Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[TheRealJuliane]

This just came in from a friend:

This is from a converted global warming advocate.

Peter

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!

Once I read his book, I had to agree. This is a summary.

Australians showed sense in resisting the govt pressure to agree to a carbon tax before the Copenhagen Conference - which seems years ago now.

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs …well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

Follow the money, always. Who stands to profit the most from these “carbon offsets?” And who stands to lose the most? Not Western nations, not really. Think of developing continents like Africa, trying to modernize and come up to the Western standard of life. Will they be allowed to develop, or will they also be “offset” and have to keep their mud-hut way of life because they are seen as “noble savages,” somehow better than Western first-world nations?

Of course we have NO CONTROL over volcanoes. ZERO. The earth is on God’s timeline here, and IT’S THE SUN, STUPID, that’s causing any warming or cooling. That big bright star in the sky that God made. All the enviros need to watch this video and feel humbled.

youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg

And this is a nice follow-up, although the presenter is way too hyper for my liking. The astronomy is solid. It’s in 4 parts so just click on the next one after you start with this first part. It is astounding.

youtube.com/watch?v=RKMw1ndl-EY

We are just NOT in control of this.

 

[MaxRosen]

How can we not mention the food crisis and global warming, which make it even more difficult for those living in some of the poorest parts of the planet to have access to nutrition and water?

(Emphasis added)

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS

 

[Monte_RCMS]

(Emphasis added)

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS

That … the Holy Father’s address to the members of the diplomatic corps … was in January 2009, two years ago, and before all the evidence of behind-the-scenes data manipulation and the East Anglia emails and other outright fraudulent activity became public.

Go here:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=climategate&x=13&y=19

It was in 2010, more than a year after the speech, that the flood of revelations was made public in which the evidence of scientific fraud became widely disseminated.

Not sure whether it was merely embarrassing for the Holy Father to have gotten tricked by the alleged scientists … or whether the “scientists” are going to suffer some serious hellfire for their deception.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK everyone, I’m going to step in here to say something.

I am an environmentalist. When the terms “tree huggers,” “Greens,” “Greenies,” or other terms are used in a pejorative fashion I am hurt. Now you can come back and say “What’s the matter - can’t you take it? Why don’t you go out and spike a tree or something?”

My response would be: I do not spike trees. Nor do I hug them.

Most environmentalists, even the Catholic ones, are simply trying to foster this planet we live on in an appropriate way. I do not understand nuclear power, nor will I ever claim to. My mind has problems with learning subjects such as physics, although I did get through a year of college physics with B’s.

I try to stick to what I know. And if I’m wrong about something I appreciate being corrected with data and information that can be backed up with references, and in a polite way. Not one of us is omniscient.

I have stopped reading the posts in this thread because it is too hurtful to me. Some of you know me. Some of you are on my “Friends” list. This is not being friendly to me.

Please stop with the name-calling.

I am not allowed to discuss posters. If I post this I am breaking that rule because I am discussing several of you. This is as far as I feel I can go safely. I cannot defend myself against any flaming. I can’t even agree with anyone except in my mind. I don’t think you want to hurt me and I don’t think you are aware that you are doing this. I’m telling you. And if you’re hurting me you’re hurting others.

I’m leaving now. I’m ashamed of this forum and this thread. But I thank you for allowing me to see that I have done this same thing and way too often. Maybe that plank in my eye is coming out a tiny bit.

That is all I am allowed to say.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK, everyone. I’m going to say something.

I am an environmentalist. When the terms “tree huggers,” “Greens,” “Greenies,” or other terms are used in a pejorative fashion I am hurt. Now you can come back and say “What’s the matter - can’t you take it? Why don’t you go out and spike a tree or something?”

My response would be: I do not spike trees. Nor do I hug them.

Most environmentalists, even the Catholic ones, are simply trying to foster this planet we live on in an appropriate way. I do not understand nuclear power, nor will I ever claim to. My mind has problems with learning subjects such as physics, although I did get through a year of college physics with B’s.

