We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE DÁIL’S COMMITTEE ON Members’ Interest has said that it does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the tax affairs of independent TD Mick Wallace because he has not provided the information that it sought.
The committee, chaired by independent TD Thomas Pringle, has been examining the tax affairs of Wallace and his construction company in the wake of revelations last month that it under-declared VAT resulting in a settlement of €2.13 million with the Revenue commissioners.
Wallace had said that he was unlikely to be able to pay back the money but has since pledged half of his Dáil salary towards meeting the tax liability of M & J Wallace Limited, his construction firm which he says is insolvent.
This evening the committee said that it was unable to determine if it had jurisdiction to investigate Wallace because he had not answered all of its questions.
It has published the full correspondence in its report which includes a letter from Wallace’s solicitor stating that the “matters at issue” – relating specifically to whether or not the settlement with the Revenue was made before Wallace became a TD – had been clarified and were outside the jurisdiction of the committee.
In a statement, the committee said that it was satisfied that it had no jurisdiction to investigate the tax compliance of Wallace and/or his company saying “this is a matter which falls solely to the Revenue Commissioners and, if appropriate, the DPP.”
But the statement added:
Unless and until Deputy Wallace provides the information sought, together with supporting evidence from the Revenue Commissioners, the Committee is of the opinion that it will be unable to determine its jurisdiction in the matter and in the circumstances is making this report to Dáil Éireann.
Speaking to the media later, Pringle said that the committee had sought answers to seven questions but received responses in relation to just two of them.
He said the committee was unable to satisfy itself with the timeline of events which led to an under-declaration of around €1.4 million in VAT by M & J Wallace.
“Unless and until Deputy Wallace provides us with the information we require we will be unable to operate any investigation,” he told the media saying that it was his belief that it was in the Wexford TD’s own interests to provide the committee with the information it has asked for.
The matter will now return to the Dáil where the party whips may determine whether or not to table a motion of censure against Wallace, something which was reportedly being considered last month when the controversy first arose.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It was hot in January and February? Ireland must have missed that memo
Its clown like you that allow so many people to keep their heads in the sand, surrounded by a rising tide. This is not planet ireland.
Chill out Mike. Somewhere there are giant spaceships being built to take a chosen few (myself included) to our new lives on Mars.
I can have a word and see if I can get you a ticket?
@Colin; Mike has a point – just because the particular region you happen to inhabit ins’t so dramatically and obviously affected by climate change, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious threat.
I mean, how much time, money and energy do we spent on combating the bogeyman of terrorism, when a far greater threat is looming over us?
If our kids were to look back and see their parents making light of climate change, but voicing massive protest at refugee influxes and Luas workers etc., then they’d probably not think very much of us.
Earth has been getting hotter for the past 10,000 YEARS http://dailym.ai/1vHmtEs via http://dailym.ai/android
There is no chance to cut carbon emissions by the necessary amount to prevent climate change, or even delay it. Here is a test for yourselves. Can you stop buying imported electronics? Can you stop buying new cars? Can you stop buying imported foods? Can you stop eating meat every day? No, you don’t want to. Nobody really gives a sh!t about climate change. Yez will all bang on about oil this and corporations that, but you are all solely responsible for your own carbon footprint, and 99.9% if you will not sacrifice 1 single luxury.
It’s harder for humans to live in a world where to survive is to do what damages the climate. It is up to people, to demand the phasing out of oil companies, to be replaced by renewable energy companies.
Lot’s of people are vegetarians for this reason as well.
I’m in each of those categories, I’d rather the world wasn’t getting damaged but ultimately I’m not going to change anything. I don’t think I would have a particularly large carbon footprint but I’m not forsaking a foreign sun holiday or giving up other little luxuries to account for it.
Actually Teddington, the per capita carbon footprint in Ireland is amongst the highest in the world, so unless you’re living like a hermit (or living elsewhere) the chances are that your carbon footprint is pretty high.
