Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Haha...you have changed the subject to coastal flooding. Coastal flooding is merely nature at work, storm tides, do not blame humans for that....but of course you will...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Ok, I'll read through that when I get the chance.
siti
Well-Known Member
Are you f***ing real? Go back and read (if you are able which I am seriously doubting at this stage) what I wrote in post #316 - you changed the subject to floating islands and variations in land area - none of this has anything to do with anything I said and is completely irrelevant. Fact is, higher tides and warmer seas inevitably lead to increased severity and frequency of coastal flooding which compromise fresh water, food supply and sanitation systems. Fact is that sea levels are rising and seas are getting warmer. Fact is increased levels of CO2 caused by human activity contributes to global warming. Fact is that is exactly what I have been saying for the entire sequence of posts on this subject - I have not changed the subject at all - and guess why I can be so confident of this assertion - because I know what I'm talking about - fact. Fact is, quite a number of people, ThePainefulUntruth, Bendy and Debate-unable included, seem completely oblivious to facts even when they are clearly presented before their eyes. I don't know why I have wasted so much time and effort trying to enlighten them - I guess its because I sense we might be related somehow. But now, I give up!Haha...you have changed the subject to coastal flooding. Coastal flooding is merely nature at work, storm tides, do not blame humans for that....but of course you will...
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The sea level rise is not accelerating but slowing according to NASA.."A new study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, and the University of California, Irvine, shows that while ice sheets and glaciers continue to melt, changes in weather and climate over the past decade have caused Earth’s continents to soak up and store an extra 3.2 trillion tons of water in soils, lakes and underground aquifers, temporarily slowing the rate of sea level rise by about 20 percent."..Study Shows Rising Seas Slowed by Increasing Water on Land
Haha....you observed a King tide at the Marshall Islands in 2015 that caused severe flooding...so what? Are you aware that what you saw is not unusual for the Marshall Islands, in fact low lying areas of the world frequently get flooded by King tides since forever? Kirabati is not going under, it is rising as you should be aware if you follow the science..."Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment." ...Pacific islands growing, not sinking
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Ok, so I replied to your post #316 above, the monkey moniker makes me mirthful, also apishly apt avatar ay?Are you f***ing real? Go back and read (if you are able which I am seriously doubting at this stage) what I wrote in post #316 - you changed the subject to floating islands and variations in land area - none of this has anything to do with anything I said and is completely irrelevant. Fact is, higher tides and warmer seas inevitably lead to increased severity and frequency of coastal flooding which compromise fresh water, food supply and sanitation systems. Fact is that sea levels are rising and seas are getting warmer. Fact is increased levels of CO2 caused by human activity contributes to global warming. Fact is that is exactly what I have been saying for the entire sequence of posts on this subject - I have not changed the subject at all - and guess why I can be so confident of this assertion - because I know what I'm talking about - fact. Fact is, quite a number of people, ThePainefulUntruth, Bendy and Debate-unable included, seem completely oblivious to facts even when they are clearly presented before their eyes. I don't know why I have wasted so much time and effort trying to enlighten them - I guess its because I sense we might be related somehow. But now, I give up!
siti
Well-Known Member
Ben - of course I am perfectly well aware that king tides are a normal part of the natural process - again you completely miss the point - which was not to suggest that a King tide was an unusual occurrence caused by recent climate change, but that it emphasized in my mind the extreme vulnerability of these islands to any increase in magnitude or frequency of such events. This is the rainwater catchment reservoir that supplies about a quarter of Majuro's 30,000 population with drinking water (its mostly run-off from the airport runway). The rest of the population depend on run off from their own roof or hand dug wells:
Please explain to me how this is not vulnerable to increased coastal flooding events that inevitably result from rising sea levels and warmer seas.
