Topic: Is Global Warming Real? - page 13. (Read 2833 times)

2 degree's in 150 years

.. in the 1980s i remember people saying how the average was a few degree's average less than the norm where by the UK had many snow storms

in the 1920's people were saying how temperatures were hotter, blaming the london smog

climate change is just that. CHANGE.. up, down, up down
its not an apocalyptic event.

yes we are causing an impact. and so were dinosaurs when they stampede through forests and grassland eating it all until the tree's were left to die.

the point is though
no matter if we went completely offgrid, carbon neutral, no concreting the ground. no draining the water. we will never ever ever have a planet where the temperature becomes a fixed number

The relevant phrase here is 'geological timescales'.

No, Greenland hasn't always been covered in ice, and no it hasn't always been an island. Even Antarctica was once covered in lush tropical forests. Continents move due to tectonic plate activity, over billions of years. Here's a video of just the last 200m years: https://youtu.be/WaUk94AdXPA

Continents move and climates change. The world of the dinosaurs was much hotter and more humid than today. The point is that these changes occur over geological timescales, which are difficult for the human mind to comprehend. It's why people have trouble believing that things like the human eye evolved - they can't consider the time it took to happen.

Natural climate change takes a long time. Human-driven climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year. It's completely different to the natural process.

a thought to think about

greenlands 'methane' concern comes from vegetation and animal decay from many centuries ago.. hmm vegtation = grass and tree's .. i wonder how can that be possible if greenland was always an ice island.....

next thought to have
ok so lets believe greenland was solid land of having grass and trees and animals living on it.. i wonder how can that be possible i mean wouldnt the planet be too hot to support life. ...

the truth is that global temperatures are not suppose to be a fixed statistic that never goes up or down. ofcourse it should change. there is no denying that climate change exists but what you actually have to ask yourself is what number is 'norm'

to eskimo/inuits 10'c is a hot summers day but to an african its a chilly cold day.
to most developed countries sat between the north pole and the equator they thing 17'c is a nice fine comfortable day
people adapt to their environment
a 2'c change over 150 years is enough for ~7 generations to growup and give birth to each generation that gives better temperature tolerance to new environment
heck i know some african folk who came to england in the 70's(40 years ago) and their children acclimatised and now the grandchildren dont see all the fuss about english winters. and thats just 2 generations

..
so here is some questions
when you look at places like the grand canyon, usa... airs rock, aus.. africa. and many places and you see the water erosion and previous sea levels of many centuries ago. and you see fossils that prove that life still existed in those conditions.
you do have to ask yourself
is a higher water level going to be a planet killer people think. or just nature being itself, adapting and moving

in my view climate change has nothing to do with carbon as carbon is only 0.04% of the air. and as many things prove the 33% increase from 0.03 to 0.04 has not caused a 33% temperature increase. other planets in the solar system with 95% carbon are not 3000x warmer than earth

the actual climate control is more about water.
when you do research into RAINforest's disparaging and what rain forests do for the climate you start to realise why its called rain forest and not carbon forest.

and this is due to de-forestations and building cities on land where land no longer retains water to be evaporated to keep the land cool (like sweat on skin evaporates to cool the body) but instead causes drought
what most people dont realise is that most water evaporation is caused by land retained water not ocean retained water.

i think people should separate the fears of the environment of humans into 2 separate categories
land health - water/climate
lung health - carbon/methane

and not confuse the two. as that seems to be the problem. climate change deniers use the carbon debate in relation to climate to deny climate change. .. carbon is not the metric to use in relation to climate. water is

Actually, back in the day people were told by 'authorities' that the earth was flat and almost every 'sane' person believed it fully for that reason.

Now people are told by 'authorities' that the earth is about to melt and kill us all unless we 'believe' in them and their priests and do whatever they say we need to do.

The Warmunistas of today are a combination of the flat-earthers who loved big brother prior to (and during) Galileo and the idiots who fell for Marxism in the pre-Soviet period.

They accept that global warming doesn't exist and they are the same breed off the branch who believed(s) once that Earth was flat and jailed Galileo for it. They also believed that outer space is filled with oxygen and there is a big snake at the end of the flat earth. Since they find it cold in their home because of AC, they disregard global warming.

That is completely untrue.

Flat earth is a ridiculous canard invented and promulgated to try to do what you just tried to do above.

I question the corp/gov position on vaccine safety, and even more so that the corporations (through government) are trying to force people to undergo their injections under duress supposedly 'for the public good.'

I question the corp/gov position on 'global climate change' because it is promoted by the energy companies who seek artificial scarcity which will increase the money they can charge for their product, and because the goal is to give a small group of people the authority over almost all aspects of human life.

I know a great number of people who have the same questions and the same basic stance as myself, and many of them are even more technically competent to evaluate the (pseudo-)science behind the programs.  Not a single one of these person believes in 'flat earth' or gives it a thought.

Flat Earthers, antivaxers, and climate deniers are all one in the same. They are all believing that the entire scientific community is in on a grand conspiracy and they are very dangerous people.

