The hypocrisy of climate change

[Silver_Shiney]

(13) Wieland, Carl, Tackling the big freeze: Interview with weather scientist Michael Oard, Creation 19(1):42–43, December 1996
(14) Genesis 7:11
(15) Oard, Michael, The ice age and the Genesis flood,ICR Impact June 1987

[colwill]

[quote="Mervyn and Trish"[If they were hard fact, they wouldn't have to change their predictions every five years, because what they guessed before turned out to be wildly out.
What gets me is when they say it's been the hottest/wettest/driest month/year/day etc "since records began". In terms of the life of the planet records began yesterday at best. We have much evidence of major climate change (and back) long before records began and long before we invented the motor car.[/quote]

Well said. Is there anything left that has not been blamed on man-made global warming?

[Not so ancient mariner]

Alan,

Frankly the first argument is not worth the pixels on the screen. Anyone who describes evidence based beliefs with which they disagree as 'myths' clearly has a dogmatic axe to grind and is not capable of making a coherent argument.

]But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see.


Apart from the fact that the figure of 6000 years has been proven to be wildly inaccurate - and presumably the dinosaurs etc never existed -or if they did no explanation is offered for their extinction, nor is any explanation offered for this amazing reduction in CO2 over a period of only 1656 years. There are buildings in Rome that are more than 1656 years old!

He also trivialises the consequences of the outcomes that he is prepared to consider, e.g:
Myth 5: Melting icecaps will drown the continents. Wrong. In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). In the unlikely event that all the ice melted and the temperature increased as much as the highest temperature climate model predictions (warming also causes thermal expansion of the ocean water), the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level.

In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). While true, the rate is increasing (currently about 3mm/year) so even in the unlikely event of no further rate increase, that is a rise of 300mm over the next century.
the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level.
Even for allowing for a rise at the lower end of this scale - say around 20 metres (65 ft) - the number of people affected would amount to almost a quarter of the world's population - and it would inundate a significant proportion of the world's most productive land. Yes, there would still be lots of land left - but you can't grow much on mountainsides!!

I rest my case

[Dark Knight]

you cannot equate science with faith and compare the results

whilst Alan has his view based on his deep faith, which is fine
others have a view based on science, myself included

the thread is about the hypocrisy of climate change not empirical facts or faith

for me ,global warming is caused by cows farting and humans cutting down too many trees and burning fossil fuels, etc, all the proven scientific stuff, yes I am sure there is a hidden agenda from both sides of the tree being hugged
but it the hypocrisy of how this information is distributed and used to enforce ridiculous by laws and regulations that is being discussed is it not?

[Not so ancient mariner]

P.S. I have never claimed that CO2 and other emissions are the sole cause of global warming - but they sure as hell aren't helping matters!

[Silver_Shiney]

Alan,

Frankly the first argument is not worth the pixels on the screen. Anyone who describes evidence based beliefs with which they disagree as 'myths' clearly has a dogmatic axe to grind and is not capable of making a coherent argument.

Evolutionists do that all the time, yet for some reason, that is acceptable.

]But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see.


Apart from the fact that the figure of 6000 years has been proven to be wildly inaccurate - and presumably the dinosaurs etc never existed -or if they did no explanation is offered for their extinction,

How has it been proven to be wildly inaccurate? The dinosaurs died out because of the vastly different climate present after the Flood. Please bear in mind that DNA degrades to nothing after a relatively short period - at measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs). The evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer, (M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, PNAS 94:6291–6296, June 1997) has often found soft tissue in dino bones, including blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. The fossil record alone bears testimony to a young earth.

nor is any explanation offered for this amazing reduction in CO2 over a period of only 1656 years. There are buildings in Rome that are more than 1656 years old!

Sorry, what's your point here?

He also trivialises the consequences of the outcomes that he is prepared to consider, e.g:

Myth 5: Melting icecaps will drown the continents. Wrong. In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). In the unlikely event that all the ice melted and the temperature increased as much as the highest temperature climate model predictions (warming also causes thermal expansion of the ocean water), the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level.

In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). While true, the rate is increasing (currently about 3mm/year) so even in the unlikely event of no further rate increase, that is a rise of 300mm over the next century.
the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level.

Even for allowing for a rise at the lower end of this scale - say around 20 metres (65 ft) - the number of people affected would amount to almost a quarter of the world's population - and it would inundate a significant proportion of the world's most productive land. Yes, there would still be lots of land left - but you can't grow much on mountainsides!!

I rest my case

How does he trivialise the situation of the people who would be affected? Flood plains are so-called for a reason - they weren't created for occupation. If man was a better steward of natural resources, this wouldn't have been a problem.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you don't have a case to rest. The whole evolution/materialistic/naturalistic framework upon which secular arguments are based is a religion in itself - a faith based on [mis]interpretation of the same evidence that we see. If you look at the evidence with an open mind, you'll find it accords with the accounts given in Genesis.

