• 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!

10 Questions for Al Gore.

Forums New posts
It is true that there has been some warming and that the projected increase over the next century is about 1 degree Celsius if based only on CO2. Even climate change deniers don't deny this basic issue. The problem is the idea of 'positive feedback' that some say will piggy-back on this increase and make life unbearable, kill everybody, etc. The idea is that a small increase in temperature in Siberia, for example, will melt permafrost and expose peat bogs which will out gas more bad stuff into the atmosphere and that this process will become like a runaway nuclear reactor. None of that is proven and so far, none of the models used by the CRU has successfully predicted the future.

If you want a really good presentation on all these issues that is not done from an 'angry' or conspiracy minded point of view and, in fact, actually attempts to present the 'orthodox' view of AGW, take a look at this:

 
Schuyler said:
It is true that there has been some warming and that the projected increase over the next century is about 1 degree Celsius if based only on CO2. Even climate change deniers don't deny this basic issue. The problem is the idea of 'positive feedback' that some say will piggy-back on this increase and make life unbearable, kill everybody, etc. The idea is that a small increase in temperature in Siberia, for example, will melt permafrost and expose peat bogs which will out gas more bad stuff into the atmosphere and that this process will become like a runaway nuclear reactor. None of that is proven and so far, none of the models used by the CRU has successfully predicted the future.

If you want a really good presentation on all these issues that is not done from an 'angry' or conspiracy minded point of view and, in fact, actually attempts to present the 'orthodox' view of AGW, take a look at this:

Click to expand...


But without the fear of massive imminent catastrophic disasters how else can we ramrod pocket-lining legislation through? How else can we consolidate power and transfer our wealth to third world nations? How else can Al win more bogus awards?
 
Here's what's really behind all the global warming fear mongering:


04_28_47---US-Dollar-Bills_web.jpg
 
SYDNEY – Australia's Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government's plans to combat global warming into disarray.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

The new leader, Tony Abbott, said Australia should not adopt an emissions trading system before the rest of the world.
"The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America," he told reporters after the vote.
Rudd had wanted the legislation passed before he attends next week's U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen so he could portray Australia as a world leader on the issue. He discussed the issue with President Barack Obama this week during a visit to the White House from which he was still returning Wednesday.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the government would reintroduce the bill in February to give the opposition a last chance to overcome its divisions and support the plan.

Rudd could use the failure of the bill to call early elections, but is unlikely to do so before next year, when elections are due anyway.
Australia is a small greenhouse gas polluter in global terms, but one of the worst per capita because it relies heavily for its electricity on its abundant reserves of coal, which also make it the world's largest exporter of the polluting fuel. As the driest continent after Antarctica, it is also considered one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change.
The European Union has a carbon trading system, as do some U.S. states. Canada and New Zealand are among countries considering or in the process of implementing them.

Under the government's plan, an annual limit would be placed on the amount of greenhouse gases allowed to be pumped into the atmosphere and permits would be issued to regulate that ceiling. The permits could be bought and sold, setting up a market system that would make reducing emissions potentially profitable for polluting companies.

Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to a huge new tax on polluting industries such as power generators, which would put a crimp on the economy and lead to higher prices for consumers. Such costs would have no effect on the level of global greenhouse gas emissions, they say.
Climate Change Minister Sen. Penny Wong accused the opposition members who voted the bill down of being climate change deniers out of step with the world.

"This is about doing our bit as part of a global agreement, this is about responding to what is a global challenge," Wong told the Senate. "You have to make polluters pay. If you do not make polluters pay you will not tackle climate change."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
 
pixelsmith said:
CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm in the past. today it is 387.75 ppm. at the beginning of the industrial age is was about 280 ppm. your average office cubicle is approx 4,000 ppm, submarines can reach 10,000 ppm. greenhouses are pumped up to 1200 ppm. you exhale approx 40,000 ppm. plants start to starve at 200 ppm.
doubling of CO2 levels will not double warming.
for some easy to understand pdf books explaining the scam check out: The Skeptics Handbook JoNova
Click to expand...

Oceanic anoxic events or anoxic events occur when the Earth's oceans become completely depleted of oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>) below the surface levels. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past. Anoxic events may have caused mass extinctions. These mass extinctions were so characteristic they include some of those which geobiologists employ to serve as a time marker in biostratigraphic dating. It is believed oceanic anoxic events are strongly linked to lapses in key oceanic current circulations, to climate warming and greenhouse gases.


What is clear from careful analysis of the geologic records occurring before and after the affected ages is that onsets are rapid and so are recoveries. Both sets of data suggests that a sudden climate threshold or tipping point occurs at about four times the Earth's mean carbon dioxide levels relative to the baseline concentrations of circa 1750. This date is significant in that it is regarded as the beginning of the Industrial age.

