“And God saw all the things he had made, and they were very good…And the Lord God took man and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it and to keep it.” These extracts from Genesis (Douai) remind us that attention to global warming is not merely a practical matter but a moral obligation required by God.
We have discussed the issue on this Blog at a time when global warming was almost an open question. We are left with Trump continuing to remain sceptical, taking the USA out of the Paris Agreement and reversing moves to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal fire power stations. I was convinced of the threat of global warming when a highly qualified physicist friend, some years ago, took me through the detailed projections and the evidence behind these.
You will all have read at least summaries of the latest UN panel report. It is essential to limit the temperature rise to 1.5̊C to avoid massive and damaging changes across the world. To do this would require changes in our diet, and a large drop in the level of CO2. And that means substantial changes in our lifestyle. There will be huge movements of emigrants from hotter countries, and many would die from drought and coastal flooding. And so on and so forth. While we have already addressed potential changes in our lifestyles, most of them are at no more than an infant stage.
So perhaps we could consider what we must be prepared to do in order to fulfil God’s requirement “to dress it and to keep it.” And are our personal choices enough? Should we be in active crusade to persuade others?
With the recent terrible events weatherwise around the world one might be tempted to think that the forecast doom and gloom of our weather systems uncorrected was already upon us.
For my part – although agreeing wholeheartedly with the experts that the unpalatable but necessary steps must be taken – I am at a loss as to what I could realistically do to help.
Gone are the days of marching in protest demanding that authorities DO something about it and it appears there is still disunity as to the validity of the discussion and (that seems to be all that HAS happened – with just one or two bold exceptions.)
Maybe I should challenge my children and grandchildren to take a stand because if the predictions are ignored and the chaos and calamity forecast takes place when they are having to battle with it all I will be in better place hopefully – perhaps just as an observer!
The Global Warming movement is emotion over science, a progesssive political cause. The motivations behind it are several, and ought to be considered seriously, but only with the understanding that they are based primarily on emotional and political conviction, not firmly on scientific knowledge.
Scientific tools may reasonably be used to make tentative projections of future events. That’s good and necessary. No intelligent, responsible person of whom I’m aware would dispute that or has disputed it.
What’s disputable and regrettable is the perfervid apocalypse-now atmosphere engendered by the Global Warming movement and taken up enthusiastically by much of the news media, which are never-endingly in search of sensationalism and conflict.
Human beings, en masse, are easily and quickly excited. Smart people eager to push agendas know and take advantage of that, sometimes cynically, sometimes with what they believe are the purest of intentions.
We need to talk about climate forecasting and plan for the future using the best scientific tools available, but, to the best of our ability, we also need to keep the conversation free from strong emotion, ideological conviction, and political manipulation.
I see the few that have contributed to this topic so far, mix the terminolgy somewhat. Global warming is when the planet is heating up. There are various reason for this that has been studtied and found especially in the South Pole for example there are many underwater volcanos going off presently. This may contribute some of the polar caps ice melts.
Climate Change is being rachetted up as an immediate threat to the planet, politically. Some so-called scientists doing this work are indulging in bad science. It is not so much meterological science that is being done by the IPCC, but computer projections which in the past have proved alarmist, false and they have had to lengthen their projections. Not only that, the IPCC have deliberately changed facts to their computer graph projections, such as the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.
The IPCC want to control the narrative on Clmate Change even though their projections are deeply suspect.
And as real scientists have found out through core samples, tree rings and the like, the temperature
was around 4.5 with little or none contaminants during the middle ages, such as we have today.
David Smith’s comment above is spot on.
The IPCC as a body is political and ideological and manipulative. But take a closer look and what you find, is a Globalist Communist plot to penalise the West by the East.
To shut down practially all production in the West, and pay for the privilege, and handing everything over to Globalist Communists of the East who are bad polluters of the atmosphere.
It is time the IPCC were called out on the ramifications of their real agenga.
One last thing. Those who don’t agree with the IPCC are called Climate Change deniers.
