist thinking in the first place. Let's face it - the idea of stopping poorer nations from pumping more carbon into the planet is an environmental agenda issue. What's more damaging - to continually mine, frack, and drill into mountains or to engage in carbon credits?

I think at the end of the day this entire discussion is impossible. Either you believe the species currently attempting to live on this planet is getting screwed over royally by the interests of energy billionaires, or you think everything's just fine, that the billionaires should be allowed to do what they do; because, it's those crazy environmentalists who are the real evil. What's more probable? What's more rational?

Here's the tar sands - does this look good, and right and healthy or is this the evil?

tar_sands_ex_-37-1.jpg


I'm entirely tired and bored with the discussion to be honest. Either you love the planet and want our environment to be healthier or you are on the side of the billionaire who wants deregulation so they can frack up your backyard if they need to. Those are my choices. I realize other people make their own variables. Good luck to all is what I say. I'm done with this discussion. It keeps circling back to defending the billionaire and calling the environmentalist the demon. Well I am the environmentalist and I know the environmentalists and we don't live in the same world as those who believe in green conspiracies. Please, think about it - saving trees, cleaner air - is that what this conspiracy is about? Or should the billionaire be given the free hand; because, they have proven over decades and decades of outright environmental slaughter and toxicity that they are to be trusted with your, our best interests?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, new laws to prevent destruction of the environment will accomplish nothing. What is needed, in my view, is to start re-educating the people on this planet that defiling the earth is not in anyone's best interest. Our children will need to live here after we are gone. Does anyone want to have them living in a toxic world, one that we screwed up and left for them to clean up?
 
Seriously Burnt, if not for climate change you would not exist, neither would polar bears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
flipper said:
That is pretty catty comment coming straight from the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...
You, know that's a pretty snarky one coming from a seal!;)

But I confess, there was something intangible annoying about Pixel's downright lackadaisical response that made something in my brain pop and simply could not help but feed back the illogic from whence it came.
 
Back
Top