[Not so ancient mariner]

I see no fundamental incompatibility between Genesis, and generally accepted theories of evolution and paleantology.

What I do disagree with is the dogged insistence that the earth is no more than 6000 years old, in spite of overwhelming and almost universally accepted evidence to the contrary.

And I stand by my opinion that the author of that paper would not recognise a serious piece of work if it bit him on the behind. The other papers you list do not have the 'I know it all' flag flying and I will give them - and their references a read when I have time.

I could do a quick scan of the internet and come up with dozens of articles promoting every possible viewpoint on this subject............but then I could also find ones telling me how the americans couldn't possibly have landed on the Moon, who really shot JFK, JR etc.

I haven't looked, but it seems quite possible that the Flat Earth Society may also have a webpage (many a true word is spoken in jest!)

[Silver_Shiney]

Just because the world tells you that the evidence points overwhelmingly to the contrary, does not make it so. There is a dogged insistence that the world is eleventyfive gazillion years old, in spite of the evidence for a young earth, and dogged, if not rabid, attempt to silence those who disagree. We should all be adult enough to listen to other points of view and we owe it to ourselves to look dispassionately at the arguments for and against.

Back to the question of whether climate change is a myth (although it is a fact that the climate is changing), Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman claims, in an open letter to the IPPC, that the CO2 theory fails, according to an article in the Express, 23 October 2014: “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid... There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years”.

William Happer, from Princeton University, agrees with Coleman and commented: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science”.

The fossil record indicates it has been higher in the past than the current level, without the world being devastated by a runaway greenhouse effect.

[Not so ancient mariner]

Young earth? So the science of carbon dating is a myth too?

Yes, I know that in the past there have been periods of much higher atmospheric CO2, methane etc levels, which over an unknown (but probably prolonged) period of time, have then fallen again. There is also evidence that (at least some of) these periods were associated with much higher temperatures, and - as shown by fossil records - extinctions: Not on the scale of that which ended the era of the dinosaurs - but significant none the less.

Finally - and this is my last posting on the subject - I would ask the following question.

IF all the stories of global warming are a conspiratorial myth promoted by governments etc, what is their motive behind it. Put simply - what's in it for them??

Anyhow, the CO2 emissions will be dropping eventually (hopefully soon enough), as the reserves of fossil fuels run out

[towny44]

Young earth? So the science of carbon dating is a myth too?



Finally - and this is my last posting on the subject - I would ask the following question.

IF all the stories of global warming are a conspiratorial myth promoted by governments etc, what is their motive behind it. Put simply - what's in it for them??

Anyhow, the CO2 emissions will be dropping eventually (hopefully soon enough), as the reserves of fossil fuels run out

The answer to your question Notso has been answered several times on this thread, global warming allows Govts. to increase taxes whilst claiming the moral high ground.
I would add that DK provided one of the best solutions to it, if it is indeed a problem, stop deforestation and start replanting the rainforests.

[Not so ancient mariner]

I missed this point

SS wrote: How does he trivialise the situation of the people who would be affected? Flood plains are so-called for a reason - they weren't created for occupation. If man was a better steward of natural resources, this wouldn't have been a problem.

1: Flood plains are the areas beside river that flood at times of high water flow. Most of the coastal areas the would be inundated by a sea level rise do not fall into this category. These areas have been occupied because the land there is relatively flat and fertile.
2: His implication is that there would only be a relatively few people affected, who could easily be accommodated elsewhere, with little more than inconvenience for those affected.
In reality almost a quarter of the worlds population would have to relocate, and with a significant amount of the worlds most productive agricultural land lost to the sea, and still more lost to building housing and all the other infrastructure necessary for the displaced people, there would not be enough suitable land available for food production -and widespread famine would be an inevitable outcome.

However, I totally agree with your statement If man was a better steward of natural resources, this wouldn't have been a problem.

While I don't think we should condemn those who many centuries ago started ekeing out a subsistence living on the best land they could find, it is undoubtedly true that if man had been a better steward of natural resources, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

[Silver_Shiney]

I missed this point

SS wrote: How does he trivialise the situation of the people who would be affected? Flood plains are so-called for a reason - they weren't created for occupation. If man was a better steward of natural resources, this wouldn't have been a problem.