@ModerateMichael; I only buy Irish (as best I can), I cycle to work and don’t have a car even though I can afford one. I haven’t taken a foreign holiday in 6 years but yet I am an extremely happy person who really enjoys the simple things in life. I have learned to enjoy life without constantly yearning to consume all of the time.
The issue is that the media and society don’t behold people who live happy but simple lives as role models. We instead promote the concept of success as someone who has accumulated large amounts of wealth through business ventures. So many people are consequently unable to concentrate on climate change.
Right throughout our lives we’re constantly being bombarded by news stories about the threats of terrorism, gang warfare and drug epidemics etc., even though climate change (which will only exacerbate these threats) itself complete dwarfs these.
@Teddington; Do you not think your children will look back at you as somebody who cared more about self-indulgence than helping to make the world a safe, inhabitable place for them to grow up in?
It’s pretty sad to think that you would be unable to live a happy life if you were to forsake a sun holiday….
I was reading earlier today that in Britain every household using gas appliances, will have to change to something else at a cost of around 12 thousand per household! Are the wealthy people that have their own private jets going to stop flying them? Doubt it. This yet again will hit the poorer people in society as usual.
What appliances sre they using that cost twelve grand to get an electric version of?
Switching to electric appliances isn’t really going to help much when the power stations still run on fossil fuel.
Or an get an “environmentally friendly” Electric car… Charged up by power from a Turf burning electricity generating plant!
Record low Artic ice shelf….should be happy days for the fossil fuel industry as the biggest untouched oil and gas reserves will be open to business soon, not so much for the rest of us.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
They’re already gearing up for it, as well as pouring millions into a concerted campaign to try and discredit the bona fide climate science, in the same way that tobacco giants tried to discredit the evidence linking smoking to cancer in the 70′s and 80′s.
Well it’s worked on me, I’ve taken up smoking and I’m buying an SUV as soon as I’ve got the few pound together.
Watch cowspiracy on Netflix if you want a real eye opener on how simple it is for each person to do their bit. We really have to sit down and question our addiction to meat.
How some people still deny this is happening is beyond me…
The earth is heating up. The why is still up for debate.
When a plant grows, it makes its own food through photosynthesis. At its most oversimplified, during photosynthesis, the plant takes CO2 from the air7 and absorbs light energy from the sun to split the CO2 into carbon (C) and oxygen (O2). The plant keeps the carbon and emits the oxygen as a waste product. The sun’s light energy stays in the plant as chemical energy the plant can use.
So wood is essentially a block of carbon and stored chemical energy.
When you burn a log, all you’re doing is reversing the photosynthesis. Normally, oxygen in the air just bounces off carbon molecules in wood—that’s why trees aren’t constantly on fire. But when an oxygen molecule gets moving fast enough and smashes into a log’s carbon molecule, they snap together and the oxygen and carbon are reunited again as CO2. This snapping releases chemical energy, which knocks into other nearby oxygen molecules, causing them to get going fast—and if they get going fast enough, they’ll snap together with another of the log’s carbon molecules, which releases more chemical energy. This causes a chain reaction, and the log is now on fire. So a log burning is the process of the carbon in the log combining with oxygen in the air and floating off as CO2.
Of course, that’s all irrelevant to the person burning the log—what they care about is the energy released during all of this CO2 formation. The release of all of the log’s stored chemical energy creates a glorious blaze of heat and light. The tree spent years quietly absorbing carbon molecules and sunshine joules, and all at once, during combustion, that carbon and sunshine explode back out into the world.8
To put it another way, photosynthesis just kidnaps carbon and sun energy out of the atmosphere, and after years of holding them hostage, combustion sets them both free—the carbon as a billowing eruption of newly reunited CO2, and the sun energy as fire—meaning that fire is essentially just tightly packed sunshine.
(Copied and pasted from http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html )
That article provides a great explanation as to how the world is warming through burning fossil fuels. And it ain’t difficult to understand.
