Climate Change HOAX Exposed by Geologist to the UK Government

So here in New Zealand, we are in the mountainous region that shows standard sedimentary bedding plains.

But according to crazy environmentalists this place should not even exist because this means that the sea was once 1-2 km above what it is at now for sediments to have been deposited on the old sea-bed.


Or here is one in Dorset that shows that there were multiple bedding plains that have been lithified (compressed sediments) that lie well above even high tide, let alone the 'raised beach'.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

"I'm a geologist"

Awesome. Scott Wolter is a geologist too. Want to ask his opinion on global warming? At least he doesn't have a vested interest:

Plimer is the former non-executive director of CBH Resources Limited from 1998 to 2010, former non-executive director of Angel Mining plc from 2003 to 2005, former director of Kimberley Metals Limited from 2008 to 2009, former director of KBL Mining Limited from 2008 to 2009 and former director of Ormil Energy Limited from 2010 to 2011.[3][16] He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[17] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[18] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[11][19] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[20][21] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[3][16][22][23][24] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25] According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[6][27]

"and the one thing that we miss out on in looking at climate change is the past"

Who exactly is "missing out on" the fact that climate has been radically different in the past? Who are these ignorant souls who think the world's climate has always been the same?

None of that has anything to do with whether or not human industry is having its own effect on the climate and what the short term results of that will be though does it? That's like saying that because people die naturally, they can't be murdered.

Here's another way to look at it.

50 mya there were palm trees growing on Antarctica. Why? Because average global temperatures were significantly higher. Why? Could it have been because atmospheric CO2 levels were 3x what they are now? Why did the levels drop? Could it have had anything to do with natural sequestration of CO2 into biomass that ended up lying deep in the ground? What happens when we extract coal, crude oil, etc containing all this previously sequestered CO2 and then burn it? The CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. Can we then reasonably hypothesize that putting the CO2 that was formerly in the atmosphere — when the world was significantly warmer — back into the atmosphere, might in fact cause the world to get warmer again?

Yes I've opinionated on this many times on ATS.

As far as I can tell the sea is not rising and in fact may actually be falling.

It's the same with mean temperatures.

They both are going up and down for reasons other than mans intervention.

Much greater forces than us are at play and it wont matter how much carbon tax you charge folks it won't stop nature.

It's all a great big con.

a reply to: Witness2008


Pretty much anything humans do makes pollution.
I have talked to older folks "70 plus" about how things used to be and it's quite an eye opener.
Factories and cars today put out much less pollution than they did 50 years ago.
We obviously can do more but things have improved.
Check out pics of Los Angeles smog in the 70's
It looks like china today. Very ugly.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Rocker2013

Oh, I'm not paranoid or afraid of my Government, I have a complete distrust, but then again, I no longer take what they have to say at face value.

All the science pointing to Man Made Global Warming has been funded by Governments throughout the world. The same Governments that make decisions regarding taxes relating to Carbon emissions, so you kind of contradict yourself. Don't listen to the guy who contradicts the science, he's out to make money. Listen to the Government funded scientists because they're producing the data that Governments use to make money,

Okay, first of all, not all scientists who work in this field are "paid off by governments" as you seem to want to claim. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists and geologists all around the world working from this exact same data in universities and independent research facilities.

You want to give the impression that climate science is being wholly manipulated by governments, when that's absolutely not the case. This only serves to expose your bias in this discussion.

And I really don't believe that you are not basing your opinions on a knee-jerk distrust of government, for the sake of distrusting government, because that's ultimately what this comes down to and is the thread running through all of this.

There are thousands upon thousands of scientists around the world all with the same access to the same data, and almost all of them agree that man-made climate change is a real thing. Regardless if you want to believe that they are all somehow "in on the conspiracy", this is absolutely unfounded belief, and you're basing that unfounded belief on the opinions of someone who is clearly untrustworthy.

Either way, we all have to believe someone, right? We all have to look at all the information we can get access to and make our own decisions about what we believe.

Any rational person who does that would have to believe the many "government backed" scientists you claim are lying, because their view is supported by publicly available data, stands up to scrutiny, has decades of peer reviewed support throughout the world - as opposed to one man who we know misrepresents data, is making money off of this misrepresented data, and has an extremely biased view from his limited scientific knowledge.

Again, even if we were to believe that every climate scientist in the world is in the pocket of a government, the data speaks for itself. We have to decide between thousands of clever people who agree, or one man who falsifies information.

a reply to: Rapha

This is actually a great example of how deniers pick and choose aspects of science to support their claims, while deliberately ignoring the larger picture, and deliberately falsifying the information to suit their ignorance rather than changing their opinion when confronted by new information.

You'll find the ACTUAL science on proper websites, rather than the junk science on the sites of climate change deniers who pick and choose.

Of course, while presenting these sedimentary formations as some kind of "evidence" that climate change history is a lie, intelligent people understand that geology cannot be explained away through one factor alone. You're deliberately ignoring glacial movement and tectonic shifts while pretending this could have only been achieved through high sea levels.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have not watched the video or looked into this guy's background so I will not make a statement on his claims.

I do find it funny though how he is being discredited because he is making money on carbon industries such as coal, and Al gore is given a pass for getting rich off of his global warming claims.

Different sides of the same coin.

If we're being honest, Al Gore's wealth starts with mineral extraction (zinc that was found on his family's property) and his father's further involvement with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. Al Gore is now just getting far richer by being on the forefront of a commercializing new sources of energy that will supplant fossil fuels.