Nothing is further from the truth. Disagree with IPCC certainly, but they know that the climate has always been changing up and down on this planet. To what degree it is changing in the past, medium term and long term, they have the science to back their view that Climate Change according to the IPCC is practically non-exesitent to make any real difference on the planet.
Sorry for so many mistakes in my posting above, hope it is still clear enough. I am in a lot of phyical pain at the moment and it is very distracting.
I think there are 195 governments behind the production of the latest Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change report from the UN. It claims we need to limit the rise of temperature on the planet to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the middle of the century. How likely is that to become reality, is the point.
Pope Francis (describing climate as “a common good”, Laudato Si, 22-26) is no less urgent in his appeal to everyone to face the problem at a personal, community and governmental level.
The lulling effect of strings, like those on the Titanic, is detectable in the call to talk nicely about it all to each other. The otherworldly language of “Paradise” is part of the same concern.
That is a concern shared with Christians everywhere. Our reading of scripture has not cultivated a good sense of collegiality with creation. The non-human part of God’s creation especially.
Filling the earth, and subduing it; ruling over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28:Douay-Rheims) – all language that supports the centuries of first world planet usage that has got us into the mess we are in.
Considering this, I hope that 1.2 billion Catholics on the planet could make a positive difference.
Also, the islands visible from here that are far out to sea were once a very pleasant day’s walk for the men, women and children who lived in this place. That is a sobering thought when it comes to climate change. It is also part of our world.
The atmosphere heavy with CO2, as you rightly point out is the problem. It is hard for us to give up the polluted paradise we have created in God’s name.
The atmosphere is not ‘heavy with CO2’; carbon dioxide is a trace gas (0.035%) albeit an important one as it is part of the carbon cycle and contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect’ without which we could not survive.
Climate change in the form of global warming and cooling has always been with us. There is historical evidence that overall temperatures were higher 1000 years ago than they are today, and that there was a ‘mini-ice age’ from the 13th to the 18th centuries. As recently as the 1970s climatologists were predicting another inter-glacial trough, and the buzz-word was ‘global freezing’.
Anthropogenic climate change is a hypothesis. Some of the more ludicrous computer predictions of the 1990s have been scaled back, but the scare-mongering continues. The gradual warming since 1800 coincided with the so-called Industrial Revolution, but there is no evidence that the two were connected.
There is no moral obligation to align oneself with any ‘scientific’ theory, however plausible. The man who rejects evolution in favour of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis may be labelled obscurantist, but is not morally at fault.
For most of the Church’s history it was believed that fasting and penance could avert natural disasters. However, I suspect that those who advocate lifestyle change to mitigate global warming would be the first to pooh-pooh that notion.
Meanwhile, Pope Francis would be better employed addressing the moral turpitude in high ecclesiastical circles, as highlighted by Archbishop Vigano, rather than focusing on secular issues which have no shortage of well-placed advocates.
That’s interesting, john. Particularly this:
For most of the Church’s history it was believed that fasting and penance could avert natural disasters. However, I suspect that those who advocate lifestyle change to mitigate global warming would be the first to pooh-pooh that notion.
David Smith – “We need to talk about climate forecasting and plan for the future using the best scientific tools available …”
I suspect we may be lacking an important element of this plan. Hard to imagine what can encourage this sort of dialogue if the widely accepted scientific view isn’t something people trust or are listening to.
I agree with the comments of David Smith and John Nolan. However, two good side effects of the global warming hysteria could be the reduction in waste and the control of gluttony. The food that is thrown out each year is criminal. The over-indulgence in food and drink is obvious to us all as we walk down any main street in the western world.
If global warming leads us to re-examine the seven deadly sins and we make efforts to avoid them, than I can tolerate the false predictions and the hysteria.
Geordie, you are quite right. The western world, despite its supposed over-population, has more food than it needs. Africa, which as a continent is relatively under-populated, seems to teeter on the edge of famine. We are told that unequal distribution of resources is the fault of the west; the reality is that endemic and pointless conflicts, combined with chronic political and economic mismanagement, are to blame.
