The Great Global Warming Debate


I don’t know OW, I quote from Genesis 3:19

“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

Seems fairly legit spiritually


Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust - I take your point but it’s a false equivalence, in that you go and ask an eco-social-justice-rainbow-warrior of average Green Party member, do they agree with the source of that quote and see how they react. :slight_smile:

In other words - you know how MASKS work right?


Why has no one considered attaching a steam generator to the back of a crematorium, would offset the carbon footprint and get one more use out of people.


Quick write a letter to the Greens, they might go on a junket to China with you because I think you might be a senior Chinese military intelligence officer who knows the truth about the coronavirus outbreak! :whistle:


I don’t believe in a God head or an infinite Spirituality but that is a quote I can get behind. We live in a closed system on this planet. Genesis 3:19 is more a statement of fact than one of belief.

Getting back to Climate Change/Global Warming. Do people who disbelieve Global Warming also disbelieve that there is a collapse in Bio-diversity?


If that is the case then does it not follow, that your question has no meaning or relevance whatsoever because it does not matter one bit in the least. How can you get back to something that has no value or meaning - Are you even you?


There does seem to be a problem alright.



I am oddly me :smiley:

Having read the thread I do think the evidence is in favour that Climate Change is real. What I’m not sure of is it’s impact. The changes could be minor until they’re not, the trend is your friend until it bends at the end.

The destruction of habitat and bio-diversity does appear to be a big change and is something that future generations will not thank us for. Even in Ireland, we’re continuing it with the destruction of bogs. I understand that people in the midlands deserve a livelihood but we are also the custodian of this land and should try to behave as such.


I think that this is a bigger issue than “climate change”, not so much the bogs, that can be phased out over time when cheaper & more reliable types of energy harvesting become more the primary energy source (backed up by sufficient battery storage). Loss of biodiversity could result in a disease wiping out significant percentages of the food crops/animals in one fowl swoop, a new variant of bird flu could wipe out much of the global chicken population due to the few species being farmed. The same could be said for many crops.

But Taxing carbon is the main aim, recycling instead of making durables is another, keep that money moving!

Just remember, the economy is more important than the planet.


The four men faced varying charges over incidents of alleged illegal turf cutting on an EU site in Woodford on the 21st August 2012 and in Portumna on 22nd and 23rd of May 2012.

The charges were brought under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 Section 35 (1b) and 67(2).




Strictly speaking, the odd asteroid voids that assumption we are in a closed system, but I understand the attempt to work within a certain frame of cradle to grave thinking.

If you want to cherry picked parts of the Bible to support the argument, and justify a brave new eco world order, foisting a global tax regime ushered in with a global carbon credits (original sin) system, to support a world of rainbows and unicorn mandated children that essentially violates the entire belief system of those who believe the bible to be the word of GOD, I guess you can, because we all have freewill right?

What I find throughly interesting and seems to go unnoticed for the most part, is that the push for the replacement of the fear of GOD requires it be replaced with a new fear, namely a new fear of the Godhead of Climate DOOM or else - it has required the re-branding of ancient beliefs so they are more palatable to the modern mind, derived from a seemingly eclectic mix of various cultures packaged as verifiably wise in this new eco-terrific context, all being oddly similar or highly compatible (funny that), which would essentially if presented to you via other channels (and are) be deemed totally unacceptable and rejected out right, by the modern mind (and is).

It’s clever, no doubt about it but it’s crude all the same, the method being to hammer the survival instinct of man, day in day out, 24/7, to disable the critical faculties, long enough to deliver the real payload (programming) that will enable this brave new techno-coloured world of carbon neutral unicorns flourish because how else do you market a complete totalitarian global power grab… we’d all be better off dead.



It’s just bizarre the number of articles about sea level rise that don’t even try to pretend they have anything to do with sea level rise. It’s as if the reading public are so conditioned to expect climate change catastrophe that they don’t notice. Manila, like dozens of other cities built on river deltas is sinking. San Francisco is built on varied terrain, including marshes and even subsiding landfill in the case of Foster City.

Earth’s sea levels are constantly changing. We actually live in an era of particular stasis. The sea has risen 10 mm per year on average since the end of the last glaciation. The rise has been uneven, up to 20 mm per year during meltwater pulses. Most of that happened before 6000 years ago. In the last several thousand years it’s been a case of seawater being redistributed as land that was depressed by glaciers rebounds. It means sea levels have fallen in some places, and risen in others.

Currently the sea is rising around 3 mm per year on average. That can be attributed to global warming, though not necessarily of the man made sort as it has been going on since the 19th century. Without further acceleration we are looking at 30 cm in the 21st century, about a third of the post-ice-age average. Cities like Manila and Jakarta, though, have seen rises of up to four metres since 1970! Alarmist articles about sea level rise based on these are just downright dishonest.


We are all oddly ourselves, numerically speaking.


Who’s Number 1?


I would agree. Raised beaches are one such example, and can be see in Scotland, where the landmass is rebounding from the last Ice Age. But I would also assume they are talking about net effects here - GPS stations are worldwide and the geoid is being continuously refined, taken together here with tide gauge measurements.

Boon says the report cards add value by providing sea-level projections that are updated more frequently than those issued by NOAA or other agencies. Boon and colleagues also use a statistical approach that includes evidence for the recent acceleration in the rate of sea-level change at many U.S. tide-gauge stations, and stress their use of relative sea-level measurements—changes in water level relative to the land surface on which people live and work. The relative sea-level rise in Virginia and other East and Gulf coast areas is due to both rising water and sinking land.

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. …Past and future sea level rise at specific locations on land may be more or less than the global average due to local factors: ground settling, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

What I take from the NY article is not so much how its happening for those cities, but the social and economic impacts it is causing, as a microcosm of the issues that may transpire on a larger scale if the sea rise impacts are as pronounced as certain models predict.

You have said here before you are skeptical of the models and thats only fair.

EDIT: This is a good visual:


Me thinks you have within your opening, explained the bizarre as not so bizarre at all, by your own observation and supposing, if you allow yourself to admit, there are no if’s and’s or but’s as this is the method.


The beating of the DOOM drum… doom, doom, doom, doom - day in day out, pay your carbon Tax and maybe you won’t notice the doom as you’ve done your bit, nothing to see here and can carry on blissfully assured of your place in new old order of things. You have saved the world by your own right-on officially approved sacrifice.


I can totally get this, though perhaps coming from a different vantage point than you. I don’t believe carbon taxes are worthwhile as I can’t seem them changing consumer behaviour to the point where emissions are lowered (or we get much greater productivity for the energy used). Its not like governments are ever going to ring fence that money anyway.

What we need is Fusion…always 20 years away… :slight_smile:


If that’s the intention I think it’s presented very poorly. Climate change is introduced in the first couple of paragraphs, then the rest of the article talks about sea level rise but not climate change. It’s also not even a close comparison. Land levels have subsided on many coastal deltas in just the last few decades by a factor of several times the worst case predicted sea-level rises by 2100.

The US report cards are also ambiguous. West coast rises are said to be possibly attributable to changes in Pacific winds as part of the PDO. The Gulf Coast changes are definitely associated with land subsidence, since they include the Mississippi delta and Texas islands. I’m not denying climate related rises, and 3 mm/yr seems to be the new norm. But it is not catastrophic and estimates over the last couple of decades have tended to be way too pessimistic.