Al Gore isn't a scientist let alone one specializing in the climate (climatologist, paleoclimatologist, etc). Luckily, we don't have to take Al Gore's word for anything. I'm more than happy to disregard what he says in favor of far more expert opinions with far less profit motive. The exact same thing I can say about Mr. Plimer.

a reply to: Bluntone22

However, glyphosate, fracking, artificial cloud cover, pissing massive amounts of pharmaceuticals into our water supply, and an increased use of fossil fuels due to imports and exports, just to name a few, have only replaced the pollution of the past.

You don't see the circular reasoning in your view?

originally posted by: Elementalist
Finally someone who makes sense...

Lots of naysayers, probably most Americans.

We've seen for fact, scientific community lie about temperatures, even by slightest.

There is a global agenda. That's obvious. There is profit, that's obvious.

I'm sure if one took the time to fact check what is being said , it could be verified.

But the fact still remains, the scientific community has lied about global temperatures and cheated graphs.

The only global agenda I see in regard to this is lobbyists for industry attempting to create a false narrative so that their clients can continue to make climate change worse without profit loss or spending to upgrade. Now THAT is a global agenda.

a reply to: reldra

Seems to me everyone is just looking to deny their own responsibility for the mess. We are all responsible and need to change the way we live our lives.

If you buy a lot of Chinese goods you are contributing to the smog over there, the landfill scarcity over here, and the eventual bleed of all those nasty chemicals into our soil and water. Rather than you demanding that industry and government clean up their act, how about you clean up yours.

a reply to: Rocker2013

So the geological / geographical name of 'Raised Beach' is a standard concept that is not known world-wide even though every coastline has large and small sections of 'raised beaches' let alone conglomerate rock types.

Oh and were the fjords of Sweden, occupied by glaciers prior to the industrial revolution ?

Or were the U-shaped valleys rich farmland long before the upsurge of CO2 ?

No, because the glaciers melted long ago after the last ice age because the sun heated up.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Al Gore isn't given a pass.. He is a hypocrite. But there are plenty of other scientist who are not making the buku bucks that are saying we need to figure something out.

Funny how people bring up the money making the scientist say something but refuse to look at the money someone like this guy is making.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: Rapha

This is actually a great example of how deniers pick and choose aspects of science to support their claims, while deliberately ignoring the larger picture, and deliberately falsifying the information to suit their ignorance rather than changing their opinion when confronted by new information.

You'll find the ACTUAL science on proper websites, rather than the junk science on the sites of climate change deniers who pick and choose.

Of course, while presenting these sedimentary formations as some kind of "evidence" that climate change history is a lie, intelligent people understand that geology cannot be explained away through one factor alone. You're deliberately ignoring glacial movement and tectonic shifts while pretending this could have only been achieved through high sea levels.

Don't worry if some in Government get their way, the climate change deniers will soon be locked up and out of the way.

Political prisoners in the free world?

Don't stop believing.

worldnewsdailyreport.com...

reason.com...

gawker.com...

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Don't worry if some in Government get their way, the climate change deniers will soon be locked up and out of the way.

Political prisoners in the free world?

Don't stop believing.

worldnewsdailyreport.com...

reason.com...

gawker.com...

Okay, get back to me when this is actually happening rather than being irrationally feared by the paranoid delusional's who are so desperate for their "evil government" they start making things up in their own heads before anything has actually happened.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Don't worry if some in Government get their way, the climate change deniers will soon be locked up and out of the way.

Who pays the Government wages ? Tax-payers.

Who are the deniers ? Tax-payers.

Lock-em all up, Government starves to death. Sounds cool to me.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Don't worry if some in Government get their way, the climate change deniers will soon be locked up and out of the way.

Political prisoners in the free world?

Don't stop believing.

worldnewsdailyreport.com...

reason.com...

gawker.com...

Okay, get back to me when this is actually happening rather than being irrationally feared by the paranoid delusional's who are so desperate for their "evil government" they start making things up in their own heads before anything has actually happened.

I doubt I will be able to from a prison cell.

a reply to: Rapha

You're right!
I've seen the light!
All it took was a random person on a forum to make me second guess decades of work by thousands of people who are actually trained in their field and basing their peer-reviewed scientific papers on years of scientific knowledge and data!

I'm sure someone will come along to offer the science needed to convince me that the Earth is actually flat too.

/sarcasm

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

all you have to do is open your eyes. this is idiotic to think global warming is a hoax.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Climate change should be challenged, of course, at least for scientific purposes. Sure, maybe CO2 levels rising is not such a bad thing as we think. Maybe climate change is merely a symptom of a changing orbit around the sun (even though I'm not aware of any model), or the sun is itself changing. Maybe sea-levels rising is rather a good thing, despite the sinking of coastal cities. But even so, advancing science in the spirit of clean energy, lowering pollution levels, and better management of waste, is not only for the purposes of sustaining a livable environment, but also to make the planet less ugly—and we are making it uglier. There is garbage everywhere, even in the most inhospitable places on the planet. Plumes of smoke block the sky in many places. The oceans are getting worse and worse as waste accumulates. And the smell... Putting aside the threat to a livable environment, It's ugly; and we should also defend any scientific and technological advance in environmental protection on aesthetic grounds.

As an aside, I'm not sure why the environment isn't a top priority for the conservative ideology, especially since the root word of conservatism is "conserve".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am all for alternative energy sources, it's common sense isn't it?

I also accept that we are experiencing climate change, as the world's climate goes through constant change.

I do my bit such as recycling everything I can, switching off power sources when not in use and do all I can to prevent my local environment from becoming harmed.

What I would say though is that if Governments truly believed the science, then they would be doing far more than they are currently, to limit the damage being caused. So called Green taxes are a waste of time imo. If they are serious about tackling the problem, wholesale changes would need to be made, but when money as at the heart of every decision they make, then these off setting taxes are a win for them.