Only God controls the weather

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,966
Yes, that's right, there's no such thing as man made global warming, only God controls the weather. What about the ice age, sure there was one year when the sun didn't shine at all at all. Danny Healy Rae thinks so anyway.

If you are from Kerry you should be deeply embarrassed that you, or your neighbours, voted for such a person.
 
Ice age? Don't tell me you are one of those evolutionists? Next you'll be saying the world was not created in 7 days. Straight to hell for you :)
 
thedaddyman said:
Ice age? Don't tell me you are one of those evolutionists? Next you'll be saying the world was not created in 7 days. Straight to hell for you :)
Click to expand...

But it wasn't. He rested on the Sunday which is only fair. Also He was probably in violation of the working time act at that stage anyway.
 
Oh we're all real smart city slickers:rolleyes: What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise. Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.

Greens give me the pip, riding around on their bykes as if that could make a blind bit of difference. Arrogance and hubris of the highest water.

And if you are embarrassed by our rural politicians note that his views are shared by possibly the world's greatest city slicker, you know the one who is in with a very good chance of leading the most powerful country on earth before the year is out.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Oh we're all real smart city slickers:rolleyes: What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise. Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.
.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, wash your mouth out.:p Culchie mass going farmer's son here for starters. I might live in a town now, but definitely not a townie

DHR's comments show an incredible element of ignorance, there is tons of scientific evidence that show that since the industrial age began, the world is warming up and that is having an impact on the weather with polar ice caps melting. Everything is connected. Whilst I am no fan of the Greens, I'd be more scared of the impact of climate change deniers then anything the Greens would ever do. As for dredging the rivers, the cynic in me would wonder if he would be tendering for a contract.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Oh we're all real smart city slickers:rolleyes: What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said but it's a habit of the religious to take ridiculous statements and try to put a rational spin on them ;)
Duke of Marmalade said:
Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.

Greens give me the pip, riding around on their bykes as if that could make a blind bit of difference. Arrogance and hubris of the highest water.
Click to expand...
That's it, the last thing we need is people practicing what they preach.

Duke of Marmalade said:
And if you are embarrassed by our rural politicians note that his views are shared by possibly the world's greatest city slicker, you know the one who is in with a very good chance of leading the most powerful country on earth before the year is out.
Click to expand...
Don and Danny... now there's a meeting I'd like to be at! I think they'd get on; they have a lot in common.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duke of Marmalade said:
What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Is that "we" as in "I refute the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggest that mankind has contributed to global warming because I know better" or "we" as in "I accept that as a whole we need to change our ways but personally I don't need to change my own ways cause what difference can I make"?
 
Most of you are probably too young to have heard of Y2K. Let me tell you the story briefly. Just before this millenium was about to turn, the learned ones warned that because computers were badly programmed 1/1/2000 would precipitate a virtual armageddon. Zillions were spent in trying to prevent this catastrophe except notably in Italy who did a kinda DHR on the whole thing. The rest is history.

Or what about the AIDS scare. Around about 1990 the actuaries were telling us that before long more than half of all male deaths below the age of 50 would be as a result of AIDS. Life assurance rates naturally soared for said males. In the event, except for a few unfortunate pop singers the scare turned out to be largely a non event at least in these parts.

Back a bit further still all the talk was of the "population explosion", there would not be enuff space on the planet by the year 2000 given world population growth. And so on and so on back to Nostradamus and before. Notice that we never get predictions of pending Nirvana and yet by and large we live in an unbelievably better place today than in previous centuries.

So I share Danny and Donald's skepticism on global warming. Not to deny any scientific evidence but to question the age old human propensity to rush to an Armageddon like prognosis when faced with similar phenomena.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
Or what about the AIDS scare. Around about 1990 the actuaries were telling us that before long more than half of all male deaths below the age of 50 would be as a result of AIDS. Life assurance rates naturally soared for said males. In the event, except for a few unfortunate pop singers the scare turned out to be largely a non event at least in these parts.
Click to expand...

Ah yea, sure only 38,000,000 people have got it, 25,000,000 of whom have died. That's with the massive global reaction, the $20,000,000,000 spent yearly and the fantastic work done by people like Bono and George W Bush (yes, that's right; those two).
Sure it's only a blip. We shouldn't have bothered doing anything about it. If we'd ignored it it would have gone away all by itself.

Duke of Marmalade said:
Back a bit further still all the talk was of the "population explosion", there would not be enuff space on the planet by the year 2000 given world population growth.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's not as if the population has grown from 4 billion in the 1970's to 7.4 billion today with a minimum peek of 11 billion in 2100 and the possibility of no peek.
And sure population growth and global warming have nothing to do with each other.


Duke of Marmalade said:
And so on and so on back to Nostradamus and before. Notice that we never get predictions of pending Nirvana and yet by and large we live in an unbelievably better place today than in previous centuries.
Click to expand...
There's little need to galvanise the international community to face the threat of things getting better.

Duke of Marmalade said:
So I share Danny and Donald's skepticism on global warming. Not to deny any scientific evidence but to question the age old human propensity to rush to an Armageddon like prognosis when faced with similar phenomena.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's not like the realistic assessment of impending crisis and the resultant actions of nations have mitigated any of the things you mentioned above. Sure just take Smallpox; that went away all by itself as well. :rolleyes:
 
There's a huge industry of fear, I think we need to break it down to tangible steps for people.