Because the same thing happens every few thousands years and has done so for millions of years. the only difference being our ancestors didn’t tax or politicize it. The reality is that the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years. And lets be honest, .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to panic about. And more importantly the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 so since then we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since. We all learned in school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival. Were those events caused by man made “global warming”? Of course not. And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.
I don’t think too many will deny climate change but how much of it it natural v man made is up for debate.
“lets be honest, .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to panic about.”
- the vast, VAST majority of climate scientists, strongly disagree.
” since then we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since”
- Have you even read the above article?
“We all learned in school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s”
-What, the one caused by volcanic activity?
“Were those events caused by man made “global warming”? Of course not.”
-Who claimed they were? Is your argument/logic(?), climate change can be caused by other things, hence burning fossil fuels isn’t speeding the process?
“And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.”
*Hands out tin foil hat*
“Have you even read the above article?”
Yes
“The vast, VAST majority of climate scientists, strongly disagree.”
A .36 degree increase over 35 yrs is considered very little by the vast majority of scintists and we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years, that’s a fact. (they started measuring the data in 1979). Scientific data and research papers are widely available on the net, for both arguments so there is no need for me copying and pasting them here.
-What, the one caused by volcanic activity?
Several causes have been proposed. Such as cyclical lows in solar radiation, changes in the ocean circulation, and the widely accepted theory of an inherent variability in global climate. Theories regarding volcano activity are relatively new and certainly very interesting.
“Who claimed they were? Is your argument/logic(?), climate change can be caused by other things, hence burning fossil fuels isn’t speeding the process?”
Yes, my argument is perfectly logical. You are reiterating my original point, that man made global warming is a fallacy. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. To suggest man is the primary cause over the last century or since records began 35 ys ago is highly debatable.
“*Hands out tin foil hat*”
Why would you say that? I respect your opinion. However, you are embarrassing yourself and belittling your argument by attempting to insult, degrade or ridicule someone with a different opinion than you.
Look, having your own opinion, debate, fair enough but saying ” most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.” is ludicrous, why? What would motivate most scientists in the world to ‘pretend’ mankind is changing the climate, what would motivate the US military to develop non fossil fuel sources for their planes and ships? Whether we are totally causing it or speeding up the process is irrelevant, the faster it goes and the worse it gets, the worse it is for us, we should stop making it worse even if you are of the opinion we are not the main cause.
Anyway, even IF, and that’s a big massive IF man wasn’t speeding up the process, eliminating fossil fuels would save countless lives and improve standard of life by improving air quality alone, some estimates at 3 million lives a year, not to mind the ecological benefits. So why do people have such a resistance to improving our planet? I don’t understand it.
It is not ludicrous.
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate related disciplines, the vast majority of which have Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by A guy named Cook in a scientific paper. Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, yet so ingrained has the 97 percent consensus claim become that Al Gore, President Obama and numerous governmnent coffers etc have all benefited from the hype and hysteria surrounding that magic yet totally false number.
Numerous research, surveys and scientific evidense suggests that Global warming although real, is not man made. Carbon taxes, political motives and taxes would explain why governments have so enthusiastically encouraged the idea what we are to blame. Now don’t get me wrong, I think humans are polluting this beautiful planet and unfortunately it seems we are doing our best to destroy it. But to suggest we are one of the primary causes of climate change, global warming/cooling which has occurred naturally since the beginning of time is simply not true.
And yes I agree that eliminating fossil fuels would benefit all of us and ensure a cleaner environment.
Happy we both agree we should concentrate on eliminating fossil fuels regardless of which of us is right or wrong.
Btw, with regards those 31000 scientists, you might like to read the following:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
@Paul; Wrong!! The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is 90 times higher than any other period in the earth’s history, including the major extinction boundaries. This rate of increase is highly correlated to the beginning the industrial revolution.
Please provide a link to a high-impact, peer-reviewed journal which proves climate change is not a result of the liberation of sequestered CO2 by human activity.