Where the West might effectively intervene is disallowed as being neo-colonialist, which gives essentially malevolent Powers like China a free reign.
What sort of things did you need convincing of before your physicist friend discussed the details with you? Did you cover any of the concerns and criticisms mentioned here?
I am certainly no expert on climate change, so my instinct is to consult the authorities whom I judge to be the most likely to be right. The physicist I consulted I knew to be reliable and extremely competent. She provided me with several examples of comparative studies, and explained the methodology. Of course any study, however meticulous it may be, can be wrong. Does anyone know of a better authority than the IPCC, and disagrees with them?
Yes Quentin, there is a better authority than the political Globalist/Communist than the very deceitful and manipulative IPPC.
Google up SPPI for yourself and anyone interested in the the scientific factson climate change and studies done to date by SPPI
Thank you, Nektarios. Obviously you have some information which is not available to me. Nor apparently to Google. SPPI, it tells me, is concerned with price inflation over time. On the other hand the IPPC is shown as a large intergovernmental organisation devoted to the study of climate change. Try http://www.ipcc.ch/ and you’ll get the idea.
With respect to the problem of global warming, I don’t see the significance of CO2 being only a trace gas or of it being part of the carbon cycle.
The idea that science offers “tentative” predictions seems somewhat strange to me too. Is that as confident as we imagine science being for any predictions it makes, in any field of study, or is that only so for some science? If it isn’t always the case then does its use here reflect the level of confidence expressed by the scientists themselves or is it some other group’s assessment?
As I have pointed out this Globalist/Communist cabal called the IPPC want to and for now do control the narrative on climate change.
The IPPC talk of and vaunt the many, many scientists under the IPPC umbrella giving us all these climate change details. Look a bit closer, we find many of these scientists work is in universities around the world.
The IPPC control the narrative for now on climate change, even though nothing has really happened over the last twenty four years or so. but if these scientists were to truly say what is going on, they would be castigated by IPPC as ‘climate change deniers’, a term untrue by those who actually do do the science and measurements on this are reluctant to speak out, thousand of them around the world and they would lose their posts, salaries, demoted as scientists, so many don’t speak out against the IPPC methodology and narrative. Many are in the position where they are literally being blanckmailed by the IPPC.
The Universities they serve in have bought into have bought into the IPPC narrative on climate change. But look a bit closer at these universities in America and Europe and we find many are bankrolled by the Chinese Government.
To answer Quentin’s point , that SPPI is controlled by price inflation over time. I wonder if you are aware just how much it would cost? Let me put it this way, it would, with having to halt agriculture and most production in the West, to receive our hand outs from the East, would bankcrupt the West which is the Globalist/Chinese/ IPPC agenda.
Without all out war, this is just not going to happen.
I don’t buy into conspiracy theories regarding climate change, and if there is global warming which can be scientifically measured, then I can accept it, based on the evidence. However, we are not talking about things that exist now, which science can explain. We are being expected to believe that science can predict the future, which is an entirely different matter.
In the 1970s the Met Office stopped doing ‘long range forecasts’ since they had proved to be completely unreliable. The recent hot summer in the UK and northern Europe was attributed to a change in the jet stream, which is not connected with climate change.
Climate science is still in its infancy. The effect of ocean currents, for example, is only imperfectly understood. No doubt in the course of events we will know more.
The IPCC does not carry out original research. From its inception it has produced reports that support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which starts from the premise that climate change is almost entirely due to human factors. Anything that emanates from the UNO needs to be treated with the utmost reserve; it is a platform for political posturing that has signally failed in its avowed aim to ensure world peace. Indeed, rather than resolving conflicts, it has arguably exacerbated them. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, was more effective in this regard.
The only way to ‘prove’ anthropogenic climate change would be to remove all human beings from the planet for the next hundred years and monitor the results. Otherwise it’s merely speculation.
John Nolan “The only way to ‘prove’ anthropogenic climate change would be to remove all human beings from the planet for the next hundred years and monitor the results. Otherwise it’s merely speculation.”