Edit:

I take it back.  The climate deniars are different because of the amount of money being spent to help them believe the conspiracy theory.  They are a little more sophisticated and the people behind it are acting more egregiously. 

Nonsense.

Typhoons, wildfires, floods and earthquakes have been around forever.

Those big countries are also the main polluters. They contributed more CO2 and the smaller nations,and these smaller nations are the victims here because they suffer more of these calamities. Climate change is real and right now, several locations around the world are  burning,some are flooding heavily,super typhoon are common nowadays  and earthquake are everywhere and  recently in Philippines. I think these are all connected and a collective effort globally  should be made in order to minimize these calamities.We have still time.

This simply shows you how the big money interests control the media so that they can covertly lead you into their one-world government.

It's been under questions since the proposal that the ultra-wealthy take control of society in order to save the world from climate catastrophe was first promoted.

Back before the 'scientists' were assuring us that 'science' says we are all going to die from global warming, they were telling use we were all going to die from the coming ice age.  I'm even old enough to remember that one.  That contention had it's doubters as well.

Just out of curiosity, do you know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?  Do you know the percentage of it that is attributable to human activity?  Most people who are terrified of global warming have no idea.  When they find out, some of them will think, "gee...could it be that eliminating even all human activity which may reduce the greenhouse gas by something like 0.004%, could really make that much of a difference?"

Or is the driving force more that Goldman-Sachs is set to make billions off of 'carbon trading platforms' among many many other such schemes when 9/10ths of what everyone pays for energy goes to fees and taxes and the like and every project gets hit with massive cost increases for useless things which are suppose make them 'sustainable'?

This is the first time I’ve heard about theory that global warming is a myth. When did it appear?  What are its main arguments? All the proofs I found were like “Greenland in IX century was covered with grass”.

Of course it is real and I feel it by the temperature on my country was changed always.  Just search it on google if you want to know it because based on the history on the country who has a huge Ice does melt this year so how can you explain that global warming doesn't exist?

The key word is evidence. I've highlighted it in the above post. Evidence. Science. Proof. Not faith, not ignoring the truth out of self-interest.
Look at the climate change deniers, and they are all representatives of the vested interests. They have money to lose if the governments of the world start to implement clean energy policies.

Look the people who are warning about climate change, the scientists, the activists, even those like Greta Thunberg. These aren't people with huge business interests. What do these people have to gain from the governments accepting that man-made climate change is real and taking steps to counteract it? Just a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable world. Something that we can be proud to pass on the the next generation.

That's not at all what I said.  I said that both 'global warming' and 'vaccines' are programs which are highly important to corp/gov and it is critical that people not question them.  One method to get a fairly large segment of people to not question them is to invent something like 'flat earth', then try to associate questions about these programs with the ridiculous 'flat earth' invention.  Although it is quite an obvious technique, It works and works well on the weak minded.

To answer your question, I happen to be very skeptical of the corp/gov story on both the calamitous nature of 'global climate change', and the safety of mass vaccinations.  The propaganda technique is to try to 'shame' people about having any questions at all about the 'authorized position' on these.  I'm not ashamed of it at all.


Freeman Dyson is famous enough for me.  And there are many many others as anyone who studies this issue will find out.

Again, nobody questions the shape of the earth.  It's an invented canard, but is also a great way to identify people who are almost fer certain working for the corp/gov propagandists.


I've seen very little discernible difference in the temperature or climate in the 40 years that I've been able to assess things.  Actually, about 5 years ago I did start to notice some fairly bizarre atmospheric conditions which are a direct match for the 'solar radiation management' schemes that are not becoming mainstream.

There is no doubt in my mind that if had been told by mainstream media that the scient-priests were seeing global cooling (and we need to give the rich people power to control the solar flux in order to stop it) then you would 'feel' the cooling just as strongly as you 'feel' the warming now.

So, THING is real and is proved by, ... THING???

Recent unpredictable weathers , increase in floods and droughts do show that their is change in how climate has been orchestrated for n number of years. Latest news and debates about global warming, protests across the world, formation of amendments like Paris Accord, SOLAR alliances to move from fossil to renewable fuels does show that there is need to change how we produce and eliminate green house gases. 

See? Non-Democrats can influence people through the media, as well.

Yes, hydroelectric is renewable. Nuclear fusion will effectively be renewable if it ever appears. Nuclear fission, no that's not renewable.


Agree that Big Business has a huge effect on what people think, but I think that in this case Big Business means oil and gas.


Your sunglasses thing is always a cool way to sign-off. It makes me want to agree with you even if I don't, damn you. Stop influencing my thinking!
I kind of want my own sign-off emoji, but that's the only good one, the rest of them look stupid, I'd be stuck with something like this:  

i heard about their reason and somehow its almost true actually. it does look like the big countries like US and EU are preventing developing countries to improve their economic growth being industrialized by stopping them for manufacturing products. if they are stopping by spreading the word through global warning and contributing the destruction of ozone layer. but why are they not stopping China for their factories producing massive smoke in Asia?  they  just want the poor countries to remain poor as how it looks.