Jump to content

Bangkok could be completely underwater by 2050, new report claims


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Time to grow said:

I am not exaggerating because this is not my opinion. It is in fact a theory supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence. You choose not to believe the science based on your unsubstantiated opinion, as you are free to do. But no ones opinion counts for much when weighed against empirical scientific evidence. Believe what you like, it's too late to do anything about it anyway.

     Have you seen your therapist lately ? 

       It used to be the "...peer reviewed and scientific consensus.." that the continents were fixed in place and did not move even when I was in elementary school in the 1950's. 

    Dr. Alfred Wegener was laughed out of the lecture halls and found it almost impossible to get published.  All the scientists shunned him. 

      It wasn't until the late 1950's early 1960's that they discovered that Alfred Wegener had been right all along. 

 

   Now Plate Tectonics/continental drift is proven. But too late for Alfred Wegener who died in the 1930's.... long before he was vindicated. 

 

  Consensus... 5555.....we usually don't learn anything new from people with whom we agree.

 

     And do not trust "..peer review..."  Peer review is not proof of fact.  Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was "peer reviewed."   Vladimir Lenin's "Works" were "peer reviewed."

     Doesn't make it right and good.  All it means is that your colleagues read your stuff and smile and slap you on the back and say "good job" and sign off on it.  

 

    "Scientific Consensus"... Well, the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

         In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

     

  "Whenever you hear that the consensus of scientists have agree on something ot other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."   -  Michael Crichton. 

 

   "A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively, what no one believes individually. 

    -  Abba Eban

 

    "To me, consensus seems to be - the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies, in search of something in which no-one believes, but to which no-one objects."

    - Lady Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England

 

     Let me say this...   When I fly across the Arctic Ocean several times... at various times of the year.. and I see ice from shore to shore... for a visual corridor about 468 miles wide for a distance of about 2,000 miles across the Arctic Ocean.. and there is ice from shore to shore...  I know I'm being lied to about the Arctic Ocean being ice free over the years...

BBC December 12, 2007: “Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013‚Ä≥

The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. This story was within a more rational story in the Daily Mail.

ABC News, April 7, 2008: “North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008‚Ä≥ (source)

 

Because of the large ice melt in 2007, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said “This raises the spectre ‚Äì the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

Sierra Club, March 23, 2013: “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013‚Ä≥ (source)

“”For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.”

Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) has compiled scans of newspaper articles predicting an ice-free Arctic:

The Argus (Melbourne) July, 17, 1954: “Arctic Ice Thaws” (source)

“The ice-packed Arctic Ocean may become navigable in another 25 to 50 years if the present warming-up tendency of the polar region continued.”

New Scientist, December 1, 1960 : (source, see bottom of second column)

“The Arctic Ocean will be open year-round before the end of the twentieth Century.”

Tuscaloosa News, May 18, 1972: “Arctic Ocean to be ice free by 2000?” (source)

“Washington (AP) -Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

National Geographic News, December 12, 2007, “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” (source)

“This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

Huff Post October 16, 2009, “We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change “(source)

Article by then Senator John Kerry in which he claims:

“The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

The Guardian May 2, 2013: “White House warned on imminent Arctic ice death spiral” (source)

“Senior US government officials are to be briefed at the White House this week on the danger of an ice-free Arctic in the summer within two years.” We will just have to see if the Arctic becomes ice-free this summer.

Now that previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean have failed to materialize, the alarmists are extending their wolf cry to predict it will happen in 2030 or 2050 etc.

Such are the predictions of “climate scientists” for whom, it seems, computer models are their reality.

Arctic sea ice melt is nothing new. To put things in perspective, consider these older reports:

“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74 and 80 N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

The paragraphs above come from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, written in 1817 (Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153). When this report was written, the planet was in the midst of the Little Ice Age. How could the ice disappear in a Little Ice Age if the melting was due to global warming?

Another story:

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish And Icebergs Melt

   from 1922

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are being found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.    1922

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 And do not trust "..peer review..."  Peer review is not proof of fact.  

Suit yourself. You can listen to the scientists or not, it's completely up to you. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. I would make the argument that we are in this predicament precisely because a general public refused to listen to the scientists warnings in the first place. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. You and Trump will learn the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 And do not trust "..peer review..."  Peer review is not proof of fact.  

Suit yourself. You can listen to the scientists or not, it's completely up to you. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. I would make the argument that we are in this predicament precisely because a general public refused to listen to the scientists warnings in the first place. You and Trump will learn the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

But you want us to shut down our common sense and nod our heads and say “We believe...we believe you. We’re scared and alarmed. Let’s tear down capitalism. Socialism will save us.”

uhhh.....sure ????????