I try to stick to what I know. And if I’m wrong about something I appreciate being corrected with data and information that can be backed up with references, and in a polite way. Not one of us is omniscient.

I have stopped reading the posts in this thread because it is too hurtful to me. Some of you know me. Some of you are on my “Friends” list. This is not being friendly to me.

Please stop with the name-calling.

I am not allowed to discuss posters. If I post this I am breaking that rule because I am discussing several of you. This is as far as I feel I can go safely. I cannot defend myself against any flaming. I can’t even agree with anyone except in my mind. I don’t think you want to hurt me and I don’t think you are aware that you are doing this. I’m telling you. And if you’re hurting me you’re hurting others.

I’m leaving now. I’m ashamed of this forum and this thread. But I thank you for allowing me to see that I have done this same thing and way too often. Maybe that plank in my eye is coming out a tiny bit.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to above post:

I got my “$10” light bulbs for free. Six cases of 'em. At Freddy’s (a very well known Pacific Northwest chain of department/grocery stores). They were giving them away.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Nuclear energy also reminds them of nuclear (atom) bombs, which have been used in war and have killed millions of people, therefore nuclear power must also be very dangerous and it might also kill millions of people. I guess they just ignore France, which has been using nuclear power to its great benefit for decades (no Three Mile Island - type accidents). Nuclear is safe, would take care of a lot of our energy problems (not carbon-burning engines though), and is truly the “green” energy the enviros are desperate for, but they are too stupidly blind to understand that.

The “problem” is that a lot of people have been propagandized to believe bumper stickers.

You throw a polar bear story at them, and that’s it as far as they are concerned.

They have no knowledge of science AT ALL and they can barely know enough math to make change for a dollar.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

OK, everyone. I’m going to say something.

I am an environmentalist. When the terms “tree huggers,” “Greens,” “Greenies,” or other terms are used in a pejorative fashion I am hurt. Now you can come back and say “What’s the matter - can’t you take it? Why don’t you go out and spike a tree or something?”

My response would be: I do not spike trees. Nor do I hug them.

Most environmentalists, even the Catholic ones, are simply trying to foster this planet we live on in an appropriate way. I do not understand nuclear power, nor will I ever claim to. My mind has problems with learning subjects such as physics, although I did get through a year of college physics with B’s.

I try to stick to what I know. And if I’m wrong about something I appreciate being corrected with data and information that can be backed up with references, and in a polite way. Not one of us is omniscient.

I have stopped reading the posts in this thread because it is too hurtful to me. Some of you know me. Some of you are on my “Friends” list. This is not being friendly to me.

Please stop with the name-calling.

I am not allowed to discuss posters. If I post this I am breaking that rule because I am discussing several of you. This is as far as I feel I can go safely. I cannot defend myself against any flaming. I can’t even agree with anyone except in my mind. I don’t think you want to hurt me and I don’t think you are aware that you are doing this. I’m telling you. And if you’re hurting me you’re hurting others.

I’m leaving now. I’m ashamed of this forum and this thread. But I thank you for allowing me to see that I have done this same thing and way too often. Maybe that plank in my eye is coming out a tiny bit.

What kind of work do you do?

Did you take chemistry, physics and biology in high school? How many years of math did you take in high school?

This is not to cause you any embarrassment.

The problem is that the world is increasingly technological … and the only way for humanity to prosper is with cheap energy … and we have a LOT of cheap energy available … except that a lot of “environmentalists” have placed it off limits.

A nuclear power plant simply takes uranium, a naturally-occurring element, part of the periodic table, and uses the normal reaction to heat water and run the resultant steam through a steam turbine which turns a generator.

Same as when you heat the water with coal or natural gas or even geothermally heated water.

In order to use coal, you have to dig it up, clean out the dirt, pulverize it, burn it and then collect the ash and particulates.

In order to use uranium, you need to “concentrate” it. You fashion it into small cylindrical pieces and shove them into a set of tubes and run water around them. Been doing that since 1950 or so. Over the years, we have improved the process a lot and the process works pretty smoothly.

