• 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!

Climate Change: Fact and Denial


How long is a piece of string?

Sounds simple eh?
go on ask me.

seriously though the iceberg that is about to break off is ginormous. Where is Superman and his super breath when you need him?
latest


He could repair it in minutes.

_96832496_antarctic_comparisons_624.png

_96796125_larsen_c_iceshelf_v3.png


Antarctic iceberg: Giant 'white wanderer' poised to break free - BBC News

Icebergs break off and reform each year. It's called the season's.

Antarctic ice is increasing in net volume

I'm not saying global warming is not happening, I'm saying the climate is a complex system and we should keep investigating.

Science is continued paradigm finding and challenging so why stop challenging and probing. Political use of the topic is why
 
First of all... I'm not a climate change denier. Data shows climate is changing.
How could it not? It is a Universal Law that everything changes...everything.

Humans have contributed to an acceleration of this change, perhaps even disturbing what might be called the 'natural evolution' of a planet (in terms of time as we create it), but change is the only constant in terms of all things created. If we had never set foot on Earth, we would still observe change, including massive terrestrial and climate changes, for that is the way that it is.
 
How could it not? It is a Universal Law that everything changes...everything.

Humans have contributed to an acceleration of this change, perhaps even disturbing what might be called the 'natural evolution' of a planet (in terms of time as we create it), but change is the only constant in terms of all things created. If we had never set foot on Earth, we would still observe change, including massive terrestrial and climate changes, for that is the way that it is.

What acceleration?
 
How could it not? It is a Universal Law that everything changes...everything.

Humans have contributed to an acceleration of this change, perhaps even disturbing what might be called the 'natural evolution' of a planet (in terms of time as we create it), but change is the only constant in terms of all things created. If we had never set foot on Earth, we would still observe change, including massive terrestrial and climate changes, for that is the way that it is.

What acceleration?

The physical reality that I am creating has an easily distinguishable acceleration, you may choose to live in a physical reality where that is not your view. Works for me.
 
This is pretty cool!!!
A one trillion ton iceberg – one of the biggest ever recorded – has calved away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. The calving occurred sometime between Monday 10th July and Wednesday 12th July 2017, when a 5,800 square km section of Larsen C finally broke away. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, weighs more than a trillion tons. Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes.
3f49567d22e0a3d716bb9c558310b334.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is pretty cool!!!
A one trillion ton iceberg – one of the biggest ever recorded – has calved away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. The calving occurred sometime between Monday 10th July and Wednesday 12th July 2017, when a 5,800 square km section of Larsen C finally broke away. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, weighs more than a trillion tons. Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes.
3f49567d22e0a3d716bb9c558310b334.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Despite appearances, this is not a sign of climate change.
That giant iceberg breaking off isn’t a sign of climate change — this time
 
upload_2017-7-13_0-9-52.png

Damn too late.

Really I just wanted to say did anyone notice that they keep comparing it to the size of Wales?
Took me a while but now I see that it is because Swansea university have been doing some of the research
 
Omg. This just happened.
"Science is the belief you can solve the problem." --@BillNye


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This guy explains things so even you guys can understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, shucks ... I don't deny climate changes. Here in northern Ontario, Canada, it is noticeably warmer than, say, 50 years ago. Snowfall is maybe half what it was back then.

There are quite a few people who have lived here for circa 50 years and they confirm that.

I see news showing that lakes in California which have been dry or close to it are full this year. Change happens.

I'm not sure I see or experience anything that threatens life on Earth, though. I haven't heard any complaints from the old timers here either. (I'm in my 80s, BTW.)

-- Squirrel
 
Well, shucks ... I don't deny climate changes. Here in northern Ontario, Canada, it is noticeably warmer than, say, 50 years ago. Snowfall is maybe half what it was back then.

There are quite a few people who have lived here for circa 50 years and they confirm that.

I see news showing that lakes in California which have been dry or close to it are full this year. Change happens.

I'm not sure I see or experience anything that threatens life on Earth, though. I haven't heard any complaints from the old timers here either. (I'm in my 80s, BTW.)