There are several places on earth right now that are exhibiting the features of an anoxic event, on a localized level, such as algae blooms and localized "dead zones". There is one such dead zone off the coast of Louisiana. Other dead zones exist in the East Coast of the United States in Chesapeake Bay, in the Scandinavian strait Kattegat, and in the Black Sea, (which may have been anoxic in its deepest levels for millennia, however) and in the northern Adriatic. The current surge of jellyfish worldwide are sometimes regarded as the first stirrings of an anoxic event. Other marine dead zones have apparently appeared in coastal waters of South America, China, Japan, and southeast Australia. A 2008 study counted 405 dead zones worldwide.

More---> Anoxic Events - Wikipedia
 
Here's a cute graph that shows the depth of the issue here: It's for Brisbane. Australia is one of the many places where 'adjusted' temperatures are an issue. This kind of manipulation has gone on pretty much everywhere. Raw data shows a decline in temperature. Adjusted data shows an increase.

raw-adjusted.gif
 
At the same time a report just came out showing that the last decade was the warmest on record. (??) And in addition the data was not taken from the CRU, it was apparently taken from two other sources, NASA and NOAA. I'm looking for the link, but am unable to find it right now. I believe the report was from the WMO.

What has happened concerning East Anglia is troubling to say the least, but at this same time a steady flow of scientific reports are still coming in confirming AWG. I'm pretty skeptical at this point until I see some satisfactory answers about the leaked e-mails. I'm guessing I'm not going to get anything satisfactory to me. Largely I'm just ignoring the content of such reports because I don't find the scientific community all that honest at this point. Still it's hard to believe that all the data is corrupted and that all science is somehow linked in this alleged scam. But I don't know.

Anyway, Schuyler is your contention that global warming is not happening at all? Or it's happening, but not attributable to human activity?? Or that slight warming is happening but just due to natural forces?? Or that cooling is happening?? I'm not clear on your position, but I do appreciate the info you have related. Thanks.
 
the earth warms, cools, climates change and continents drift, thats what earth does and has done for several billion years. humans are a mere annoyance if anything at all. to think we can change the power of nature is absurd.
 
We wouldn't be changing the power of nature, just curbing what we do to contribute, .... if indeed we contribute anything.

There are countries that seed clouds to change the weather. We've changed agricultural practices so we don't strip the land and cause dust bowls like we did in the past. We have changed certain bacteria that invades our bodies into stronger ones because of antibiotics. We've taken minute amounts of matter that explode into massive destructive bombs emmitting radiation. If anything that Michio Kaku says is remotely true concerning different Type civilizations, then at some point we should be able to manipulate these natural forces.

Just saying we can manipulate a lot more than some people think. And perhaps, maybe just perhaps, our actions should at least give pause for reflection and examination of what we as humans are able to do or could do.

Pretty much the whole time the planet has been dramatically changing, we haven't been around. There are 7 billion of us here and I'm guessing we effect the planet at least a little bit, and maybe more.
 
I absolutely agree with you that even if AGW is nonsense, that this has nothing to do with how we should treat the planet, find cleaner sources of fuel, and make as little impact as we can. We still need to be environmentally aware.

My real concern here is that alarmists are creating a State of Fear that leads to stupid schemes like Cap & Trade that move massive amounts of money around and do absolutely nothing else. Now we've got the EPA saying CO2 is a poison.

CO2 is a food for plants. During times of high CO2 the planet was lush with vegetation. CO2 means higher crop yields, more food for us. CO is a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
as of today the CO2 level on earth is 387.75 ppm. i would like to see it double... so would plants.
 
I’m still undecided about the global warming thing but I have to say that I’m leaning towards the “its bollocks” point of view. (I don’t like being lied to)

Every day I see at least three adverts telling ME to turn off my lights but in America its fine for coca cola to have a neon sign bigger than my town running 24-7!
Until the big boys change I’m not doing anything.
 
Schuyler said:
My real concern here is that alarmists are creating a State of Fear that leads to stupid schemes like Cap & Trade that move massive amounts of money around and do absolutely nothing else.
Click to expand...

I agree. That scheme seems like a disaster waiting to happen. In the long term we may be forced to find other energy resources as our supplies of fossil fuels run out. It is just a matter of time. Some sources say our year of peak oil production has already past. There was this recent article concerning overestimated oil supply.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
 
Fuel for another thread (ha ha!)

"In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years' worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves."

If petroleum is actually made from dead dinosaurs, then I suppose a case can be made for peak oil. If it is not, and instead comes from natural processes, we may effectively have an unlimited supply.
 
Back
Top