But there are people who literally delight in scaring the “cr*p” out of people by dreaming up fright-night scenarios. They do that for coal, hydro, oil, nuclear and even for natural gas.

They seem to want only wind power (which is expensive and kills a lot of birds) and solar which only works in daytime.

Right now we get maybe 1% of our power from wind and solar. if we could add another 1% per year of wind and solar, it would take 100 years to replace coal, nuclear and natural gas. And as Spain demonstrated, because they literally went bankrupt, wind and solar are so expensive, that NOBODY can really afford them. Wind and solar are more like “boutique” power.

Anyway, apologies for the rant.

People need to get up to speed on science and math.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The “problem” is that a lot of people have been propagandized to believe bumper stickers.

You throw a polar bear story at them, and that’s it as far as they are concerned.

They have no knowledge of science AT ALL and they can barely know enough math to make change for a dollar.

The “problem” is that people make assumptions about environmentalists; such as “they have no knowledge of science AT ALL…” (I assume you’re referring to environmentalists when you make this statement; please correct me if I am not understanding your post correctly).

Most environmentalists are not silly enough to be convinced of anything because of a bumper sticker. Most environmentalists understand enough of the complexities of fragile ecosystems to know that the extinction of animal and plant species, the removal of the inanimate parts of an ecosystem, and the unthinking trashing of the environment can wreak havoc.

I don’t know about “most” but a lot of environmentalists are college educated in science and can easily make change for a dollar.

 

[LittleSoldier]

What kind of work do you do?

Did you take chemistry, physics and biology in high school? How many years of math did you take in high school?

This is not to cause you any embarrassment.

The problem is that the world is increasingly technological … and the only way for humanity to prosper is with cheap energy … and we have a LOT of cheap energy available … except that a lot of “environmentalists” have placed it off limits.

A nuclear power plant simply takes uranium, a naturally-occurring element, part of the periodic table, and uses the normal reaction to heat water and run the resultant steam through a steam turbine which turns a generator.

Same as when you heat the water with coal or natural gas or even geothermally heated water.

In order to use coal, you have to dig it up, clean out the dirt, pulverize it, burn it and then collect the ash and particulates.

In order to use uranium, you need to “concentrate” it. You fashion it into small cylindrical pieces and shove them into a set of tubes and run water around them. Been doing that since 1950 or so. Over the years, we have improved the process a lot and the process works pretty smoothly.

But there are people who literally delight in scaring the “cr*p” out of people by dreaming up fright-night scenarios. They do that for coal, hydro, oil, nuclear and even for natural gas.

They seem to want only wind power (which is expensive and kills a lot of birds) and solar which only works in daytime.

Right now we get maybe 1% of our power from wind and solar. if we could add another 1% per year of wind and solar, it would take 100 years to replace coal, nuclear and natural gas. And as Spain demonstrated, because they literally went bankrupt, wind and solar are so expensive, that NOBODY can really afford them. Wind and solar are more like “boutique” power.

Anyway, apologies for the rant.

People need to get up to speed on science and math.

As I stated before I cannot defend myself. If you want to check my educational background please read my profile. It’s there in detail.

Thank you for the apology.

I won’t respond further in this thread. I’m in enough trouble as it is.

 

[LittleSoldier]

wn.com/Gas_Pipeline_kills_Three_boys_bellingham_washington

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion

hammertonail.com/genre/documentary/gasland-review/

naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/12/natural-disaster-gas-outages-cause-financial-setba/

library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_disasters/nuclear_disasters.html

atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml

world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13602.aspx

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13634.aspx

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13667.aspx

I took a year of high school chemistry and a year of high school physics. I took algebra and geometry in high school.

The “work” that I do is not really relevant to this discussion.

 

[John21652]

LittleSoldier, listen up.