-- Squirrel
My God. The world is on fire and there are still people out there who want to throw a cup of water on it
 
My God. The world is on fire and there are still people out there who want to throw a cup of water on it
.
Point well taken, Richard, but there are some related issues which are important, and have not been seriously and transparently evaluated. Some examples:

1. Witnesses, including fire officials, have stated that the way recent wildfires flash into existence, in sync or close to it, strongly suggests well organized arson. Needs a LOT of honest looking-into, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts. Maybe public panel members should be elected.

A friend here in my village saw a TV news item in which the Quebec fires, viewed from satellites, seemed to burst into flame close to simultaneously.

2. Witnesses, including fire officials in California, have reported that the way residential fires there flash into existence, burning residences down to their concrete foundations, sometimes consuming vehicles, but with nearby vegetation remaining untouched, is highly unusual. Deserves investigation, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts.

Allegations of directed energy fire projection need to be part of such investigations.

Allegations of aluminum deposition from "geo-engineering" which can cause hotter and more readily triggered fires need to be investigated.

3. The matter of whether current-day "geo-engineering" technology can actually cause droughts and floods needs to be transparently investigated, with lots of public scrutiny and input.

Then the investigators need to turn to the question of whether geo-engineering is actually being carried out, by whom, for what purposes, and for how long.

4. While we're at it, we need an investigation into what sort of sea level changes are actually taking place. Again, an investigation with public participation and representation - not all experts.

Looking at the closely observed history of the Mont-St-Michel commune on France's Normandy coast might be a good place to start since observational data is available, and which includes public input.

5. There have been allegations that climate data has been manipulated, both by altering numbers, and by locating weather observation equipment in known places with temperatures higher than a truly representative average. Allegations of weather equipment next to tarmac with airliner traffic and hot exhausts need investigation, with public scrutiny and representation - not all experts.

Investigational data needs to be published AS SOON AS ACCEPTED AS VALID by the panel. No waiting until the entire investigation is published. That way, knowledgeable people can criticize at a stage when discovery of falsification can make a real difference.

Waiting to criticize until publication is virtually a guarantee that nothing can change the conclusions.

I feel your pain, Richard. We get dosed with some pretty thick smoke up here ...

-- Squirrel
 
.
Point well taken, Richard, but there are some related issues which are important, and have not been seriously and transparently evaluated. Some examples:

1. Witnesses, including fire officials, have stated that the way recent wildfires flash into existence, in sync or close to it, strongly suggests well organized arson. Needs a LOT of honest looking-into, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts. Maybe public panel members should be elected.

A friend here in my village saw a TV news item in which the Quebec fires, viewed from satellites, seemed to burst into flame close to simultaneously.

2. Witnesses, including fire officials in California, have reported that the way residential fires there flash into existence, burning residences down to their concrete foundations, sometimes consuming vehicles, but with nearby vegetation remaining untouched, is highly unusual. Deserves investigation, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts.

Allegations of directed energy fire projection need to be part of such investigations.

Allegations of aluminum deposition from "geo-engineering" which can cause hotter and more readily triggered fires need to be investigated.

3. The matter of whether current-day "geo-engineering" technology can actually cause droughts and floods needs to be transparently investigated, with lots of public scrutiny and input.

Then the investigators need to turn to the question of whether geo-engineering is actually being carried out, by whom, for what purposes, and for how long.

4. While we're at it, we need an investigation into what sort of sea level changes are actually taking place. Again, an investigation with public participation and representation - not all experts.

Looking at the closely observed history of the Mont-St-Michel commune on France's Normandy coast might be a good place to start since observational data is available, and which includes public input.

5. There have been allegations that climate data has been manipulated, both by altering numbers, and by locating weather observation equipment in known places with temperatures higher than a truly representative average. Allegations of weather equipment next to tarmac with airliner traffic and hot exhausts need investigation, with public scrutiny and representation - not all experts.

Investigational data needs to be published AS SOON AS ACCEPTED AS VALID by the panel. No waiting until the entire investigation is published. That way, knowledgeable people can criticize at a stage when discovery of falsification can make a real difference.

Waiting to criticize until publication is virtually a guarantee that nothing can change the conclusions.

I feel your pain, Richard. We get dosed with some pretty thick smoke up here ...

-- Squirrel
There is not one thing that you say that I could disagree with.
 
Back
Top