I am not asking you to do anything other than listen to the science. What you do with that information is irrelevant at this point. If you choose to deny the science, that is your choice, and you are free to do that. I am certainly not asking you to "tear down capitalism" as that would only aggravate the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

I am not asking you to do anything other than listen to the science. What you do with that information is irrelevant at this point. If you choose to deny the science, that is your choice, and you are free to do that. I am certainly not asking you to "tear down capitalism" as that would only aggravate the problem. 

Nobody denies that climate changes. I beleive that climate changes. What envirofascists seem to deny is the fact that measured by geologic time, the climate is going to change in a myriad of ways because thats what climate does, and they further deny our utter powerlessness to affect the climate, or indeed anything to do with the systems of the Universe.. Eliminate all C02 in a panic and bring us back (whats left of us) to the Stone Age.and then guess what, Yellowstone will blow and a meteor will hit Siberia and the rest of us ekeing out a miserable CO2 free existence with die. Cool. Thus goeth the Universe.

 

 

We, meaning bipedal flesh bags with a measure of intelligence, have become the dominant species by being able to understand some natural systems and being able, to a certain extent to manipulatesome natural systems. That doesnt make us God, using that term to define that which we as mere blubberbubbles are unable to understand. That upsets people. Folks have either rejected or ignored the concept of God and in their hubris, feel that they can be Gods themselves.

 

They cant. S**t happens. Our pathetic lives are measured in Universe teenytinymilliseconds. You cant change it, so adapt or die, thats what humans do. Bangkok flooding? Build underwater, move inland. Sea rising? Move. Glaciers creeping from the North? Invade the south, lets have a war! Only a few of us left after the world goes under? Breed more! Not into wearing the skins of animals and cannibalizing your neighbor becasue there has been a drought for 10 years? Go start your own tribe and head for the sea, or where the sea used to be before the crust shifted and destroyed civilization. Or hey, just die, you are gonna die anyway and get reincarnated into something.

 

I feel bad for folks who wander around consumed with ClimateAngst. Its right up there with folks who stare at the skies afraid of asteroids, tinfoil hats, TDS, The Protocols and all the other goofy stuff folks think of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a related question.

Years ago driving up past DMK airport on the road under the tollway the lanes close to the middle barrier were up and down like a dogs hind leg. The support pillars were built on concrete rafts that I would assume were on piles and the road surface outside those rafts had slowly gone down leaving the surface around the raft and pillar at least 8 to 10 inches higher. At that time the tollway was probably around 10 years old, not sure.

I can't remember when it was done but they did scrape the 'bumps' off at one point in time to level the surface again. 

Does that mean that BKK was/is sinking or the tollway was somehow self elevating??

 

It's been at least 15 years since I've driven on that bottom road so would like to know what the level is like nowadays.

Anyone out there who uses that big of road can say??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

I am not asking you to do anything other than listen to the science. What you do with that information is irrelevant at this point. If you choose to deny the science, that is your choice, and you are free to do that. I am certainly not asking you to "tear down capitalism" as that would only aggravate the problem. 

Science huh? You mean like studying the Geological history of the Earth? And Paleoclimatology ? How about comparing climate history with the ups and downs of civilization over the past 8,000 years? How about comparing previous Interglacials with the Interglacial we are in now? 

   How about studying the Ice Age we are in right now?

    Through college and university I did study these subjects, and continue to read and study them in retirement. But my major interest is Astronomy, Meteoritics (working with Dr. Phil McCausland and also Dr. Hildebrand in the past) and History. (Ancient Greece and Rome are specialties) 

   In college I also took courses in Economics, Politics, and for interest a course in the History of Modern Communism. Another big interest is Eastern Philosophy. I ended up becoming a Theravadan Buddhist.

    I’ve listened to the “Climate Science”. I also know something about politico-economic deception and the Socialist/Marxist agenda. 

    In the 1960’s - 1980’s we used the ‘Peace and Disarmamant Movement” to try to undermine the west, NATO and primarily Britain and the U.S. (I was a radical Marxist student activist and organizer with a group of student Marxist-Leninists at the time...before I came to my senses. I know how the scams work.)

  After the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the U.S.S.R and the collapse of the World Peace Council and regional Peace Movements, we had to find another way to work hard to bring about the collapse of the capitalist west and to build Socialism. From the inside. 

    Environmentalism and Global Warming fit the bill perfectly. You take advantage of sincere organizations, join them and turn them into a tool for building Socialism and undermining capitalism and free competitive enterprise. You twist those organizations to suit your agenda. Socialists/Marxist-Leninists and also Fascists and other totalitarian types are great at that. 