I know you are an environmentalist. I also know you are not a tree hugger, or a “greenie”. Tree huggers and greenies are those who disparage capitalism and espouse some form of illogical, godless gaia worship. ‘Tree huggers’ is a perjorative term. So too is the euphemism “Greenie”. It is used against the hypocrits who supposedly love trees more than people and chain themselves to the trees to prevent logging, but then go home, switch on the electric lights, turn on their air conditioning and rest in the lap of capitalist luxury while they denigrate the capitalist process. Greenies are impractical environmentalists who would have us living in caves, lighting our way with candles and making us feel guilty even about the gases our candles emitt. They are all tared with the same brush, in that they resent our capitalist, western Judeo-Christian tradition and even blame it for our environmental woes. I for one know you are not like that. Tree huggers and greenies who spike trees are dangerous environmental vandals and show scant regard for human life or capital. They are dangerous hypocrites who play on people’s emotions and in the process peddle false ideas amidst a false ideology. The worst, the absolutely base of them all is a man called Al Gore, who literally frightened the world with his errant nonsense of doom and gloom, peddling a message that was full of errors, lies, gross distortions and base errors. yet all the while he lives in the lap of luxury, experiencing a lifestyle which most of us can but dream of. He is “green” in that he offsets his use of electricity by paying others to plant trees and by purchasing certificates which supposedly “allow” him to be a profligate user of energy. Hypocrisy writ large!!

Farmers are the true environmentalists. So too are gardeners and those who actively do things that help keep our environment healthy. Just like you have always done. You, therefore, do not fit the category of “greenies” and 'tree huggers" who rightfully earn our wrath and our contempt. Humans have been less than perfect in our stewardship of the natral environment. We all know that. Unfortunately, the rise and rise of large metropolises have removed much of the world’s population from the directly observable results of their lifestyle. City waste, sewerage, and much of the environmental degradation are ‘external’ to the consumption of city populations. Economists call them ‘externalities’ and until recently, there was no price on the cost of these aspects of consumption that were external to the consumer, except through some vague collecive levy for certain ‘services’. Still, today, the average consumer, city based, is detached from the environmental impacts of their lifestyles. That avergae city consumer doesn’t have much choice, because they are ‘locked in’ to a way of life. Some think wistfully and wishfully and long for a commune style of living, growing their own veggies. Once they have to bury their own sewerage they will understand just how convenient externalities can be!! Governments, however, are realising that the costs must be picked up and this is happening as environmental awareness increases. That is why there is a debate over the various energy sources that human societies might tap into. However, what we don’t need is an emotive, fear based campaign waged by so called “environmentalists” whose real agenda is a whole lot more than simply the environment itself.

 

[vz71]

I took a year of high school chemistry and a year of high school physics. I took algebra and geometry in high school.

The “work” that I do is not really relevant to this discussion.

High school physics and chemistry (at least when I was there) are perfectly adequate for understanding energy production.
If the ‘work’ you do is not pertinent to the discussion then I suppose we can rule out the possibility that you work in a field that provides you with expertise in these fields.

 

[vz71]

But there are people who literally delight in scaring the “cr*p” out of people by dreaming up fright-night scenarios. They do that for coal, hydro, oil, nuclear and even for natural gas.

wn.com/Gas_Pipeline_kills_Three_boys_bellingham_washington

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion

hammertonail.com/genre/documentary/gasland-review/

naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/12/natural-disaster-gas-outages-cause-financial-setba/

library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_disasters/nuclear_disasters.html

atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml

world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13602.aspx

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13634.aspx

brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/13667.aspx

 

[John21652]

Global Warming is now dead, let’s move on…

WE did it. For once, we acted collectively, as humans, huddled together on a fragile planet, rather than as selfish individuals. And we did it: we beat global warming.

So now let’s move on.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia’s coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can’t be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.

This victory happened because individuals pulled together, within nations, and then the nations of the world themselves pulled together. Meetings were held in places such Kyoto. Rousing speeches were made by world leaders. People clapped and felt good about themselves. Documents were signed.

Clearly, with each meeting, each speech, each inked treaty, global warming was pushed back.

Here in Australia, we also did our bit, big time. We declared global warming the great moral challenge of our generation. We talked confidently about doing something or other. (OK, I can’t remember what it was, and we never actually did it, but then we talked about doing something different . . . though maybe not straight away.)

