• 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!

Listener Round Table

Forums New posts
FLB.Sam

FLB.Sam

Paranormal Novice
I love the paracast, have listened to it for some time now. I have been wanting to join the forums here for awhile, and finally got pushed to with the episode that came out today, (I will admit i'm only 1/3rd of the way through at this point).

It drives me crazy that there are still climate change deniers. I guess it is a combination of factors from scientific illiteracy, to straight up propaganda. The conspiracy isn't that changing society to a more sustainable path is some sort of power move by various (unnamed) groups. The conspiracy is the fact that oil, coal and other dirty industries are PAYING SCIENTISTS AND LOBBYING GOVERNMENTS to keep us from getting off of oil. How is it easier to believe that there is some monolithic and secret group working to take away our rights by inventing data, and getting something like 97% of scientists to agree than it is that a powerful industry is feeding us propaganda in order to protect their profits?

Also, someone brought up that there is no climate data before the industrial revolution? There is a whole field of science called paleoclimatology that looks into ice core samples and can gather atmospheric and other data from thousands of years back.

SOURCES:
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Lobbying Spending Database Oil & Gas, 2012 | OpenSecrets

Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

20 most profitable companies - Exxon Mobil (1) - FORTUNE

Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record : Feature Articles

Climate Change: Evidence
 
FLB.Sam said:
I love the paracast, have listened to it for some time now....There is a whole field of science called paleoclimatology that looks into ice core samples and can gather atmospheric and other data from thousands of years back...
Click to expand...
Welcome *Sam and thanks for tuning in... Yeah, you're right, "climate change" is real. So are the price of coal-fired plants coming on-line every week in China. How we as individuals divvy up responsibility is subject to interpretative conjecture. I don't claim to know anything conclusive about anything, let alone "climate change," but one thing I am fairly sure of is that "Gaia," (or whatever term you'd like to use when referring to our planet "Earth") will be here long after we are gone. We are an experiment that may or may not survive. IMO: The most we could hope for is that we are a virus that may have the potential to adapt enough to survive beyond our own footprint, before the law of averages renders our species "moot."
 
Just getting into this episode. It's very nice to hear the voices behind our best posters. For those of you who've never heard of U.N. Agenda 21, some thoughts . . .

Agenda 21 is not complicated. Hatched by the United Nations in 1992, it's all about control; control of you. Wrap your collectivist control scheme in a green ribbon and people won't fear it. But you should.

Globalists want to control where and how you live, what you eat, how much water you use, how much fuel you use, how much electricity you use and how much property you can have. They wish to control the curriculum in public schools. They want to control land use, get you out of your wasteful automobile, control how much carbon dioxide you produce and get you into an energy-efficient apartment. No one needs a large lot and a large house, don't you know. Father of Agenda 21, former U.N. official Maurice Strong said, "The affluence of Americans is a threat to the planet." Oh yes, we overindulgent Americans are crowding together and creating havoc. I wonder if Mr. Strong has been to Montana? North or South Dakota? Wyoming or Texas? Nebraska? Kansas? What a crowded mess.

This is a liberty issue. Agenda 21 and other U.N. schemes (gun control) are liberty killers. Years ago, George H.W. Bush said a New World Order was coming. Well, it's here. Resist.



 
How is it easier to believe that there is some monolithic and secret group working to take away our rights by inventing data, and getting something like 97% of scientists to agree than it is that a powerful industry is feeding us propaganda in order to protect their profits?
Click to expand...

Don't even try, Sam. Don't even try.

Science is pointless and corrupt, or something. Whoever heard of a paleoarcheowhateveritz. Whatever it is, it's probably got a liberal agenda with all those letters. All I know is, my local weatherman has an "ist" at the end of his career title, and he believes there's no change at all. It was cold last year, now it's cold this year. What else do you need?

Besides, long-standing, validated-beyond-the-argument-for-corruption scientific journal papers that explain climate change, how it works and why it develops are waaay too long to read. If my twenty year old lawnmower that I'm too much of a drooling dick to replace is causing too big of a carbon footprint, why isn't warmer around my house than my neighbor who has one of those newfangled electric jobs (that probably acts as a government probe at night and tracks his location by GPS signal!)? That's empirical data, chief.

The Earth is immortal. It has equal value as a lifeless, rocky, asteroid impersonator as it has as a green, living planet with lifeforms. It's all subjective, anyway. Screw anyone who isn't me; I'mma do what I want! Viva la Yukon XL!
 
FLB.Sam said:
I love the paracast, have listened to it for some time now. I have been wanting to join the forums here for awhile, and finally got pushed to with the episode that came out today, (I will admit i'm only 1/3rd of the way through at this point) ...

... Also, someone brought up that there is no climate data before the industrial revolution? There is a whole field of science called paleoclimatology that looks into ice core samples and can gather atmospheric and other data from thousands of years back.
Click to expand...

Glad you enjoyed the show ... and excellent post yourself :) . Just to clarify my comment regarding climate change and the industrial revolution. It was meant to point out the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution because that's when the relevant contribution of CO2 by man began. Add to that the advent of jet aviation, which deposits millions of tons of water ( a much more effective greenhouse gas ) directly into the upper atmosphere, and logic alone would suggest that the extra insulation up there must have some effect. Exactly what effect is the point of a lot of debates.
 
I have to listen to this thing. I generally wait until 6 to 10 episodes are logged before I listen to the shows (as that is generally enough to pass three days at work when mixed with music and other podcasts), but I might just get this one early. I'm hoping to hear about personal experiences. I am not hoping to hear about climate change, but I'll take what I'm given.
 