   Have a nice day....comrade. ☭  ????

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

the climate is going to change in a myriad of ways because thats what climate does

What you fail to understand is the "rate of change" is the critical component here.

 

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Eliminate all C02 in a panic

Even a significant reduction in CO2 will hasten our demise. I am not selling anything. I am not asking you or anyone else to do anything. It is much too late for any of that. You are free to continue denying the science as you wish. No one is going to take your hamburger away from you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

What you fail to understand is the "rate of change" is the critical component here.

Well Im sure that the universe has given systems far faster changes.

 

3 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

You are free to continue denying the science as you wish.

Im not denying anything. Its the ecofascists that deny that they think they are god.

 

Ah, the hubris of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Time to grow said:

Suit yourself. You can listen to the scientists or not, it's completely up to you. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. I would make the argument that we are in this predicament precisely because a general public refused to listen to the scientists warnings in the first place. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. You and Trump will learn the hard way.

When you can intelligently rebut Tony Heller’s points, and prove all his cites and references are bogus and not just attack him with ad hominem, please do feel free to show your evidence here. Tony Heller cites and references all his points. 

 

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the “entire economy.”

Chakrabarti said that addressing climate change was not Ocasio-Cortez’s top priority in proposing the Green New Deal during a meeting with Washington governor Jay Inslee.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.

 

 

It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running." 
https://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI?

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers 

Climate Change Scientists Caught Tampering With Data to Show Rising Sea Levels 

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated 
Temperature Data" 

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data" 

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US 
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee" 

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation" 

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000" 

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA" 

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim  -  Concede 2014 NOT "Hottest Year" 

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C Per Century Trend" 

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught 
 

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The 
World's Economy 
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used- 
un-promote-economic-agenda/
 

***** 

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change 
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of- 
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
 

***** 

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare 
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to- 
destroy-capitalism/
 

***** 

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare 
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist- 
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
 

***** 

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is 
to Destroy Capitalism 
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02- 
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Time to grow said:

What you fail to understand is the "rate of change" is the critical component here.

 

Even a significant reduction in CO2 will hasten our demise. I am not selling anything. I am not asking you or anyone else to do anything. It is much too late for any of that. You are free to continue denying the science as you wish. No one is going to take your hamburger away from you.

 

 

“Yawn...”

   Fact is, Climate always changes on this planet. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Welcome to planet Earth. 

   0.85 degree C over a 132 year period is NOT fast. (0.85 degree C increase 1880 - 2012. I.P.C.C. Third and Fourth Assessment Reports for Policy Makers)

    And you would expect it to warm following the L.I.A. (circa 1300 — 1850) wouldn’t you? Did you expect it to get colder instead?

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is not any different from Al Gore's, and the New York Time's, 'it's only about some ice melting in 2100'.   but if you are a science person, someone who reads science journals, and understands people as well... both of those... 'it' is about social divisiveness, social chaos, food, water, heat stroke in an extended grid failure... along those lines and not in 2100 or 2050.  Bangkok in 2050 won't matter to anyone because the observations and science post 2015, and especially this year, point to our having been way too optimistic.  not just on the Arctic but aerosols and the timing of the crossing of other thresholds as well, such as the ENSO teleconnections i.e. Freund et. al. in May 2019 Nat. Geoscience. of course, Rosenfeld et. al. in Feb. 2019 Science has to be cited as it was the big kahuna of 2019, on aerosols.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Do you know how many times this has been said over the past 35+ years?  The only difference is that they keep pushing the date out further each time!

3 years ago, this was the headline "the clock is ticking for Bangkok. Before it turns 250 years old in 2032, the city could have sunk under water'. The sinking still continue while the government keep doing nothing but choose to deceive by pushing the day of reckoning further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If true, then banks and lenders would simple stop lending for construction in supposed 'low-lying' areas that will be flooded by 2050. 

Do you see any slow-up in construction?  Anywhere?

 

For example:

President Obama's seaside villa (79 Turkeyland Cove Road in Edgartown, Mass) that should be under water in 30 years.  ????
index.jpg.c3879338c19774f0e048792b0bdccdba.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WeekendRaider said:

this is not any different from Al Gore's, and the New York Time's, 'it's only about some ice melting in 2100'.   but if you are a science person, someone who reads science journals, and understands people as well... both of those... 'it' is about social divisiveness, social chaos, food, water, heat stroke in an extended grid failure... along those lines and not in 2100 or 2050.  Bangkok in 2050 won't matter to anyone because the observations and science post 2015, and especially this year, point to our having been way too optimistic.  not just on the Arctic but aerosols and the timing of the crossing of other thresholds as well, such as the ENSO teleconnections i.e. Freund et. al. in May 2019 Nat. Geoscience. of course, Rosenfeld et. al. in Feb. 2019 Science has to be cited as it was the big kahuna of 2019, on aerosols.  