This is something that you would expect of any such hypothesis before accepting that greater confidence amongst experts was justified? Mere speculation that manmade CFCs contributed significantly to the depletion of the ozone layer? The points you’ve raised don’t apply there? Trace gas. Naturally cycled in and out of the atmosphere. The air not “heavy” with fluorocarbons. No re-run of history without mankind as a point of comparison. A known process by which the gas has an impact but no direct evidence of a link. No other process that the experts know of that explains the data but no “proof” either.
I would be sceptical about the way the IPPC relases the data and indeed so much of the data itself. The IPPC are not really qualified to talk about the data. The IPPC simply want to manipulate their version of the data ti meet their agenda.
I don’t hold or follow conspiracy theories either, nothing can be more conpsiritorial than the IPPC agenda and use of data.
There are climatologist scientist out there that do the science and the measurements and produce the data. Like I said earlier;- “The IPPC control the narrative for now on climate change, even though nothing has really happened over the last twenty four years or so. but if these scientists were to truly say what is going on, they would be castigated by IPPC as ‘climate change deniers’, a term untrue by those who actually do do the science and measurements on this are reluctant to speak out, thousand of them around the world, and they would lose their posts, salaries, and be demoted as scientists,
Sorry about the spelling errors.
I recall much of this same discussion a while back under the heading of Laudato Si.
We all inhabit a spectrum between outright rejection and acceptance of the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Personally, even as a scientist I do not require rigorous scientific proof in order to understand and believe every single thing that affects my life and requires sensible action. Sometimes common sense is sufficient.
The carbon which we are adding to the atmosphere was deposited and trapped underground during the Carboniferous and Jurassic eras when the climate was very different from todays. Apparently there were forests at the south pole. By reinjecting that carbon back into the atmosphere we are risking in-part recreating the climate of these times but without allowing flora and fauna millions of years to adapt.
Aside from changes to my own lifestyle I can see good practices around me. For example, a part of the bus fleet in my city is hydrogen fueled and the hydrogen is produced by renewable means. Also a medium sized off-shore wind farm is visible from the end of my street. That is the wind farm that Donald Trump objected to because he claimed it would spoil the view from his new golf course.
Are we seriously waiting for irrefutable scientific proof before making any adjustments to our daily practices? The undeniable balance of probability based upon observation and upon clearly explained likely causes-and-effects is screaming at us. There’s no point arguing about degrees of warming and timings. That’s like speculating at length about how badly injured you’ll be if you step into the roadway without looking – when all you really need to know is “that would be a very silly thing to do, so don’t do it”.
On the topic of climate change and global warming. The scientific proof of the IPCC
is all political and does not stand up to scrutiny. would you be surprised to know, and this is the proper climate science that the temperature has only rise by .9 of a degree in the last 20 years or so and there could be many, many reasons for that.
I have sent Quentin a 14 minutes interview with one of the leading climatologists in the world. Ask Quentin to sent it to you if you wish to get the real facts on climate change and global warming.
Your new topic of the week on the Bible has not yet appeared on the blog site?
To be honest N, if you’d read what I wrote you’d realise that I don’t give a monkey’s about the IPCC.
(sorry if the following is a duplicate)
N, with apologies, you will see from a previous post of mine that I don’t give a monkey’s about the IPCC or any other talking shop
I am not talking about the IPPc either. But is they that are controlling the narrative.
If you want facts, not a talking shop, this is what I gave Quentin on Climate change. Ask and you shall receive. Otherwise, you are reading events wrongly, Get the facts then make up your mind up.
The penny has dropped even in Houston Texas. Once upon a time the 4th largest conurbation in the nation had a notoriously enviro-sceptic population until extreme weather events brought the city to a complete standstill already twice this century.
In spite of early scepticism and resistance, the surrounding counties and their dormitory towns are now linked to the city by very high quality and very well utilised buses operating out of park-and-ride centers and using dedicated lanes straight to “downtown”. Once in downtown you can travel anywhere on the excellent, and expanding tram system.