Please explain to me how this is not vulnerable to increased coastal flooding events that inevitably result from rising sea levels and warmer seas.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Siti, It's vulnerability is what it is, the sea level rise is happening anyway, since before human derived CO2 began to contribute a GHG warming effect, actually since the end of the last ice age when ice sheets and glaziers started melting, and it will continue to rise until the onset of the next ice age. Take a deep breath and get a life, life goes on and humans will just adapt to whatever challenges come their way as they have always done. There are much more credible religions about which, if practiced honestly and persistently, are quite revealing of real truth, seek and you will find..Ben - of course I am perfectly well aware that king tides are a normal part of the natural process - again you completely miss the point - which was not to suggest that a King tide was an unusual occurrence caused by recent climate change, but that it emphasized in my mind the extreme vulnerability of these islands to any increase in magnitude or frequency of such events. This is the rainwater catchment reservoir that supplies about a quarter of Majuro's 30,000 population with drinking water (its mostly run-off from the airport runway). The rest of the population depend on run off from their own roof or hand dug wells:
Please explain to me how this is not vulnerable to increased coastal flooding events that inevitably result from rising sea levels and warmer seas.
siti
Well-Known Member
Again incorrect - sea level has been variable - following temperature as far as we can tell - over the last 10,000 years rising sharply to about 2m above current levels during the holocene climate optimum and again about the time of the Egyptians and Minoans (4000 years ago) and since then oscillating around a few cm above to about 1m below current levels depending on temperature - e.g. following the medieval warm period when temperatures were about where they were mid 20th century (approximately) sea level rose to about the same as now (remember there's a lag between temp rise and sea level rise) - and that's about as warm and as high the sea level has been in the 3500 years since humans first arrived in Micronesia - certainly in the Pacific. And the sea level is continuing to rise in line with global temperature, in line with CO2 levels. We can blithely write off 3500 years of human culture as collateral damage in the course of human progress - I would much prefer a world in which we at least tried to avoid that - but I don't suppose I'm in a majority in that opinion.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Of course it is variable (just like climate), but between ice ages, we can't expect no global sea level rise duh?
The human race will be colonizing other planets well before the sea levels have risen 10 inches at the end of the 21st century, so any climate change refugees from the Marshall Islands are free to volunteer.
As to your comment about losing 3500 years of culture due to a 1C increase in temperature and about 10 inched rise in sea levels.....
siti
Well-Known Member
Uh! Oh I see! This is the "more credible religion" you have sought and found? Congrats - I'm very happy for you! Not sure I'm very happy for the inhabitants of the "other planets" though. Other planets indeed! May I recommend Venus - since CO2 levels are not important. Plenty of room for adaptable climate change 'skeptics' there.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The Moon, and Mars so far as we know, do not have inhabitants, and the lefties will be left behind, only the right people who have the right stuff for the glorious space age future of mankind. No, it is not a religion, it is mankind's destiny.
siti
Well-Known Member
The moon seems appropriate somehow! Give us a wave when you get there.
Vancouversailor
Member
Vancouversailor
Member
An article from the New York Times sums up the issue of climate change quite accurately:
By NAOMI ORESKES OCT. 9, 2015
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — MILLIONS of Americans once wanted to smoke. Then they came to understand how deadly tobacco products were. Tragically, that understanding was long delayed because the tobacco industry worked for decades to hide the truth, promoting a message of scientific uncertainty instead.
The same thing has happened with climate change, as Inside Climate News, a non-profit news organization, has been reporting in a series of articles based on internal documents from Exxon Mobil dating from the 1970s and interviews with former company scientists and employees.
Had Exxon been upfront at the time about the dangers of the greenhouse gases we were spewing into the atmosphere, we might have begun decades ago to develop a less carbon-intensive energy path to avert the worst impacts of a changing climate. Amazingly, politicians are still debating the reality of this threat, thanks in no small part to industry disinformation.
Government and academic scientists alerted policy makers to the potential threat of human driven climate change in the 1960s and ’70s, but at that time climate change was still a prediction. By the late 1980s it had become an observed fact. But Exxon was sending a different message, even though its own evidence contradicted its public claim that the science was highly uncertain and no one really knew whether the climate was changing or, if it was changing, what was causing it.
Exxon (which became Exxon Mobil in 1999) was a leader in these campaigns of confusion. In 1989, the company helped to create the Global Climate Coalition to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change and prevent the United States from signing on to the international Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition disbanded in 2002, but the disinformation continued. Journalists and scientists have identified more than 30 different organizations funded by the company that have worked to undermine the scientific message and prevent policy action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
These efforts turned the problem from a matter of fact into a matter of opinion. When the Exxon chief executive, Lee Raymond, insisted in the late 1990s that the science was still uncertain, the media covered it, business leaders accepted it and the American people were confused.