The oceans are rising and will destroy the coasts of all countries in the next 30 years... Which is why the likes of Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama have recently purchased ocean-front properties.  Ah-huh.  ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Ah, the hubris of man

Interesting, what I find hubristic, is the view of some people that leads them to think they are better suited to asses the state of the climate than the climatologists and other scientific experts. They often take a stance against climate change in complete denial of basic facts grounded in physics, chemistry, and the laws of thermodynamics. If these scientific disciplines were not valid, then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Time to grow said:

Suit yourself. You can listen to the scientists or not, it's completely up to you. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. I would make the argument that we are in this predicament precisely because a general public refused to listen to the scientists warnings in the first place. You want to pit the likes of a Mercer Family shill, Tony Heller, against NASA, be my guest. You and Trump will learn the hard way.

The problem with many of the things you are saying is science does not have a clue. They can guess, but a bunch of experts can also guess which way the stock market will turn tomorrow too. Science is effective when they test and run thousands of successful trials, say with penicillin or something silimar. 

 

We do not have trials with sea level rising. People are trying to predict major changes on way too short a time scale, and they do not have ANY comparable models. For example, when was the last time in the earth's history a group of humans expelled enough co2 gasses into the atmosphere to affect climate?

 

It is unprecedented. 

 

One problem humans have is they feel safe when they think they understand stuff. We do not understand this. It is picking which way the stock market will go. Pretending like humans know what is going to happen is just sticking your head in the sand. They make their best guess, do what they can, and go back to the drawing board when they are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, illiterate said:

The problem with many of the things you are saying is science does not have a clue.

Maybe by your estimation. I am impressed by how valid the science proves to be. As an example:

 

Svante August Arrhenius was a Swedish scientist. Originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, Arrhenius was one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903, becoming the first Swedish Nobel laureate. In 1905, he became director of the Nobel Institute, where he remained until his death. Arrhenius was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth's increasing surface temperature. Arrhenius pointed out, with the first referee journal article In "1896" predicting a global average temperature rise of 1.0°C (>1750 pre industrial baseline) by the year 2000. 


As it turns out, he was wrong. The planet had only warmed 0.75°C by 2000, over 100 years later. Some people would point to this example and say, "See, I told you so, these scientists haven't got a clue." Other people would use this as an excuse to throw out all scientific evidence on the basis that it might be wrong. 


Keeping in mind that civilization has advanced some in the last 120 odd years and our technology has developed a bit. I take Arrhenius's warning as remarkably accurate given the circumstances. The premise that CO2 and other green house gasses are warming the planet has not only been established science for over 100 years, his predictions were essentially dead on. Making an argument that he was some kind of conspirator, as many do, is ludicrous.

 

You claim there is no "human caused" precedence for a CO2 spike therefore it is an invalid assumption. There have been five mass extinctions with various causes but the one common denominator, they all had a massive spike in CO2. We have never had a CO2 spike like the one we are having now. The rate of change is unprecedented and makes the Great Dying of the Permian Period look like a Sunday stroll through the park. No scientist is going to even entertain your argument that excessive CO2 is not caused by humans or if it were, it's not a green house gas. CO2 in the atmosphere has been in a state of balance for millions of years and the human caused additional CO2 has disrupted the balance whether you like it or not.

 

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all things in the universe. Science is based on demonstrable and reproducible data supported by empirical evidence. Science is based on results through testing and analysis, on fact, not opinion or preferences. The only acceptable challenge to science is with science.

 

If you choose to ignore, discredit, or deny the science in this age of science and technology, you do so at your own peril. As I have said before, it makes no difference what you believe at this point anyway. I will try not to be judgmental but the astonishment is hard to overlook.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

You seem to be on the same intellectual level as Donald Trump. 

Not to defend Trump but even Trump knows Climate Change is a valid threat to society, if not civilization. Ben Kelly wrote an article in the Independent June 6th, 2019; "Then in 2017, the Trump organisation was granted permission to build a 38,000 tonne sea wall to protect the resort from sand dunes which were facing coastal erosion. Perhaps ironically, given Trump's stance on climate change, his own lawyers included in their application that climate change was partially behind the coastal erosion." 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-ireland-doonbeg-visit-golf-climate-change-green-environment-protests-a8945371.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...