Anyway, it worked, because last year was the coldest year since 2001.

Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others published books and made films. Clearly they deserve a slice of this massive victory over global warming. To them we say: “Thank you, gentlemen, you may now return to private life.”

But now that we know what we can do by dint of collective effort, we should turn to new challenges.

For example, free trade between nations is demonstrably the greatest force there has ever been for the alleviation of poverty, and the equalisation of living standards between nations.

The development of genetically modified crops promises to turn back the tide of hunger and disease in poor countries.

Now that global warming is finished, due attention can be given to these issues.

But before all of that, I think we’ve earned a moment’s pause, just to give ourselves a pat on the back.

We did it. We acted together. We killed global warming.

And now we will never have to hear anything about it, ever again.

 

[JRPO]

Global Warming is now dead, let’s move on…

WE did it. For once, we acted collectively, as humans, huddled together on a fragile planet, rather than as selfish individuals. And we did it: we beat global warming.

So now let’s move on.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia’s coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can’t be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.

This victory happened because individuals pulled together, within nations, and then the nations of the world themselves pulled together. Meetings were held in places such Kyoto. Rousing speeches were made by world leaders. People clapped and felt good about themselves. Documents were signed.

Clearly, with each meeting, each speech, each inked treaty, global warming was pushed back.

Here in Australia, we also did our bit, big time. We declared global warming the great moral challenge of our generation. We talked confidently about doing something or other. (OK, I can’t remember what it was, and we never actually did it, but then we talked about doing something different . . . though maybe not straight away.)

Anyway, it worked, because last year was the coldest year since 2001.

Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others published books and made films. Clearly they deserve a slice of this massive victory over global warming. To them we say: “Thank you, gentlemen, you may now return to private life.”

But now that we know what we can do by dint of collective effort, we should turn to new challenges.

For example, free trade between nations is demonstrably the greatest force there has ever been for the alleviation of poverty, and the equalisation of living standards between nations.

The development of genetically modified crops promises to turn back the tide of hunger and disease in poor countries.

Now that global warming is finished, due attention can be given to these issues.

But before all of that, I think we’ve earned a moment’s pause, just to give ourselves a pat on the back.

We did it. We acted together. We killed global warming.

And now we will never have to hear anything about it, ever again.

G’day Johnny how are ya mate, how’s things in the Gippsland? Hope your not getting flooded where you are.

Thats very funny that article I recon the person who wrote that should be a stand up comedian.

I think it does highlight though how the climate alarmists have to keep changing the name of the fabricated climate issue so they can push on with their agenda.

take a look at this if you haven’t seen it
youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The “problem” is that a lot of people have been propagandized to believe bumper stickers.

You throw a polar bear story at them, and that’s it as far as they are concerned.

They have no knowledge of science AT ALL and they can barely know enough math to make change for a dollar.

Turning idiots out of public schools for 30 years has put us where we are. If they had the TINIEST idea of how science even works, they’d see through the propaganda and it would never have gotten to this point. People don’t even know how to THINK let alone know the actual science involved.

My reiterated point again and again is “Who are we to establish what the optimum temperature for the planet is supposed to be? Did WE create the earth and its climate? How are WE supposed to know? Is it 90 degrees F? or 35 degrees C? And even if we could decide such a thing (temperature is variable all over the planet of course), how in the WORLD could we ever hope to force the planet to do as we think is best???” We cannot force the climate to do anything! If we stopped driving completely, and went back to living in caves, could we GUARANTEE that the climate would change according to our desires??? Of COURSE we couldn’t!!! All this is in God’s hands, since HE and HE ALONE made the world.

But secular humanism sets up the human race as gods. Since we are the pinnacle of creation, then WE must bear all the responsibility if some of us decide WE have caused a problem. And then why can’t the enviros simply follow the money?? As with Communism, SOME GROUP of people are going to be in charge and are going to be made wealthy.

It’s so obvious to me and yet, to so many others, it’s not at all obvious.

