CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Christianity - Environmentalism; or lack thereof.
In the Christian bible, Adam and Eve were originally intended as caretakers of the earth. Why is it you think, that many modern Christians seem to ignore this fact and be completely oblivious or very lacking in their support of environmentalism? If you are Christian, I'd be interested to know where you stand on this issue, and why.
The bible also says we should go fourth, multiply and generally be the best that we can be. learning many talents.
-
what even constitutes "Environmentalism" anymore. because when I went through school we talked about how the most "Ecologically productive" areas were forests. but to turn the whole world into forest would extinct quite a lot of species. so I mean, are you saying "Environmentalism" as related to our ~Carbon Problem~ or are you saying it as endangerd species or are you saying it in the conservation of resources?
*
Because the Christians I know are very much the last, decently the middle and not at all the first.
I guess I mean environmentalism in the sense of supporting existing ecosystems, trying to conserve natural resources and not engage in damaging extraction techniques, and preserving species, etc. Basically, I have not met many Christians at all who take preservation of the earth seriously and I am wondering why... Because to me, what little I remember of the bible seemed to be pretty pro-earth. lol
The Book is full of contradictions. if there is a god, I would believe that all his creations deserve respect. but I feel like the barren fig tree parable (Luke 13:6-9) from the new testament (and thus more "Christian" book) indicates that we should only save the creatures that work in favor of humans. which is very paradoxical to your point. hence lots of contradictions.
:( Well that is sad to know. I will have to read the book in depth myself, but I always thought the story of Noah and the ark told us to appreciate the life that we have here and preserve it if need be.
So let me explain somethng to you. Christians believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. Do you really think God could not handle a little polution or carbon emissions?
God could in a heart beat cleanse our atmosphere. We have heard the sky is falling from the left wing environmentlists for decades and guess what? Most of their scare tactics have proven false. They once said we were heded towards global cooling. Al Gore said our coast would be flooded right now from melting ice caps! It is big money politics. The Democrat party takes huge amounts of campaign money from environmentl groups and lobbyists.
I don't believe a word out of their mouths and we have found scientists have lied to prop up their narrative.
The global cooling myth was a media induced claim and not backed by science. The science at the time backed global warming but a story ran in newsweek caught legs. Can't blame science for a claim they didn't make, that would be a strawman argument.
Al Gore isn't a climate scientist. Fromwihtin seems to ignore what the real science says and continue with his agenda to attribute claims made by media and politicians to the science rather than being reasonable.
...we have found scientists have lied to prop up their narrative.
I would hardly call the denial side of climate change scientists. Oh he means the real scientists have lied to prop up this idea? Ummm...nope. This accusation keeps getting propped up by fromwithin but he is hardly a credible source for this information.
I would hardly call fromwithin objective on this issue, even in front of evidence opposing he continues spreading the global cooling media myth instead of addressing the evidence.
My guess as to why so many christians are not environmentalists in the states would be that many Christians are also connected to a political party that takes an anti science stance. The ideas are linked for many Christians to political ideology. I mean look how fromwithin talks abiout "the left" rather than discussing science.
The strange thing, and the thing that seems to kep radicals like FromWithin going, is that they seem to think U.S. Democrats speak for the world! The world doesn't read American magazines, the rest of the world doesn't listen to Al Gore, yet the rest of the world is spending billions to combat coastal flooding. The rest of the industrial world signed on with President Obama to reduce greenhouse gasses. The Democratic Party gets no money from that "rest of the world." (They may if we get the wrong Republican running for President. They might call it a "defense fund").
I'm glad to find out that the U.S. Democratic Party actually runs the rest of the world. Maybe we DO have a chance to save it ... (God's creation, if you must).
I personally feel like the jury is still out on A. If global warming is a real thing and B. If it's impacts are necessarily harmful. more B than A though.
-
Views have been expressed that the heat is a natural cycle that we have not yet seen the full implications of. as heat can cause CO2 to dissociate out of the ocean and trigger a bit of a positive feedback loop. in a situation where that's the case it seems like the world should have hit sauna hot much quicker than it is though.
-
I kinda just feel like a lot of people are talking out of their ass on the global warming issue. like I mentioned before, if we want to make a change we'd start irrigating deserts and planting trees tomorrow. even if that executed all the desert dwelling animals.