For people close to the issue, it was never credible that Exxon — a company that employs thousands of scientists and engineers and whose core business depends on their expertise —could be that confused about the science. We now know that they not only understood the science, but contributed to it.
As early as 1977, one of Exxon’s senior scientists warned a gathering of oilmen of a “general scientific agreement” that the burning of fossil fuels was influencing the climate. A year later, he had updated his assessment, warning that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
In the 1980s, Exxon scientists collaborated with academic and government researchers to build climate models and understand their implications. When one researcher expressed the opinion that the impacts would be “well short of catastrophic,” the director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon Research responded in a memo, “I think that this statement may be too reassuring.” He said it was “distinctly possible” that the projected warming trend after 2030 “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population),” a conclusion that most climate scientists now hold, assuming we continue business as usual.
What did Exxon executives do with this information? Until 1989, they circulated reports summarizing it inside the company. They allowed their scientists to attend academic meetings, to participate in panels, and to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals — in short, to behave as scientists. And they did acknowledge the “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”
Then corporate executives turned about face. As the scientific community began to speak out more strongly, first about the risks of unmitigated climate change and then about the fact that it was underway, Exxon executives and organizations funded by them embarked on a campaign designed to prevent governments from taking meaningful action. These activities continue today. Exxon (whose spokesman has disputed the Inside Climate News reporting) had a choice. As one of the most profitable companies in the world, Exxon could have acted as a corporate leader, helping to explain to political leaders, to shareholders and institutional investors, and to the public what it knew about climate change. It could have begun to shift its business model,
Investing in renewables and biofuels or introducing a major research and development initiative in carbon capture. It could have endorsed sensible policies to foster a profitable transition to a 21st-century energy economy. Instead — like the tobacco industry — Exxon chose the path of disinformation, denial and delay. More damagingly, the company set a model for the rest of the industry. More than 30 years ago, Exxon scientists acknowledged in internal company memos that climate change could be catastrophic. Today, scientists who say the exact same thing are ridiculed in the business community and on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. We have lost precious time as a result: of decades during which we could have built a smart electricity grid, fostered efficiency and renewables and generated thousands of jobs in a cleaner, greener economy. There is still time to prevent the worst disruptions of human-driven climate change, but the challenge is now much greater than it needed to be, in no small part because of the choices that Exxon Mobil made.
Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard and the author, with Erik M. Conway, of “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future.”
By NAOMI ORESKES OCT. 9, 2015
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — MILLIONS of Americans once wanted to smoke. Then they came to understand how deadly tobacco products were. Tragically, that understanding was long delayed because the tobacco industry worked for decades to hide the truth, promoting a message of scientific uncertainty instead.
The same thing has happened with climate change, as Inside Climate News, a non-profit news organization, has been reporting in a series of articles based on internal documents from Exxon Mobil dating from the 1970s and interviews with former company scientists and employees.
Had Exxon been upfront at the time about the dangers of the greenhouse gases we were spewing into the atmosphere, we might have begun decades ago to develop a less carbon-intensive energy path to avert the worst impacts of a changing climate. Amazingly, politicians are still debating the reality of this threat, thanks in no small part to industry disinformation.
Government and academic scientists alerted policy makers to the potential threat of human driven climate change in the 1960s and ’70s, but at that time climate change was still a prediction. By the late 1980s it had become an observed fact. But Exxon was sending a different message, even though its own evidence contradicted its public claim that the science was highly uncertain and no one really knew whether the climate was changing or, if it was changing, what was causing it.
Exxon (which became Exxon Mobil in 1999) was a leader in these campaigns of confusion. In 1989, the company helped to create the Global Climate Coalition to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change and prevent the United States from signing on to the international Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition disbanded in 2002, but the disinformation continued. Journalists and scientists have identified more than 30 different organizations funded by the company that have worked to undermine the scientific message and prevent policy action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
These efforts turned the problem from a matter of fact into a matter of opinion. When the Exxon chief executive, Lee Raymond, insisted in the late 1990s that the science was still uncertain, the media covered it, business leaders accepted it and the American people were confused.
For people close to the issue, it was never credible that Exxon — a company that employs thousands of scientists and engineers and whose core business depends on their expertise —could be that confused about the science. We now know that they not only understood the science, but contributed to it.