And here is LittleSoldier, with hurt FEELINGS but unable to THINK and ANALYZE the truths. I wish she or he would truly just look at the basics of the argument, not the side roads. Although God loves and treasures us, and gave us the earth for our use, and we need to be good stewards, we just can’t ruin his creation to the extent that the enviros claim we can.

 

[DCNBILL]

Global Warming is now dead, let’s move on…

WE did it. For once, we acted collectively, as humans, huddled together on a fragile planet, rather than as selfish individuals. And we did it: we beat global warming.

So now let’s move on.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia’s coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can’t be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.

This victory happened because individuals pulled together, within nations, and then the nations of the world themselves pulled together. Meetings were held in places such Kyoto. Rousing speeches were made by world leaders. People clapped and felt good about themselves. Documents were signed.

Clearly, with each meeting, each speech, each inked treaty, global warming was pushed back.

Here in Australia, we also did our bit, big time. We declared global warming the great moral challenge of our generation. We talked confidently about doing something or other. (OK, I can’t remember what it was, and we never actually did it, but then we talked about doing something different . . . though maybe not straight away.)

Anyway, it worked, because last year was the coldest year since 2001.

Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others published books and made films. Clearly they deserve a slice of this massive victory over global warming. To them we say: “Thank you, gentlemen, you may now return to private life.”

But now that we know what we can do by dint of collective effort, we should turn to new challenges.

For example, free trade between nations is demonstrably the greatest force there has ever been for the alleviation of poverty, and the equalisation of living standards between nations.

The development of genetically modified crops promises to turn back the tide of hunger and disease in poor countries.

Now that global warming is finished, due attention can be given to these issues.

But before all of that, I think we’ve earned a moment’s pause, just to give ourselves a pat on the back.

We did it. We acted together. We killed global warming.

And now we will never have to hear anything about it, ever again.

Wait a second, I haven’t made any money on this serious issue yet!:crying:

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why don’t you go tell the parents of those children that needlessly were killed because of a company’s incompetence, greed, and sloppy maintenance that their sons’ deaths were a nightmarish scenario meant to scare gullible people? I’m sure they would appreciate knowing that their children’s lives were so meaningless and that their deaths are now being used to further advance an illogical agenda perpetrated by people who are too stupidly blind to understand anything except that they like the wind blowing on them, the sun on their faces, and are concerned for the “fishies.”

Also, instead of a why don’t we actually discuss what those videos and articles mean? If they are being used to frighten people they are evidently working. Simply dismissing them with a seems extremely inadequate to me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Turning idiots out of public schools for 30 years has put us where we are. If they had the TINIEST idea of how science even works, they’d see through the propaganda and it would never have gotten to this point. People don’t even know how to THINK let alone know the actual science involved.

My reiterated point again and again is “Who are we to establish what the optimum temperature for the planet is supposed to be? Did WE create the earth and its climate? How are WE supposed to know? Is it 90 degrees F? or 35 degrees C? And even if we could decide such a thing (temperature is variable all over the planet of course), how in the WORLD could we ever hope to force the planet to do as we think is best???” We cannot force the climate to do anything! If we stopped driving completely, and went back to living in caves, could we GUARANTEE that the climate would change according to our desires??? Of COURSE we couldn’t!!! All this is in God’s hands, since HE and HE ALONE made the world.

But secular humanism sets up the human race as gods. Since we are the pinnacle of creation, then WE must bear all the responsibility if some of us decide WE have caused a problem. And then why can’t the enviros simply follow the money?? As with Communism, SOME GROUP of people are going to be in charge and are going to be made wealthy.

It’s so obvious to me and yet, to so many others, it’s not at all obvious.

And here is LittleSoldier, with hurt FEELINGS but unable to THINK and ANALYZE the truths. I wish she or he would truly just look at the basics of the argument, not the side roads. Although God loves and treasures us, and gave us the earth for our use, and we need to be good stewards, we just can’t ruin his creation to the extent that the enviros claim we can.

[bolding added for emphasis]

With all due respect, may I please ask why you believe I am unable to “THINK and ANALYZE the truths?”