As a postodoctoral molecular plant scientist/phycologist, I can provide you with numerous references that strongly suggest anthropological interference is the primary cause of climate change.
Paul, the fact that you’re even citing the oregon petition (which was exposed long ago as nothing more than a fossil fuel lobby attempt to muddy the waters regarding scientific consensus) demonstrates your ignorance.
Like most aspects of my life that require science e.g. medicines, this computer I am using, etc. I put my trust in scientists.
Why would I start thinking that a “Website Designer” called Paul Kealy knows more about something as complex as climate change than the vast majority of scientists around the world?
@Kugek:
“Wrong!! The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is 90 times higher than any other period in the earth’s history, including the major extinction boundaries. This rate of increase is highly correlated to the beginning the industrial revolution.”
- Funny you should say that, because in 2014 NASA launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China. And researchers claim dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago live on a planet with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
“Please provide a link to a high-impact, peer-reviewed journal which proves climate change is not a result of the liberation of sequestered CO2 by human activity.”
-OK Sure: https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
There is an abundance of information on the internet inc peer reviewed journals disproving the myth of man made global warming. I have neither the time or inclination to copy and paste them here. Google is your friend, as are numerous scientific archives freely available.
“As a postodoctoral molecular plant scientist/phycologist, I can provide you with numerous references that strongly suggest anthropological interference is the primary cause of climate change.”
=Impressive! But as someone with logic and Internet access, I can provide you with an equal amount of references that strongly dispute the theory that anthropological interference is the primary cause of climate change.
@Avina
-Are ya sure I’m ignorant. I mean, really? Or are you just calling names to give some validity to your own point? So OK, you are dismissing the Oregon petition, thats your prerogative. But I can easily play tit for tat and throw the “Climatic Research Unit email controversy” into the equation..OOPS!
1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.
For example:
One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”
@stopit Apparently your account was just suspended, so yeah…ok man, whatever you say :)
Paul:
” Funny you should say that, because in 2014 NASA launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China”
That is just an out and out lie
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two
“And researchers claim dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago live on a planet with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today”.
So what? Try reading the article you linked to yourself.
“There is an abundance of information on the internet inc peer reviewed journals disproving the myth of man made global warming.”
The whole point of the article you linked to was to demonstrate the absolute paucity of peer reviewed articles written by climate skeptics relative to those supporting the concept of ACC, as explained here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html
“But as someone with logic and Internet access, I can provide you with an equal amount of references that strongly dispute the theory that anthropological interference is the primary cause of climate change”
The trick is to be able to distinguish between the bona fide peer reviewed science and the junk science (which is certainly all over the internet, but is scientifically meaningless).
“So OK, you are dismissing the Oregon petition, thats your prerogative”
Well it’s your prerogative if you want to take the oregon petition at face value too, but you’d have to be pretty gullible to do so (unless you think there is really a climatologist called “Mickey Mouse”, or that the 99% of names on the list who have zero experience of climate science know more about the subject than climate scientists themselves):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
“But I can easily play tit for tat and throw the “Climatic Research Unit email controversy” into the equation..OOPS!”
You mean the scientists who were subsequently completely vindicated?:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/vindicated-climate-gate-scientist-sues-national-review-libel
@PaulKealy; 1.) Increased CO2 concentrations around the rainforests of the world derive from springtime biomass burning on a wide scale. On the other hand, released also in 2014 by NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
2.) Dinosaurs co-evolved over millions of years as CO2 increased VERY gradually – if we were to instantly transport ourselves back in time to the carboniferous for example we would almost immediately enter cardiac arrest. The RATE of CO2 increase is extremely higher today, meaning that atmospheric CO2 increase today is not gradual.