As early as 1977, one of Exxon’s senior scientists warned a gathering of oilmen of a “general scientific agreement” that the burning of fossil fuels was influencing the climate. A year later, he had updated his assessment, warning that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
In the 1980s, Exxon scientists collaborated with academic and government researchers to build climate models and understand their implications. When one researcher expressed the opinion that the impacts would be “well short of catastrophic,” the director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon Research responded in a memo, “I think that this statement may be too reassuring.” He said it was “distinctly possible” that the projected warming trend after 2030 “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population),” a conclusion that most climate scientists now hold, assuming we continue business as usual.
What did Exxon executives do with this information? Until 1989, they circulated reports summarizing it inside the company. They allowed their scientists to attend academic meetings, to participate in panels, and to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals — in short, to behave as scientists. And they did acknowledge the “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”
Then corporate executives turned about face. As the scientific community began to speak out more strongly, first about the risks of unmitigated climate change and then about the fact that it was underway, Exxon executives and organizations funded by them embarked on a campaign designed to prevent governments from taking meaningful action. These activities continue today. Exxon (whose spokesman has disputed the Inside Climate News reporting) had a choice. As one of the most profitable companies in the world, Exxon could have acted as a corporate leader, helping to explain to political leaders, to shareholders and institutional investors, and to the public what it knew about climate change. It could have begun to shift its business model,
Investing in renewables and biofuels or introducing a major research and development initiative in carbon capture. It could have endorsed sensible policies to foster a profitable transition to a 21st-century energy economy. Instead — like the tobacco industry — Exxon chose the path of disinformation, denial and delay. More damagingly, the company set a model for the rest of the industry. More than 30 years ago, Exxon scientists acknowledged in internal company memos that climate change could be catastrophic. Today, scientists who say the exact same thing are ridiculed in the business community and on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. We have lost precious time as a result: of decades during which we could have built a smart electricity grid, fostered efficiency and renewables and generated thousands of jobs in a cleaner, greener economy. There is still time to prevent the worst disruptions of human-driven climate change, but the challenge is now much greater than it needed to be, in no small part because of the choices that Exxon Mobil made.
Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard and the author, with Erik M. Conway, of “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future.”
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Better than that, a clue will always be left for those following, evolution/religion is not about supremacism, it is about the more evolved moving on, leaving the less evolved the environment and tools to follow in evolutionary time scales, analogous to graduating students of one class, vacating their present classroom for the ones coming up...it is all one movement...one school, many students..
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
And you know this Naomi Oreskes article is accurate how?
Vancouversailor
Member
As a journalist who covered environmental issues, among other things, for several decades, I developed a nose for the truth and an ability to sniff out a lie when I stumbled over one. I trust the information in this article, not least because you do not earn a job as professor in the history of science at Harvard university by being a bull-****ter. And obviously the editors at the New York Times who chose to print this article on their editorial page must have felt the same way. and that is good enough for me.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
And a professor of history would know what about climate science, could she handle a debate with professor Judith Curry on this subject?
Debateable
Member
I was referring to the subject at hand... Teaching or working with Phd's doesn't make you an expert in every field...
Debateable
Member
Yes, I agree, that most of those if not all of those are facts. What is debatable are the degree to which those are facts. That's the discussion here.Are you f***ing real? Go back and read (if you are able which I am seriously doubting at this stage) what I wrote in post #316 - you changed the subject to floating islands and variations in land area - none of this has anything to do with anything I said and is completely irrelevant. Fact is, higher tides and warmer seas inevitably lead to increased severity and frequency of coastal flooding which compromise fresh water, food supply and sanitation systems. Fact is that sea levels are rising and seas are getting warmer. Fact is increased levels of CO2 caused by human activity contributes to global warming. Fact is that is exactly what I have been saying for the entire sequence of posts on this subject - I have not changed the subject at all - and guess why I can be so confident of this assertion - because I know what I'm talking about - fact. Fact is, quite a number of people, ThePainefulUntruth, Bendy and Debate-unable included, seem completely oblivious to facts even when they are clearly presented before their eyes. I don't know why I have wasted so much time and effort trying to enlighten them - I guess its because I sense we might be related somehow. But now, I give up!