Jury still out? Public opinion sure but scientists across the globe from different backgrounds, races, religions and specialities all agree that global warming is happening and that humans are the cause. Here is a list of science associations from across the globe that all seem to agree humans are causing climate change. Here is another list. Notice that no accredited scientific organization disagree with anthropogenic climate change. Plenty of political sources have dissenting opinions though...
More importantly this scientific concensus is supported by the specialists in the field. There have been many studies looking into this from several different angles all coming to the same conclusion that humans are responsible for todays changing climate.
Cook et al (2003) surveyed 12,000 peer-reviewed papers and followed that up with 2000 direct questions to publishing climate scientists.
All of these come to similar conclusions and have a robust methodology. The peer reviewed body of evidence suggests that 97% of climatologists agree, humans are causing global warming.
Views have been expressed that the heat is a natural cycle...
Really? Who says..what studies are they referencing? No natural cycle can be identified being responsible for todays warming. The warming outpaces milankovitch cycles, total solar irradiance has remained steady/decreasing while the warming increases, volcanic activity isn't the culprit and so on. The warming fits the fingerprint from CO2 emissions. Here is NASA's account of the climate forcings.
..as heat can cause CO2 to dissociate out of the ocean and trigger a bit of a positive feedback loop. in a situation where that's the case it seems like the world should have hit sauna hot much quicker than it is though...
so...its too slow? If you are going to try to cite the bogus hiatus...its bogus. The claim that global warming has slowed down ignores that over 90% of the warming goes into the oceans and focuses on less than 3% of the warming that goes to the atmosphere.
I kinda just feel like a lot of people are talking out of their ass on the global warming issue.
The thing is, if the "Climate Changers" are wrong, we've cleaned up the atmosphere ... absolutely no harm done! If the deniers are wrong, we miss the chance TO possibly save the world ... LOTS of harm done, an absolute tragedy!
Now, It's not like the top earning, (and polluting), corps can't afford to delay their 3rd or 4th home, or that larger yacht ... or the island to park it at, they CAN, easily! In so doing they make life livable for our (and their), grandchildren ... HORRORS! To do something to save "God's Creation! (agaln, if you must), and maybe hurting their bottom line a bit?? That's a terrible thing to do ... apparently. Bottom line> livable world? ... bottom line< livable world? Only the very stupid (and greedy) among us think that's a hard decision!
Then, again ... there's that chance to hammer at Al Gore, that liberal scumbag that's collecting $millions, like those buying that yacht, and a chance to make science look stupid .... hmmmm!
I'm giving you the run-around and I'm sorry I'm not always as clear as I want to be. It's been a while since I've cared to even chat about global warming. let alone make a reasonable point about it.
-
It's happening, humans are the cause, but even with every fact that seems to be given on the subject, it still feels like (to me) that they're missing something critical. Chiefly, if climate change effects are really going to matter.
-
the main result they keep talking about is a mass extinction event X% of the existing species and super storms. but, if first world countries dropped to zero emissions tomorrow, factors such as the partial pressure of CO2 dissolved in the ocean, our dairy farms, our breathing, volcanoes and third world countries that have no choice but burned fuel for survival, would still create more than enough CO2 that we'd all be "doomed" anyway. it's already been set in motion, it's feeding back on it's self. so unless we figure out a way to scrub the air nothing is going to change. That. is the point I'm trying and failing to make.
-
(I'm exaggerating at this point just a little)
If we want to do something we need a big BIG carbon sink. trees do that. and we'd need to Irrigate deserts. plant trees pretty much everywhere there aren't trees already. but that would destroy habitats. so does that really work in our favor? and if we plant those trees would it really successfully reduce temperatures, or are we just talking out of our butt and no amount of treedom can successfully sink all the carbon?
-
therefore! if it is real,( in a sense that it's effects are notable) there's virtually nothing we can do. so it will either prove to be bogus (in the sense that the effects were grossly over exaggerated) or it will prove catastrophic (in which case there was nothing we could do, and humanity is virtually wiped from the map)
-
I don't care. that's really what it comes down to.