1: Flood plains are the areas beside river that flood at times of high water flow. Most of the coastal areas the would be inundated by a sea level rise do not fall into this category. These areas have been occupied because the land there is relatively flat and fertile.
2: His implication is that there would only be a relatively few people affected, who could easily be accommodated elsewhere, with little more than inconvenience for those affected.
In reality almost a quarter of the worlds population would have to relocate, and with a significant amount of the worlds most productive agricultural land lost to the sea, and still more lost to building housing and all the other infrastructure necessary for the displaced people, there would not be enough suitable land available for food production -and widespread famine would be an inevitable outcome.

However, I totally agree with your statement If man was a better steward of natural resources, this wouldn't have been a problem.

While I don't think we should condemn those who many centuries ago started ekeing out a subsistence living on the best land they could find, it is undoubtedly true that if man had been a better steward of natural resources, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

No, that most certainly was not my implication. Do please read what I said, not what you think I said.

Young earth? So the science of carbon dating is a myth too?

I challenge you to look at the facts. In what way does carbon dating "prove" gazillions of years?

Carbon-14 decays too quickly . Its half-life (t½) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. The time t since radioactive decay commenced can be given by N/N0 = e–λt, where N is the number of atoms measured in the present; N0 is the initial number; λ, the decay constant, which is related to the half life t½ by λ = ln2/t½. This presupposes that the system is closed, so that the loss of atoms is solely by decay, and that the decay rate is constant.

There are many other pointers to a young earth, if you can be bothered to look for them. Just because Dawkins/Attenborough et al tell you something, it doesn't make it true!

[Not so ancient mariner]

This morning on the BBC news they broadcast interviews with people from various places in West Africa, who were making statements such as:

"I don't know what is killing all these people, but it isn't Ebola".
"I don't know of anyone who has died, so as far as I am concerned - it doesn't exist"

It seems to be an all too common mindset these days

[Silver_Shiney]

This morning on the BBC news they broadcast interviews with people from various places in West Africa, who were making statements such as:

"I don't know what is killing all these people, but it isn't Ebola".


Now where have I come across attitudes like that before?

Evolutionists?

Incidentally, you mentioned the Flat Earth Society the other day, presumably with derogatory intention towards creationist? The bible has always taught that the planet is a sphere. You might be interested to know that the last president of the FES, Charles Johnson, was a rabid atheist.

[Not so ancient mariner]

"Silver_Shiney"

Evolutionists? Touche!

Incidentally, you mentioned the Flat Earth Society the other day, presumably with derogatory intention towards creationists?

No, not specifically. Just an example of those that refuse to even consider the possibility that something like global warming might be (even partly) due to increasing CO2 levels.

As for carbon dating, and the C14 half life, you are right in as much as carbon dating per se is not much use for dating things more than 20,000 years ago.
But even one half life is not significantly less than the mere 6000 years the earth i(by some) to have existed. Even allowing for some non linearity in rates of decay, the figure of 6000years is totally untenable.

[Silver_Shiney]

"Silver_Shiney"

Evolutionists? Touche!

Incidentally, you mentioned the Flat Earth Society the other day, presumably with derogatory intention towards creationists?

No, not specifically. Just an example of those that refuse to even consider the possibility that something like global warming might be (even partly) due to increasing CO2 levels.

As for carbon dating, and the C14 half life, you are right in as much as carbon dating per se is not much use for dating things more than 20,000 years ago.
But even one half life is not significantly less than the mere 6000 years the earth i(by some) to have existed. Even allowing for some non linearity in rates of decay, the figure of 6000years is totally untenable.

What I find untenable is that all these dates come from methodologies that are demonstrably suspect and yet they are presented to the public as hard and fast fact.

For example, fossilised trees found in Banbury was "dated" using C14 to be around 28 thousand years old. However the rock in which the samples were embedded are supposedly 183 million years old.

Diamonds contain C14, and specimens from South Africa, Botswana and Guinea were dated at around 55,000 years old. The rock they were found in is supposed to be over 1,000 million years old.

Potassium-argon dated whole rock samples within Mount St Helens as being 350,000 years old. Yet those rocks were known to have formed only a few years previously when the volcano erupted. Another African lava bed was dated by rubidium-strontium straight-line isochron giving an age of 773 million years. Again, this bed is known to have been formed much more recently.

Again, with a sample from India, using the lead-lead method, a whole-rock sample gave an age of 508 million years. With the potassium-argon method, samples of mica gave an age of 450 million years. Zircons using the uranium-lead method gave an age of 572 million years.

All I am trying to show is that conventionally-accepted dating methods cannot be trusted and, while it certainly does not prove a young earth, I fear we are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

[Quizzical Bob]

"Silver_Shiney"

Evolutionists? Touche!

Incidentally, you mentioned the Flat Earth Society the other day, presumably with derogatory intention towards creationists?

No, not specifically. Just an example of those that refuse to even consider the possibility that something like global warming might be (even partly) due to increasing CO2 levels.