So while I'm not cowering in the corner over climate change (the artist formerly known as global warming), and I realise that makes me no better than a holocaust denier :rolleyes:, I do believe in cleaner air for people living in Ireland and elsewhere today, so I do agree with CO2 incentivisation for the motor industry (& maybe we need to get onto NOX while we're at it). I look forward to owning an electric car as better for the environment and means it shifts the balance of power away from certain A-rab states. And if that allegedly benefits the world climate then great.

So I think it people toned down the rhetoric and explained the tangible current benefits they would get a better response. Oversell leads to suspicion/scepticism/cynicism. AIDS was never going to be the world threat because it was fairly clear how it spread and how to avoid it. I'd say most of the millions are in Sub-Saharan Africa where that message never got through, or the cultural norms facilitated the spread.
 
Okay, Purple, you have made some valid ripostes. But here is my honest take on this climate change thing. Yes the temperatures must be rising, I presume that is empirical fact though I read somewhere that there was a 20 year recent glitch in the progression. That aside the scientists must be right when they assert as fact that the planet is warming.

Next strand in the argument is to claim that this phenomenon is mainly man made and therefore potentially man reversible. This is not so proven and is where DHR comes in - he sees it as hubris for humankind to think they have that sort of influence on the weather. For me the jury is out on this second strand of the argument.

But for me it is the third strand that is the most dubious - the prognosis of armageddon if this is not arrested. And the scientists are guessing as much as the rest of us on that front. I could just as easily concoct a theory of happy long sunny and fertile days ahead esp. for places like Ireland. But I could equally speculate about floods and tornadoes and all the four horsemen of the apocalypse. And here's my point, we seem to have a big propensity as a group to latch onto the doomsayer version and we easily buy into arguments that it is all our fault and we have to put on the sackcloth and ashes to save ourselves.
 
Betsy Og said:
AIDS was never going to be the world threat because it was fairly clear how it spread and how to avoid it. I'd say most of the millions are in Sub-Saharan Africa where that message never got through...
Click to expand...

Surprisingly ~5.3% of cases are in the US, but they only account for ~4.4% of world population. So they're over-represented given you'd imagine they don't have the education/ awareness excuse.
 
Perhaps they are also overrepresented in the, shall we say, 'at risk' activities so that result may not be too bad.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Most of you are probably too young to have heard of Y2K. Let me tell you the story briefly. Just before this millenium was about to turn, the learned ones warned that because computers were badly programmed 1/1/2000 would precipitate a virtual armageddon. Zillions were spent in trying to prevent this catastrophe except notably in Italy who did a kinda DHR on the whole thing. The rest is history.
Click to expand...

Hi Duke, thanks for reminding me of Y2k...never before did I make so much money for jam as that little beauty! "God" be with the days!
 
In a way the eco warriors are the same as the bible thumpers. To them man(woman) has sinned by his abuse of the environment. Only by confession (that s/he caused it) and by penance (riding bicycles) can s/he be saved from a self inflicted armageddon.
 
The only real way I believe global warming will be prevented is down to economics. I hope that we run out of fossil fuels (or that they become too expensive to extract) before irreparable damage is done. Once something approaches a certain cost, behaviours will change and it will be the same for fossil fuels. Unless technological changes happen such as electric cars etc, people will travel less by car but instead walk/cycle. I know when petrol got very expensive a few years ago I was certainly conscious of my journeys. Market forces are already planning for the next stage with the advent of electric cars. It's probably a pity that oil has dropped in price just when these cars were starting to hit the roads. The market will always provide a product where the demand is there and a return to be made.

Government policies through taxation will only work if the governments from the major polluters sign up but I have little faith in this, and God help us if that fruitcake across the Atlantic gets into power. In fact, there is probably a better chance of all the governments signing up to a global taxation policy and that's certainly not going to happen. I'm not saying that reducing your footprint is not worthwhile - of course it is and should be taught to our children. It's a nice idea and will certainly help, but it's like putting plasters in the holes of a sinking ship. Everything we consume, from transport to clothing to food to house building results in fossil fuel usage.

Just to add to this - one of the issues here also is that whilst everyone would benefit from a reduction in carbon emissions, it is not worth it for most people as so many others are not taking part. It's like 20 people going out for dinner and the first 19 order starters. The 20th person (even if they're not bothered) might as well order a starter too as not having one will only make the meal a tiny bit cheaper for himself & everyone else.

It's going to take economics to change this in any meaningful way.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people here who seem to know that the world is warming. Does anyone have any evidence for that?

I know that 2,000 years ago the Romans grew grapes in Northumbria, and that they had settlements in what is now Holland in places that are now under water. From this I conclude that the climate was warmer and sea levels higher 2,000 years ago in North Western Europe than it is today.

In 1658 the Swedish army marched across the Baltic sea from Jutland to Zealand. Between the 17th and early 19th century winter fairs were held in London on the frozen Thames. Neither of these things would be possible in the last 100 or more years. From this I conclude that the climate was colder in North Western Europe 200 years ago than it is today.

What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?
 
cremeegg said:
What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?
Click to expand...
NASA have an excellent site detailing the cause and effect as will as linking to many reputable bodies which agree that it is real and it is man made.
It's all about the Carbon.
It traps heat within the atmosphere and causes temperatures to increase.
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic. The weather currents follows the sea currents.
 
Purple said:
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic.
Click to expand...

wiki said:
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Click to expand...
wiki said:
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Click to expand...
Purple, try the following experiment. Empty a vase of fresh salt water down the sink, and then empty a vase of fresh water, see if you notice any discernable difference in flow. It is scientists coming up with these bizzarre predictions that make me skeptical.

What I will say is that the doomsayers might be right so why take a chance. Unfortunately this makes us prey to every crackpot theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top