Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
60
#1
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.
Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.
It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.
But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.
But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.
That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.
But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.
Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.
While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.
The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.
Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)
Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.
There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.
So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Global Warming is a fact!! It is not a fact it is caused by Humans. The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. Just like we cant control the weather, we cant control the natural cycles of the Earth. In order to survive, we must adapt. Just like our ancestors crossed the great land-bridges thousands of years ago, to escape the cooling of the earth(ice age), we will have to adapt as well. The left is using it as an agenda to instill fear in the masses. Fear is control!!!!
 
#4
#4
Don't forget that England and France were joined but a huge Ice Lake thawed out and carved out the English Channel!
 
#5
#5
CountVolcula said:
Global Warming is a fact!! It is not a fact it is caused by Humans. The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. Just like we cant control the weather, we cant control the natural cycles of the Earth. In order to survive, we must adapt. Just like our ancestors crossed the great land-bridges thousands of years ago, to escape the cooling of the earth(ice age), we will have to adapt as well. The left is using it as an agenda to instill fear in the masses. Fear is control!!!!
Click to expand...


uh....don't forget about the money
 
#7
#7
Plimer is a tool, but believe what you want. There are several hundred feet of ice that disagree with his assertions of CO2 levels being the lowest in 500 million years.

Plimer, if an increase in solar radiation is the cause of all recent warming as you claim, why is the stratosphere cooling? That doesn't make any sense.
 
#8
#8
IPorange said:
Plimer is a tool, but believe what you want. There are several hundred feet of ice that disagree with his assertions of CO2 levels being the lowest in 500 million years.

Plimer, if an increase in solar radiation is the cause of all recent warming as you claim, why is the stratosphere cooling? That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

global_warming_panic.jpg
 
#9
#9
So what do all the Global Warming Nazis have to say about all the scientific evidence that says Antarctica (the coldest place on Earth), during the Cretaceous Period, had a sub-tropical climate. Was it because all the Dinosaurs were driving SUVs? Come on!! Dont believe everything you hear! Global Warming and "Going Green" are the new make me feel good, cause my life actually sucks, anecdote, for the Liberal Hollywood elite. Do you think they will dump all their limos, SUVs, sports cars, for a Honda Insight? Get Real!!
 
#11
#11
They think they can attach themselves to the "feel good, I care more about the environment than you crowd", it will give some meaning to their otherwise meaningless life.
 
#13
#13
CountVolcula said:
So what do all the Global Warming Nazis have to say about all the scientific evidence that says Antarctica (the coldest place on Earth), during the Cretaceous Period, had a sub-tropical climate. Was it because all the Dinosaurs were driving SUVs? Come on!! Dont believe everything you hear! Global Warming and "Going Green" are the new make me feel good, cause my life actually sucks, anecdote, for the Liberal Hollywood elite. Do you think they will dump all their limos, SUVs, sports cars, for a Honda Insight? Get Real!!
Click to expand...

They say continental drift and land mass free poles. You don't know what you are talking about, with respect. Antartica was several degrees north at the time, in subtropical latitudes. Ocean circulation patterns were totally different, and there were no land masses building up ice sheets at the poles creating positive feedbacks of cooling climate.
 
#15
#15
You're right. Carry on picking and choosing facts to misreport and misrepresent, folks. My bad.
 
#16
#16
IPorange said:
They say continental drift and land mass free poles. You don't know what you are talking about, with respect. Antartica was several degrees north at the time, in subtropical latitudes. Ocean circulation patterns were totally different, and there were no land masses building up ice sheets at the poles creating positive feedbacks of cooling climate.
Click to expand...

Ha, shows what you know, Antartica wasn't even a name given to a continent then...so how could Antartica have been several degrees north at the time? Huh?
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
TennTradition said:
Ha, shows what you know, Antartica wasn't even a name given to a continent then...so how could Antartica have been several degrees north at the time? Huh?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The Earth is only 6,000 years old and people were around by the end of it's birthday week.
 
#19
#19
IPorange said:
They say continental drift and land mass free poles. You don't know what you are talking about, with respect. Antartica was several degrees north at the time, in subtropical latitudes. Ocean circulation patterns were totally different, and there were no land masses building up ice sheets at the poles creating positive feedbacks of cooling climate.
Click to expand...

During the Cambrian period, Yes, Antartica, or Gondwana, was farther north. It was quite larger then and the northern point was closer to the equator. The Cambrian Period was between 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago. The Cretaceous Period was between 145 million and 65 million years ago. That is a difference in periods of 300 million years. Antarctica had already made its drift south, close to the geological point it is now. If you read my post you would see that I mentionioned Global warming during The Cretaceous Period, because Dinosaurs and large conifer forrests ruled Antarctica during this periond.

Here is a map of the Cretaceous Period to assist you. At the bottom of the globe is Antarctica and on the west part(right) of Gondwana is modern day Australia.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
dantheman617 said:
Apparently because I recycle and live eco friendly I have a miserable life
Click to expand...

No, I did paint with a wide brush. I recycle and try to be as eco-friendly as the next. But I also realize that this "fear" that we all will die and we will destroy the earth, if we dont do something now , is nonsense.
 
#23
#23
CountVolcula said:
No, I did paint with a wide brush. I recycle and try to be as eco-friendly as the next. But I also realize that this "fear" that we all will die and we will destroy the earth, if we dont do something now , is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I do not believe all that crap. I choose not to live my life in fear cause Al Gore says too...
 
#24
#24
CountVolcula said:
During the Cambrian period, Yes, Antartica, or Gondwana, was farther north. It was quite larger then and the northern point was closer to the equator. The Cambrian Period was between 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago. The Cretaceous Period was between 145 million and 65 million years ago. That is a difference in periods of 300 million years. Antarctica had already made its drift south, close to the geological point it is now. If you read my post you would see that I mentionioned Global warming during The Cretaceous Period, because Dinosaurs and large conifer forrests ruled Antarctica during this periond.

Here is a map of the Cretaceous Period to assist you. At the bottom of the globe is Antarctica and on the west part(right) of Gondwana is modern day Australia.
Click to expand...

Read the climate section from the same place you got that image. It will aid you. The oceans were stagnant in vertical circulation, and much hotter than today.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top