Do you have a wife? Kids? Grandkids? Friends that do? I'm an Atheist and I care about this planet and the people on it.... no matter HOW it was created ...and the people on it. If I was being chased by a bear I wouldn't just stop and let it have its way with me, I'd do everything I could even if I didn't have a chance, you would too, I'd bet. On the battlefield I'd fight to the last bullet if I was being run over! I can't believe YOU believe what you are saying ... "I surrender! Kill me (and all my friends)!" No.
You deny a viable late term Baby is a human life deserving of protection when you support killing the baby every time you vote for Democrats. WHO IS LIVING IN DENIAL?
There are nine no restriction abortion states that the Democrats support. Do you ever vote for Democrats? If so, go preach to someone else you pious judgemental hypocrite living in denial of what you support.
There is at least a debate between scientists if the increased carbom emissions are man made or naturally occuring. There is NO DEBATE that the Democrat party support no restriction abortion states.
The problem with the phony conservative "humanitarian" outlook is that a babies "rights" begin at conception, and end at birth! If the mother can't take care of a (or another) baby, can't feed or get medical help .... like at a Planned Parenthood Facility, "Too bad"! Get a job! "You should have kept your legs crossed (or had an aspirin between your knees!) After the fact, conservatives would rather forget about "the babies" ...they cost MONEY! We'd rather add them to the "lazy liberal" column, (even if they were fathered by a conservative), than leave a facility open to help them and the mother stay healthy (and living!).
Yes, abortion is a small, sometimes necessary, function of the places you destroy and the dead babies you leave in their wake! Just the worst example of "Conservative Hypocrisy"! YOU conservatives kill more LIVE babies than Planned Parenthood has aborted fetuses!
(By the way, Obamacare helps SAVE babies ...where YOU allow it to exist)!
I agree with what you're saying. I just don't feel like it fits the question very well. but i'm starting to see that these kinda not clear cut side ones get a little off the wall.
--
Al gore got himself a million dollar beach house and a nobel prize for speaking about global warming. in that speech he talked about global water level rising as the ice caps melted. (Which is a fallacy) I agree that this is totally ridiculous.
Louisiana alone loses 25 to 35 square miles of coastline EVERY year. I don't know what you are trying to prove, but you should research your statements better before you post a tiny bit of information which is obviously lacking in documentation......but who says you need to show proof of anything, as long as you can believe it without proving it?
From the Sierra Club, Delta Chapter:
Since the 1930’s, Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles of coastline and continues to lose land at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles per year.
At this rate, Louisiana loses the equivalent of one football field every 38 minutes.
The Louisiana coast was created by silt that the Mississippi River deposited at its mouth and in flood zones.
Because the Mississippi is controlled by levees that keep it on one path, all of its sediment is deposited into the Gulf, instead of spreading into and enriching the coast.
Among other factors, dredging channels for ships, oil and gas pipelines and the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway comprises as much as 40 % of total land loss.
Since the 1930’s, Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles of coastline and continues to lose land at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles per year.
At this rate, Louisiana loses the equivalent of one football field every 38 minutes.
You are only proving that you are an ignorant fool.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Related Articles
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
28 Mar 2009
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
Mormers proof of his stance isn't scientific. Mormer cherry picks data, he shows a spot here and there instead of looking at the gobal trend. Anyone with knowledge in this area of science can see right through his claims because they know sea level rise isn't uniform. Aside from cherry picking he asserts a global conspiracy theory to back his claim, 'everyone across the globe but him is lying'. He is self published on this topic, his stuff doesn't pass peer review.
Mormer ignores the satelite data but then goes on to misrepresent the tide guage data. Peer reviewed sources have shown that even using tide guages the sea level is rising.
Mormer has added nothing of value to the science of climate change and he goes against 99% of the research out there...he does so without any scientific arguments to back his claims. I would look at peer reviewed sources for information on sea level rise.
Here is a decent peer reviewed take on the sea level rise from the University of Colorado. Here is CSIRO's who gives an excellent overview on a global scale. As you can see from my links these are based on actual measurements and not 100% models as saintnow claims, it is apparent saintnow doesn't know what he is talking about.
Next they will tell you the sky is falling and like a good puppet, you will prove it by googling their propaganda. You're a good drone, daddy will be proud of you.
There is no wisdom, nor counsel, nor understanding against the Lord. I have never seen you post an argument that amounted to more than the wind from a bag of hot air.......or the swamp gas from a warm pile of mud.....do you see yourself in these illustrations?