I recognition of the city’s impressive provision of public transport, large facilities such as conference centres and sports grounds (including the famous Astrodome) have found it convenient to relocate from the suburbs back into the city centre, regenerating inner-city districts and reversing urban sprawl.
A nearby fossil-fuel burning power station (the 2nd largest in the USA) now has “carbon-capture” and is heading towards being carbon-neutral. That is a move that the UK government refused to finance here.
So the Americans, and even the Texans, in spite of their non-signature to various treaties and accords, are actually getting on with it.
Get all the Facts of Climate Change:
N, that is by no means whatsover the repository of all the facts on climate change, let alone scientific ones.
I will however pass the reference to my daughter who had to be evacuated from her home at night with two young children as the water rose around them in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. She’ll be cheered to learn that there are still people who will simply not accept that climate change is aggravated by human activity and thereby contribute to the lack of implementing solutions.
I am sorry your daughter was caught during Hurricane Harvey. Glad she survived.
I understand your reluctance to accept that these variables in the weather are a natural phenomenon. Man-made climate change according to the IPCC with scaremongering after anything like Hurricane Harvey is to be accepted. As the reference I sent you, these events are natural occurrences and nothing to do with man-made climate change.
I agree with you, the interview with the leading climatologist and scientist is not the repository of
all the facts on climate change nor could be in an interview of only 14 minutes length.
we have long long since passed the point at which we have the luxury of browsing scientific papers in order to decide whether action is required – or of crediting any individual as being “the” leading climatologist.
Climate changes in the past are correctly attributed to natural events which in most cases have been identified eg solar activity, volcanoes, meteor strikes, break-up of supercontinents etc etc. In other words something is known to have happened which affected the climate. None of the above natural effects is occurring currently to any significant degree. So we have to look for another cause, and we don’t have to look very far. The role of humans in affecting the planet is profound. I challenge anyone to take a picture out of an aircraft window anywhere which doesn’t show a landscape created at least in part by human activity and that includes my recent flight over southern Greenland. To suggest that this human activity does not affect the climate seems wildly optimistic.
Thank you for your thoughts regarding my family members who endured some of the affects of Hurricane Harvey. Life returned to normal for them quite quickly without long term effects. So they faired much better than many.
You are right that I do not accept that the current climate change is due to natural effects. If it is a natural effect, exactly what natural effect is it? It’s a big ask to expect people to believe that pumping unimaginably huge quantities of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not having a bad effect – meanwhile some natural effect, as yet not explained, is causing the damage.
Fortunately the days of the “Zombie Response” to climate change are over. That was already apparent from what I can see of economic activity locally here and on my travels. It seems that I wasn’t just imagining it.
The G20 conference is drawing to a close. This is a meeting primarily of economists, bankers and financiers rather than politicans – in other words (like it or not) the real movers and shakers.
Examples of some statements are
“taking action on global warming not only avoids damage but could boost jobs and growth”
“The low-carbon economy presents numerous opportunities and investors who ignore the changing world do so at their own peril.”
“The low-carbon economy is the growth story of the 21st century and it is inclusive growth. That has grown stronger and stronger and is really compelling now.”
“Trump’s suggestion that action on climate change was a jobs killer was “dead wrong”. You don’t create jobs for the 21st century by trying to whistle up jobs from the 19th century.”
IPCC and Al Gore on Climate Change is already a multi-billion dollar industry.
Trump is right as far as being a proposed job killer for the West as the narrative goes by the IPCC are concerned the West is the bogeyman and practically all industry and agriculture has to stop and be handed over to the big polluters in the East, China and India, which would bankrupt the West.
As I have said numerous times on this subject, it is political and behind that is the Globalist/Communist agenda.
There are many other aspects to this diabolical IPCC narrative. What started it all off was the alarmist Professor Mann, who did a computer graph with the now infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph
which projected the temperature would rise incrementally to dangerous levels.