As for carbon dating, and the C14 half life, you are right in as much as carbon dating per se is not much use for dating things more than 20,000 years ago.
But even one half life is not significantly less than the mere 6000 years the earth i(by some) to have existed. Even allowing for some non linearity in rates of decay, the figure of 6000years is totally untenable.

What I find untenable is that all these dates come from methodologies that are demonstrably suspect and yet they are presented to the public as hard and fast fact.

For example, fossilised trees found in Banbury was "dated" using C14 to be around 28 thousand years old. However the rock in which the samples were embedded are supposedly 183 million years old.

Diamonds contain C14, and specimens from South Africa, Botswana and Guinea were dated at around 55,000 years old. The rock they were found in is supposed to be over 1,000 million years old.

Carbon dating cannot be used for inanimate samples such as rocks and minerals.

[Silver_Shiney]

Carbon dating cannot be used for inanimate samples such as rocks and minerals.

I suggest you try explaining that to the evolutionists who detected the C14 in the diamonds and thus "dated" them.

Were they there when the diamonds were formed? Do they know how much carbon of whatever grade was present at the time of formation so it can be accurately measured?

No.

[Silver_Shiney]

Geology Professor Ian Plimer has researched sources of carbon dioxide and in an address to Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney on 11 April 2007 he claimed: “about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.” This makes the man-made component 1,000th part of 0.03% which truly trivial, and can be ignored without any fear.

It's a pity we can't ignore the "green taxes" the world's governments are levying on us!

[Not so ancient mariner]

Geology Professor Ian Plimer has researched sources of carbon dioxide and in an address to Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney on 11 April 2007 he claimed: “about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.” This makes the man-made component 1,000th part of 0.03% which truly trivial, and can be ignored without any fear.

It's a pity we can't ignore the "green taxes" the world's governments are levying on us!

Perhaps they know something you don't! - and something that clearly Ian Pilmer (by his own admission) does not understand. Whenever someting happens, there are always some vociferous individuals who insist that (whatever the facts may be) that it is a government conspiracy.

[Not so ancient mariner]

What I find untenable is the dogged insistence in rubbishing techniques widely used and accepted throughout the world by scientists of widely varying political and religious beliefs. Similarly if some of the earlier tenets are to be accepted, then virtually every geology textbook book written in the last 50 years (at least) is complete and utterl nonsense - and by implication, presmably also part of some conspiracy or other.

That I cannot accept.

[Quizzical Bob]

What I find untenable is the dogged insistence in rubbishing techniques widely used and accepted throughout the world by scientists of widely varying political and religious beliefs. Similarly if some of the earlier tenets are to be accepted, then virtually every geology textbook book written in the last 50 years (at least) is complete and utterl nonsense - and by implication, presmably also part of some conspiracy or other.

That I cannot accept.

The problem here is the 'widely used and accepted' phrase. The scientific world is as full of dogmatic opinionated people as all other walks of life and always has been. Some of them will outdo the most extreme religious zealots in their attempts to force everybody along the same line of thinking. Take everything with a large pinch of muriated natrium, as a wise man once told me.

[towny44]

What I find untenable is the dogged insistence in rubbishing techniques widely used and accepted throughout the world by scientists of widely varying political and religious beliefs. Similarly if some of the earlier tenets are to be accepted, then virtually every geology textbook book written in the last 50 years (at least) is complete and utterl nonsense - and by implication, presmably also part of some conspiracy or other.

That I cannot accept.

Notso, I don't believe there is a conspiracy but I do think that so called "green taxes" have been very useful for many Govts.
However as regards whether the very minor man made increase in CO2 levels is likely to lead to cataclysmic climate change, I remain sceptical. There appears to be no firm evidence that current climate patterns are any different from those experienced several centuries ago, and the ebbing and flowing of ice caps, glaciers and sea levels may be no more than the Earth has always experienced over recent recorded history.
But I do accept that as the population increases we should endeavor to ensure that energy supplies do not run out and we should therefore be applying maximum effort to develop a non toxic supply source. This is never going to be provided by wind, solar or any other fanciful source espoused by the Green environmentalists, we should therefore stop fretting about wastefully applying the brakes to the non stoppable roller coaster of civilisation and realise that only by funding scientific reasearch to find a clean energy supply will we achieve a lasting solution to Earth's problems.

[Dark Knight]

flippin eck
this is more fun that question time and university challenge all rolled into one with a side helping of mythbusters

some well argued and logical points made by both sides

bravo gents

[Mervyn and Trish]

If windmills are the answer to saving the polar bears it's a shame that of the hundred or so I saw this morning (windmills, not polar bears) only three were actually going round. We're paying more in subsidy for them not to work than we are for the paltry amount of electricity they generate.

Just saying.