This is just you saying you disagree but give no warrants as to why. There is a difference between what I do and what you do. I didn't say your argument was stupid and leave it there, I noted sea level rise isn't uniform and choosing a few sites that agree with someone while going against the global trend is cherry picking. I provided evidence from different countries that is in agreement with each other. I have shown that your claims are plainly false like you saying that the 'sea rising is based on models and not measurements' by providing different sources dealing with the measurements. You just say derogatory things and put your fingers in your ears.
Is this how you were taught? Did your parents try to bully you into a position when you were growing up?
Sadly there is no debating with you. You may have the last word, prolly something about hell.
lAl Gore, SChMAL Gore! He's the only man on Earth the conservatives don't think should be able to make a living! WHO CARES how he makes his money ...as long as it's legal!
So let me explain somethng to you. Christians believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. Do you really think God could not handle a little polution or carbon emissions?
We all know that your god could handle it for us, but would your god handle it for us? People are dying from diseases and natural disasters that are not our own doing. If we aren't going to be saved from that, we're not going to be saved from pollution, a problem that is our own doing
We do what we can do to reduce polution without destroying our economy and doing greater harm to people. Until all the nations of the world including China and Russia agree to stop poluting, we can not put ourselves at such a dissadvantage to them by raising the cost of doing business to our corporations. America could cut carbon emissions and it would have little effect on climate change if all nations did not do the same.
You worry about people dieing from natural dissasters SUPPOSEDLY caused by carbon emissions, while you say NOTHING while we kill viable late term babies ON PURPOSE!
Can you see why Christians and Conservtives laugh at your phoney hypocrisy of supposedly caring for innocent lives.
You simply excuse your inhumanity by saying these viable unborn babies are not human lives! UNBELIEVABLE! and you have the nerve to say we live in denial.
Why have you assumed that I care about natural disasters? I don't. Do you honestly think that any of us would be here if we did? Truly, the creator of the universe has made us in his image.
First of all, Russia is seeing the effects of climate change, very clearly, in Siberia. Diseases are killing of large stands of trees, diseases that were not allowed to develop due to the severe cold that no longer exists there. Pits the size of towns are found where swamp gasses are built up under the ground and exploded by lightening. THEY are worried (those Russian scientists that give a damn), but they, like the U.S. because of some conservatives , can't get the resources to fix it!
China has cities where people have to wear masks to breath! Same thing there, they have to work around conservative politicians! (Money is for the military, first priority!)
You, likely, support that conservative, Christian(?) Governor of Michigan who thinks more of cutting costs than he does the tragic results of doing so!
The Russian and Chinese people will eventually find the courage to pressure their politicians, ..... or die. Not just the babies!
I don't know ANY 'liberals" that condone killing babies on purpose, NONE! With a legitimate purpose is something WE accept, happens .... like shit! WE also are not "hypocritical" enough to show that, as conservatives do, life, and rights, begin at CONCEPTION, ....and end at BIRTH! WE are for taking care of those that can't take care of themselves AFTER they are born! THAT'S NOT Hypocritical, YOU are!
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SUPPORT ALLOWING VIABLE BABIES BORN ALIVE FROM BOTCHED LATE TERM ABORTIONSTO DIE.
You are one of the millions of Democrat hypocrites!
Conservatives laugh at yout total denial of who you are and what you support, while you preach to us about your pet agendas and the big money lobbyists from environmentalists, etc.
Christians believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. Do you really think God could not handle a little polution or carbon emissions? God could in a heart beat cleanse our atmosphere.
Have you read the Old Testament? Do you really think the god of Abraham is the sort to clean-up after the mess made by humans? You must have been reading a different book. Isn't your deity also capable of ending war, world hunger, and disease? Has he done any of these things?
I get tired of wasting time tryng to explain something as simple of the Christian faith to people who are so lost, who constantly judge Christians and who hate the very mention of God. Without God man can't even see the common sense of how Abortion is the butchery of our most innocent. Isn't your humanism capable of stopping the deliberate killing of our most innocent babies?
God said he would end all pain and suffering when this world ends. Until then there will always be pain from what mankind does to himself. This world will still be standing when that time comes. The Bible says hard times are coming during end times and we are seeing the evil man is capable of when he separates God.