In America, Professor Mann refused to hand over the data of how he had arrived at the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph. Who of his peers had reviewed his work, which had nothing to do with what he taught at the University, but done on its computers. This on-going at the moment.
Professor Mann’s projection of dire consequences to the planet if his projection is ignored.
The IPCC took over the narrative and compounded the computer projection and error and since this is about all the IPCC can provide is computer projections which have been proved wrong many times. The threat to climatologists are under threat if they contradict IPCC many of who work in universities and they would automatically lose their posts and livelihoods not to mention their reputations which are based on the science, observation, experiments and measurements, none of which backs up the Globalist/ Communist political agenda with its political mouthpiece the IPCC’s findings and threats with their proposed dire action that needs to be taken. It is all false from Professor Mann to the IPCC and the real threat of what climate change is really all about, which is,
a Globalist/Communist world take over and dominance.
Readers do not think if this goes ahead it will save the planet, it has nothing to do with the planet
but world power and dominance. Perhaps we will be next of undesirables and be eliminated.
you’ve missed the point. Things have moved on regardless of the science. The movers and shakers are moving the economy towards a low carbon future. They are not doing that out of altruism, they are doing it for profit. Countries and institutions who “don’t get it” are simply consigning themselves to history.
They talk of a low carbon future, carbon is already low in comparison what it was in the 12-14th centuries. The companies jumping on the low carbon bandwagon are indeed doing it for profit.
Without enough carbon particles in the atmosphere, trees won’t grow sufficiently neither will crops grow and develop as they should. In turn, this will impact the weather.
All this is the plans of the Globalist agenda and consigning people by whatever means, lies and deceit, not to history but death.
We are dealing with rich elites here who think they will win this battle – and they may, but not without a fight as we are witnessing all over Europe, UK and America. People are waking up the fact they are being duped.
Yes everybody understands the essential function of the “greenhouse” in maintaining a viable planet, but equally they also understand the dangers of the “runaway greenhouse effect”.
The low carbon bandwagon as you describe it is already, or very nearly, the underpinning principal of the economy even as we speak.
The “rich elites” you refer to includes 2 of my 3 children who work for companies engaged in low-carbon projects. Not because of any idealism on their part, but because that’s where employment opportunities now exist. My son, based in the Netherlands, is working on a project for a Chinese client.
May I also ask which rich elite is funding Sir David Attenborough?
I get from where you are coming from now. Interesting question where Sir David Attenborough and by whom is funding him. The BBC initially, other than that I don’t know.
Concerning your children and what they are working in and for whom, seems to back up my previous arguments.
Nektarios – “Concerning your children and what they are working in and for whom, seems to back up my previous arguments.”
How so in contrast to it backing up the alternative argument (namely that there is a genuine threat to the environment/climate that these new jobs and business opportunities can both serve and profit from)?
Yes Alan, that’s the point. Finally, the mainstream economy is engaged in environmentally responsible enterprises, delivering valued goods and services at a profit, and providing high quality and rewarding employment.
Yes, as I have said previously, it is certainly economically profitable as it is a multi-billion dollar industry.
But the IPCC narrative with their threatened scientists and climatologists don’t convey the truth on the matter.
There has been no real change to the Climate over the last 20 years or more, FACT!
The rise in temperature over the last 30-40 years or more is only a mere 0.9 degree.
The IPCC narrative just because they keep on changing the lastest to catastrophe levels
and repeating the same narrative built on a false computer model projections does not make it true. That trick has been done by politicians and certain religious bodies for centuries but still does not make it right. It was false in the beginning and it is false today.
if one puts rubbish data in, one can only get rubbish data conclusions. Such is the whole in my book sinful, lying Climate Change narrative.
Of course, the climate changes all the time and Nature has its way of cooling the climate down or heating it up.
Even if we doubled our carbon footprint, it would only see a temperature rise of less then 1 degree. not a catastrophic problem as David Attenborough at all says. In fact, it may take as much as 200 or more years with a doubling of carbon emissions to raise the climate temperature, not a problem for anyone.