A few people here (e.g. a couple of roundtable participants) really, really need to wise up on global warming.

I think it was Dean who claimed that only 40 or 50 scientists or so 'believed' in man-made global warming. I'm sorry, what..!? What non-sense! And it's a deliberate lie if it's not a statement based on ignorance.
Fact: The vast majority of scientists in the field totally accept man-made global warming, because they understand the chemistry and physics of the issue.

And please drop talking about 'belief' here. We are not talking about beliefs, we are talking about chemical processes in the atmosphere. Material fact is not about 'belief', we are talking physical science.

What is evident is that American anti-intellectualism is still going strong, especially in conservative/religious circles. It's quite disgraceful how some people on that side will try to spin global warming (which is a problem for the good ole petrol-industries) as a conspiracy. That's a massive cop-out. Something is not like you wish it was, and that makes it a conspiracy? That's thinking like the wackos over on ATS.

Finally: the attitude that 'Oh, I don't believe it, so I won't change anything' is spineless and not in the least bit 'conservative'. If you can't 'conserve' a vibrant Earth, you are not a conservative. Sensible conservatism: Southern Agrarians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Business as usual is not the solution here. Be part of a necessary change, instead. And be taken seriously outside conspiratorial/anti-scientific circles.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Welcome *Sam and thanks for tuning in... Yeah, you're right, "climate change" is real. So are the price of coal-fired plants coming on-line every week in China. How we as individuals divvy up responsibility is subject to interpretative conjecture. I don't claim to know anything conclusive about anything, let alone "climate change," but one thing I am fairly sure of is that "Gaia," (or whatever term you'd like to use when referring to our planet "Earth") will be here long after we are gone. We are an experiment that may or may not survive. IMO: The most we could hope for is that we are a virus that may have the potential to adapt enough to survive beyond our own footprint, before the law of averages renders our species "moot."
Click to expand...
The idea of Gaia is good, it explains ecological science neatly: Diversity is neccesitated by certain balances. If these balances tip one way or another, we see a diminished variety in nature. If we reach the tipping-point with regards to heat, we are in serious trouble. James Lovelock's name will remain in the future, he provides ecological insight in a way that lifts the issue from scientific papers.

Now is the time to bitch less about what people are doing outside our individual spheres of influence (China), and bitch a whole lot more about why the the national energy infrastructure isn't changed more rapidly in the Western world? Why are leaders in the US destroying nature twice by fracking for gas, or extracting oil from tar-sand? Why not do something completely different? It's a finite ressource anyway, someone will have to make the change, why not now?

True, as individuals we can only do so much, but when enough people are on the barricades, and support the relevant interest groups and parties, it will help. What is useless is being fatalistic about the issue.

ProphetofOccam said:
Now you guys are raising the dead with your commentary. Good going.
Click to expand...
Hendrix can't die, that's a musical fact :D
 
Won't add a single worm to the already large can of the global warming debate. But I did enjoy the Roundtable immensely. And as I said on another thread, I think all of these guys have yet more to offer in future Roundtables.
 
Great show! It was cool to put voices to the posts on here.
Goggs, BTW, I was stationed at Ft. Meade in the late 80's. Did I hear you right when you said you were there at one time? I worked with several British and Australian troops, great guys all of them.
 
boomerang said:
Won't add a single worm to the already large can of the global warming debate. But I did enjoy the Roundtable immensely. And as I said on another thread, I think all of these guys have yet more to offer in future Roundtables.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. The idea to have shows that feature forum members is an OVER THE TOP EXCELLENT way to bring focus and continuity to both the Paracast forums as well as the show itself. It really breeds and exemplifies member respect and civility on the highest and most healthy level. Truthfully IMO, the MRT (member round table) show is the best edition of the Paracast I heard since the Skinwalker Ranch show. Rarely do I listen to a whole show from start to finish but this one I did because of how extremely up to date relevant and varied it was. I applaud each separate member for representing and elucidating themselves so well, and I especially thank Gene and Chris for just being so damn genuine and easy to communicate with. IMO G&C, you guys have absolutely demonstrated beyond a doubt that if there is one quality, and indeed TALENT, that you both share and excel at bringing to the forefront of your show each week, it's being ultimately REAL first and foremost. You are both a couple of cool and humble cats that have and keep a sincere mojo on the go. All qualities that I am sure we'd all like to see a lot more of from the Fortean spokesperson community at large. Rock On!!!
 
Jimi H. said:
A few people here (e.g. a couple of roundtable participants) really, really need to wise up on global warming.

I think it was Dean who claimed that only 40 or 50 scientists or so 'believed' in man-made global warming. I'm sorry, what..!? What non-sense! And it's a deliberate lie if it's not a statement based on ignorance.
Fact: The vast majority of scientists in the field totally accept man-made global warming, because they understand the chemistry and physics of the issue.

And please drop talking about 'belief' here. We are not talking about beliefs, we are talking about chemical processes in the atmosphere. Material fact is not about 'belief', we are talking physical science.
Click to expand...

"Ironically, using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.- Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D."
 
ProphetofOccam said:
And, with that, I remove myself to go read about aliens. Have fun, fellas. Make sure to mop up the blood when you're through.
Click to expand...

The issue of climate change was discussed on the show, so I don't know why anyone would find it objectionable to talk about it here as long as one issue does not monopolize the discussion. I have strong opinions on certain issues, and the best way to understand an issue is to learn the best arguments of the opposing side and then see if my own facts and arguments hold up. I think that we can and do have a healthy amount of tolerance and patience here on the forums for opinions that we do not agree with but that we may learn from.
 
Back
Top