I get tired of wasting time tryng to explain something as simple of the Christian faith
You claiming that God is going to clean up our mess, is in no way equivalent to you explaining the Christian faith. There is nothing within Christian theology that states any such thing, that's just you attempting to equate your personal conjecture with "the Christian Faith". That was the entire point of my query as to whether you've actually read the old testament, because if you had you would see how ridiculous this claim is.
God said he would end all pain and suffering when this world ends. Until then there will always be pain from what mankind does to himself.
Except if he destroys the natural ecosystem on which he depends? Or? I'm not seeing how this supports your claim that if we muck up the earth through our own irresponsible behavior he's going to swoop in and save the day.
The Bible says hard times are coming during end times and we are seeing the evil man is capable of when he separates God.
Again I'm still not seeing how this supports your claim.
You are only proving that you are an ignorant fool.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Related Articles
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
28 Mar 2009
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
whatever.....you don't have to respond....every time I see you respond to me, I want to ask you what makes you think you have the right to exist as a sinner outside of Hell? You say there is no proof of Hell, I say you are proving it for yourself and going to get the proof you insist cannot be found, but you won't like it when get it. Just ignore me if you don't want to hear it, because when you respond I feel sorry for you knowing you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell.
UMMMMM, pardon me Bohman, but the title of the debate is Christianity.....so nothing I say here in agreement with the Bible is off topic. Environmentalism is a religion being used as a red herring to imply you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner.
The OP starts with a twisted version of the Bible, and the who discussion is answered Biblically by saying you don't have the right as a sinner to exist outside of Hell. It's really not about environmentalism, a fake religion, it's about misrepresenting God, the Bible, and His people.
The topic is why there is an apparent lack of support for environmentalism among Christians. You attempting to insert your stock diatribe into every single debate -- actual topic be damned -- is wearing quite thin on me and quite a few others. If you want to talk about existence outside of hell, you already have a debate on the topic, take it there instead of inundating every other debate and dissolving any semblance of polemical variety this site has.
Don't know much about global warming but I tend to lean towards belief when official institutions tell you it's real.
Did not God say he helps those who help themselves? Do you really believe that he, in his ultimate knowledge, intended people to ignore the earth he gave them and desecrate his gift of life around you, expecting him to fix everything? Such an expectation denotes that you believe you are entitled to saving, when you don't attempt to address your own sins or interpret scripture.
If the shit hits the fan it'll be by something other than floods, partially because the bible says so, partially because ice cap melting science is BS. if we're meant to expand out and be "More numerous than the stars" I suspect we will have space travel and begin colonizing other planets. and if we do that we're taking our habitat with us and it too will spread among the stars. the whole notion of conservation seems broken to me because we're just another force that will drive evolution.
--
what's more is that if humanity dominates over wildlife, our pests and our produce are the only things that will survive. consider that Cows are more numerous than they'd ever be in the wild. same with chickens.
--
Got a little distracted. I don't think I'm making good points with this.
You are taking things out of context. Christians rebutt the Left's narrative that earth will be destroyed if we do not do something drastic, raising our electric rates and hurting our nation while other nations laugh at us.
We believe God is in control of the future of Earth. Yes, man will reap what he sows, but when it comes to Earth's future, man is not in control as much as he thinks he is.
We found out what happens when one corrupt party forces pure lies on the American people with Obamacare, to get their socialist agendas passed. Not one Republican supported these lies. Republicans were right!
In the same way, Republicans are not on board with the constant drum beats from activist environmentalists. Until both sides come to an agreement on climate change, I will NEVER believe a word out of the Left's mouths. They are proven chronic liars and will say anything to get money from their big money lobbyists.
Evolutionist and Climate Change worshippers depend on badgering people to keep them in line with their beliefs, and to keep them from objectively looking at science without preconceived beliefs which reject proof of fraud and refuse to hear contradictory facts. It's a crying shame that in the land of the free and the home of the brave, most people have caved in through peer pressure so they no longer have the backbone to think for themselves........
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Related Articles
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
28 Mar 2009
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
You can VOTE for those who DON'T want to shut down the EPA, deregulate corporations that would LOVE to operate cheaper ... regardless of the cost to the environment. Against those who want to open the National Parks to drilling and fracking. Against "Lucifer"! :<)
(And against those who would give us cheaper water, regardless of the cost to the people!)