Since Sir David Attenborough has been globe-trotting for decades, he is so keen to cut our carbon footprint, I wonder as an individual what his carbon footprint is? A bit hypocritical on his part don’t you think?
Nektarios – “A bit hypocritical on his part don’t you think?”
His personal carbon footprint might be a price well worth paying. It’s no good leading by example if no one gets to see you lead. If BBC cast and crew had to reach their assignments on foot the work might have lacked some of its impact.
“There has been no real change to the Climate over the last 20 years or more, FACT!”
If you look at the data then exactly the same can be said for a number of periods of similar duration over the past couple of hundred years (and more). All you need do is be selective about the starting dates and you can find several such examples. Decades when the temperature climbs, those when it dips and those where it doesn’t change much at all. But if you pick starting dates at random and look at the following decades or if you look at periods longer than a couple of decades the wider trend is harder to ignore.
I’m sure he doesn’t need to have the potential irony of his position pointed out to him. Nevertheless his globe-trotting has afforded him a platform from which to address billions, including the most in-a-position-to-do-something-about-it individuals on the planet. An environmental cost-benefit audit of his globe-trotting would therefore be favourable.
I believe that he expresses his own views without the bidding of corporations, so he is not hypocritical in that respect.
Unfortunately, Sir David Attenborough appears to believe the IPCC narrative, though he knows only too well that changes are taking place all the time; species are dying out and the effects on the planet; and, with what the Globalist and Communists are planning, man is on the way out too, that is, if we let them. All over the world, people are waking up to the fact they are being duped and fighting back.
On the planet side of things, apart from plastics and dangerous chemicals being dumped in rivers, seas and oceans and getting into the food chain, something that can be tackled by man as irresponsible men are responsible.
A casual read of the Egyptian and Jewish history showed there were times of plenty, times of drought and famine often for several years at a time. Climate change? No, just well-known occurrences in the weather. Knowing these things they planned accordingly with granaries and reservoirs and dug deep wells for water and irrigation.
In the so-called advanced era, modern man seems understands even less than those of old did of the world around them, of nature, nor are we so united and practical to solve our problems as they were.
Nektarios, you love to blame “globalists and communists” – why don’t you just say “Jews, Freemasons, Communists” like the Third Reich. Blaming somebody else for the ills of the world has happened since time began. The rate at which species are being extinguished in our current age is unparalleled with anything in the fossil record and whereas man works in decades and centuries nature works in millennia at the lowest scale.
I don’t want to blame anyone, but the fact is the Globalists and the Communists are the biggest threat to mankind presently and are to blame. Catch up on what the Globalist and Communists are doing now, then perhaps we can discuss it further.
We know thousands of species are dying out, but as to being unparalleled, somehow I don’t think that assertion stands up to much scrutiny.
The recently-unparalleled scale of extinction stands up to every scrutiny that can possibly be applied to it.
Throughout the fossil record there have been 5 Global Mass Extinctions, the last of which brought the Cretaceous era to a close, 66 million years ago, when 76% of all species were lost. We don’t always know what caused them but most had something to do with rapid climate change, usually with an identifiable trigger. 66 million years ago it was a meteor which struck the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico.
Biologists (note “biologists”, not globalists or communists) have the evidence that we’re living through the early stages of the sixth major mass extinction and in this case the triggering effect for the rapid climate change is human activity.
Regarding Sir David Attenborough, he has come to his own conclusions based on his observations over several decades. These conclusions may indeed be close to those of the IPCC but are not influenced by it. It’s not so much “conspiracy”, more “great minds think alike”.
Minutes ago Jackie Long, presenter of Channel 4 News actually posed the following jaw-dropping question to an interviewee. I had to compose myself before typing this.
Quote: “So we’re on the brink of the first mass-extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs – should we be worried?”.
Assuming that her question was genuine and not intended as a dark joke, then it highlights a major issue that we seem to have in this country – namely that influential people in the media seem to have given up full-time education around the age of 8 – at least the science part of it.
I shouldn’t have laughed. It’s too serious a problem. But I couldn’t help it!