3.) Here’s a an extremely comprehensive review (published in a peer-reviewed, high-impactg scientific journal) detailing that ~97% of peer-reviewed publications agree that global warming is of an anthropogenic origin
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003747
Some idiot above just claimed that humans have been burning the same level of fossil fuels for thousands of years… Yes those Romans certainly sped around in their 8 cylinder gas guzzlers
Sure ya couldn’t bate a bita heat
Well if it gets hotter here we can go without oil for the heating that has to be good, so roll on the Hot weather but I”am sure it would it wont go that way and better still we”ll get a hike in taxes to sort the worlds climate!!
The smartest brains in the world are telling us it’s heating up largely due to the burning of fossil fuels, Paul Kealy up there has the real amswers though. Seriously, the only people denying this are big oil companies and others with a vasted interest in burning natural resources.
The people advocating it are scientist whose funding depends on it, green politicians who want to tax us back to the Stone Age, and speaking of the Stone Age, that’s where we will return if we have to stop our carbon footprints, no imports, no travel, no cars, no central heating, we will all stay in our own locality, marry our cousins use our own sh!te for fuel, and vegetate. But we’ll be green. Mouldy green.
@Marg; I’m a postdocotoral molecular phycologist. My funding is NOT dependent on people believing climate change is a threat, but yet, having extensively read the literature and having reviewed extremely sound studies for high-impact journals, I can safely say that you are 100% wrong.
Most scientists are not careerists, are not motivated by money and are certainly not trying to mislead the world into thinking that climate change is a major threat just so that they can continue to conduct what you believe to be bogus studies in order to keep their jobs.
If you believe that thousands of scientists are lying, then why do you think big oil companies, with their billions and billions of dollars (exponentially more than what governments internationally allocate to scientific research), don’t fund their own research to refute the consensus!?!?!?
People like you truly make me despair for our future :/
Watch the excellent “cowspiracy” if you want to understand the main threat to the planet – even greater than fossil fuels. Not even environmental groups knew what it was when interviewed. Sample fact “the earths population grows by 229,000 per day”. We are f**ked lads
Then we need not tax ourselves yet again for nothing
Allow me to put all this in perspective.
Reasonable people will recognize that frost generally develops as their location turns away from the Sun at night and melts as they turn back again into solar radiation each morning.
Now transfer this principle to the evolution of Arctic sea ice each year as the North pole and areas surrounding it turn away from the Sun in September and turn back into the Sun after the March Equinox due to a separate rotation. It will take a while for the ice to melt and icebergs to drift to lower latitudes (think Titanic in April) but effectively any interested person can appreciate how Arctic sea ice is basically frost development writ large but from a rotation as a function of the Earth’s motion around the Sun.
When these academics get around to explaining the process of Arctic sea ice appearance and disappearance then and only then can they start talking about planetary climate.
What you’re basically saying is nothing more than “arctic winters are colder than arctic summers”. I think we all knew that at this stage (at least those of us who were paying attention in national school).
Perhaps you can explain why arctic ice is now at record low levels?
I wouldn’t bother asking you what you think is behind the appearance of 15 million square miles of sea ice at the North pole each year and its disappearance over the next 6 to 8 month when the process of creation begins anew , nor those who are caught up in the academic voodoo of ‘carbon footprint’ . It is only for reasonable people who want to know what is behind the appearance of an enormous field of ice as the Earth moves through space and around the Sun.
The answer is the same as the cause of polar sunrise at the North pole yesterday and sunset at the South pole where a single day/night cycle is governed by a rotation as a function of the Earth’s orbital motion.
The Equinox represents one of the most beautiful events in the year when there are two types of sunrises and sunsets in one day and with it the consequences such as Arctic sea ice melting as the North pole swings back into sunlight for the first time in 6 months. and will remain in sunlight for 6 months .
If academics can’t explain what causes Arctic sea ice to appear and disappear each year there is no point in trying to cause a fuss over variations in ice extent as per the lingo of carbon footprint etc.
Wow Gerald, just wow! I don’t even know where to start with your post! If you think that the opinion of the scientific community on climate change is based solely on the fact that there is less arctic ice in summer than in winter then, well, I’m actually lost for words….
Wow indeed !, this is not for academics but for people of common sense who can break through the hypnotic trance of ‘carbon footprint’ language and who can enjoy how their own experience of the appearance and disappearance of frost each day has a much larger version up at the Arctic where the Sun disappears from view for 6 months.
The Earth is not a cistern , it is an amazing planet traveling through space and turning in two separate ways to the central Sun with Arctic sea ice evolution a product of the orbital surface rotation. Tomorrow the Sun will disappear from view at the Antarctic pole and a whole series of events happen there including the life cycle of emperor penguins who answer to the polar day/night cycle -
http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/south-pole
People are naturally positive and they will eventually come around to thinking of the two types of sunrises and sunsets within the same day and then delight in such things as how to apply the development of frost and rotation to Arctic sea ice and a separate rotation.
^^^Nuts^^^
In case anyone intelligent wishes to understand why Arctic sea ice develops in the 6 months when the Sun is out of sight at the North pole from the September to March Equinoxes and why the Sun appeared for the first time in 6 months, they should consider the planet’s two separate rotations to the Sun which look like this -
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
The North and South poles offer a window into the orbital behavior of the Earth and at the North pole the point will take 6 months to turn across the fully illuminated face of the Earth until the Sun sets or disappears from view as it turns through the circle of illumination (line dividing daylight and darkness).
All planets turn in two distinct ways to the central Sun and about 50 seconds into the Hubble imaging of Uranus when the time lapse speeds up, the two distinct rotations become obvious -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE
I realize ‘climate change’ has a kind of hypnotic effect with a specific jargon that ropes in the unthinking and that may be the only problem in getting people to snap out of dour and negative conceptions that border on cultlike in content and character.
Gerald, just in case you’re missing it, when people talk about climate change they’re not referring to the fact that it’s colder in winter than in summer.
It is one of those things where I trust people to draw on their experience as they watch frost melt in the morning as their location turns out of the orbital shadow (night) and back into solar radiation in the morning. It is a simple matter that your location becomes colder in the absence of the Sun’s radiation hence frost develops .
Bring that experience to Arctic sea ice development where the Northern latitudes in an ever expanding circle with the North pole at the centre will turn away from the Sun. The Arctic circle is an area of the planet that is in total darkness by the time of the December Solstice likewise it becomes an area which is in total Sunlight at the June Solstice -
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/05/22/earth_americas250.jpg
Think of the Arctic Ocean as a big pool of water where much of it doesn’t see the Sun for 6 months due to a separate surface rotation to the Sun and that enormous pool of water freezes over. Do that and you will know more than the fuss ridden climate scientists who haven’t explained it.
Neil Ireland hello, im just quoting the article ive read, the figure of 12 thousand comes from the CCC, A new boiler would cost at least 5/ 7 grand alone! Dont shoot the messenger! :-)
Ahh… The Mail. Ideal source of info.
No mention of the geoengineering programmes taking place around the world.
If the seriousness of the relentless increases in world temperatures were replicated in any other danger to mankind we’d have mass panic. Public cynicism is bewildering.
Well Winston Smith, Orwell based his dystopian novel on Nazi ideologies which allowed the past to be molded into the fiction to suit a future idealism -
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the
truth” exists. [...] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, “It never happened”–well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five–well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs [...]” Orwell
The Nazi doctrine itself was even more direct in using fear as a vehicle for destruction of its own race by using empirical laws as a justification and roping in enough drones to further the aggressive doctrine into a war and holocaust -
” A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Hitler
Creating an atmosphere of guilt and fear is the oldest trick in the book and just as easily disposed of once people develop common sense and make an effort to restore some sort of balance, the first part is easy but unfortunately the effort part is not.
Always loved the comments of the poet William Blake in encountering ideologies based on future catastrophies created by those lack a positive outlook, a sharp intelligence and common sense as opposed to those people stuck in an intellectual ‘carbon footprint’ swamp . Doubt if people here can make the connection but here it is anyway -
” An Angel came to me and said: ‘O pitiable foolish young man! O horrible! O dreadful state! consider the hot burning dungeon thou art preparing for thyself to all eternity, to which thou art going in such career.’
I said: ‘perhaps you will be willing to shew me my eternal lot & we will contemplate together upon it and see whether your lot or mine is most desirable.’
So he took me thro’ a stable & thro’ a church & down into the church vault at the end of which was a mill: thro’ the mill we went, and came to a cave: down the winding cavern we groped our tedious way till a void boundless as a nether sky appear’d beneath us & we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said, ‘if you please we will commit ourselves to this void, and see whether providence is here also, if you will not, I will?’ but he answer’d: ‘do not presume, O young-man, but as we here remain, behold thy lot which will soon appear when the darkness passes away.’
So I remain’d with him, sitting in the twisted root of an oak; he was suspended in a fungus, which hung with the head downward into the deep.
By degrees we beheld the infinite Abyss, fiery as the smoke of a burning city; beneath us at an immense distance, was the sun, black but shining; round it were fiery tracks on which revolv’d vast spiders, crawling after their prey; which flew, or rather swum, in the infinite deep, in the most terrific shapes of animals sprung from corruption; & the air was full of them, & seem’d composed of them: these are Devils, and are called Powers of the air. I now asked my companion which was my eternal lot? he said, ‘between the black & white spiders.’
But now, from between the black & white spiders, a cloud and fire burst and rolled thro’ the deep black’ning all beneath, so that the nether deep grew black as a sea, & rolled with a terrible noise; beneath us was nothing now to be seen but a black tempest, till looking east between the clouds & the waves, we saw a cataract of blood mixed with fire, and not many stones’ throw from us appear’d and sunk again the scaly fold of a monstrous serpent; at last, to the east, distant about three degrees appear’d a fiery crest above the waves; slowly it reared like a ridge of golden rocks, till we discover’d two globes of crimson fire, from which the sea fled away in clouds of smoke; and now we saw, it was the head of Leviathan; his forehead was divided into streaks of green & purple like those on a tyger’s forehead: soon we saw his mouth & red gills hang just above the raging foam tinging the black deep with beams of blood, advancing toward us with all the fury of a spiritual existence.
My friend the Angel climb’d up from his station into the mill; I remain’d alone, & then this appearance was no more, but I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river by moonlight, hearing a harper who sung to the harp; & his theme was: ‘The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.’” William Blake
@Free Mike…you need to take a chill pill. Someone needs to free you, you’re too angry. It was a joke, you clearly missed it…
Or alternatively, it was a joke.
Once it starts to hit the 1.5 limit that they all cry about then the methane caught in the ice will be released and that will cause a runaway effect of global warming that will cause temperatures to be under 10 degree rise in most areas during the summer and will last up to 20 years and by then it will be too late…
I am not taking sides in this debate because it seems nobody is using the information gathered January 31 at 11:59:59 to February 29 at 11:59:59 to dispute or affirm any stated hypothesis by their research partners whether they be “liar scientists” or “liar oil companies”
I am eagerly awaiting the collaboration of scientists which determined February 2016′s place in the historical record as being the hottest ever since modern recording. My hypothesis stated clearly that the record heat due to unsustained short wave radiation emmision will show a pulse of shortwave in addition to already hotter than normal temperatures occurred in on January 1 then again mid month, with a tapperring of excess short wave emmisions February 15 and reverting back to a normal solar emmision rate, all during previously stated slower more unwavering heating due to normal earth/moon/sun conditions. Hypothesis: the sun pulsed
Well I’d say there’ll be great drying in it anyway.
Hitler would be proud of all the conspiracy theorists he spawned
You dropped your paperclip there lol.
I think climate change goes on continuously. Back in the era that saw the land bridges disappear that linked Ireland to England and England to Europe were people bemoaning “climate change”? Its main result will be then movement of populations and humanity’s response to the evolving situation.
have your say