Topic: What will happen when people realise that the world is cooling and not warming? - page 4. (Read 697 times)

What you're referring to already happened a long time ago. You're using the old term of "Global Warming," when many, many years ago it was changed to climate change.

Those climate change activists who are busy with their demonstrations would have done better by plantings trees imagine one million protesters all planting trees and reducing their carbon emissions. That would go a long way in helping than protesting without doing anything and waiting for the governments to do something.

Really? Sure, some people want you to believe that.

But they are not "nature's warning. Not in the least."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/07/australia-fires-people-charged-starting-wildfires-arson/2831063001/

In my country , government has banned single use plastic and instead Oxo-biodegradable plastics bags were introduced but that's also just replica of previous plastic. We are only doing destruction to this world polluting rivers, cutting forests, killing wildlife. Recent Australian fires are nature warning

the UK has never really had a white christmas stereotype.

for instance in the UK
out of the last 58 years the uk has only had 17 snow falls on christmas. and out of those 17 only 9 actually resulted on snow remaining on the ground for it to be an actual white christmas.
yep 9 out of 58.. 1/6 chance

alot of people think that england used to be a regular cold spot due to media portrayal of the thames freezing over and people thought it was a regular accurance that has been lost.. however the reality is
But between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 - the ice was thick enough to hold a fair.
yep 23 times in 500 years. and the 1814 thames frost fair was not a early occurance

oh and by the way. the 'frost fair' was in the first week of february.. not christmas


most 'white christmas' comes from the old stories of the nordic/germany regions narrative of santa clause. where ofcorse in the nordic region they actually do experience snow at winter. thus snow on christmas

kind of funny how it became westernised by coca-cola.. not the met-office. yep cola spread the message of snowy christmas in their adverts in the previous century
before the narrative. most christmases were where people went to church and celebrated the birth of christ.. the whole desire for snowballs and making snowmen/snowangels is just a media craze trying to make it look like a thing to expect to do each year.
other things like the movie 'the snowman' had actually nothing to do with christmas. even the author said so. yet media used it as a christmas tale by always broadcasting it every christmas.

also funny. how things like 'frozen' a movie about a cartoon character with super powers to make ice. turns into a subliminal winter movie about christmas by being released in the november/december season.. yep frozen isnt about christmas. but makes kids want to see snow and play with snowmen

I'm not saying your wrong in your theory, but every single year winter seems like it is being pushed back further, occurring at a much later period even going into the next year (if you happen to live in the west). Christmas used to be cold and often accompanied with light snow, now this past Christmas I could have went out jogging in shorts. Winter feels like it is getting shorter, I know that if the ground hog sees his shadow, there is supposedly 6 more weeks of winter but now it's starting to feel like January is the coldest month of the year, then it immediately gets warm again in early February.
  A few trees in my area still have leaves and I see birds and squirrels are still around, I thought that at this time of the year they were in hibernation? Perhaps I'm wrong, I guess it depends on where exactly within the world you live that determines the status of your climate. I don't really know to be honest, but something feels different about the weather lately

Human are the most clever species of the earth. Their cleverness is what made them the dominant species and are one of the most adoptive species.
Human live and flourish in a wide range of temperature -90 to 60 degree Celsius. Humans can devise a solution for every problem.
If we can decrease global warming, we can easily increase it when needed.

yes us humans have caused damage. but when the industry that causes damage are not making profit and need to shift to another sector. they exaggerate the risks they caused to purely get good tax reliefs to cover the costs of the transition.

cabon ecosystem can sort itself out in 20-50 years anyway by just running out of coal/oil to burn. so its not a planet killer. infact plants love carbon. its generational lung health is at risk over then next 20-50 years thats feared most. ofcourse our decendants in 100 years wont have that problem.
other industries want a taste of the government treasury pie.. ofcourse again. with oil depletions .. the plastics companies need to transition to plastics cleanup and plastic recycling to stay in profit

big-agri will transition to vertical farming and using the spare land to get paid to plant poplar tree's and every 5 years cut down the wood and replant for a 5 year profit. while all sounding green(green economy as in the colour of american banknotes and the eco system)
(china love their bamboo industry and america will love their poplar tree industry)

we are even seeing the vegan movement as part of the issue. most countries already have quota's for animal farming control. and surprisingly farms get paid grants not to farm and just have empty fields or convert fields into other purposes. this will continue and get more intense

sidenote. governement farming quota's is the reason for price competition on meat. not the human population growth. some have propaganda'd that there just aint enough meat to feed 10billion in the future.. well increase the quota by 50% so the meat for 7bill can increase to meat for 10bill.
gov didnt set the rule for their own reasons.. they were lobbied by big agri to cause a demand rise. because previous farming grew so much surplus it was affecting the commodities price and was actually having soo much food it could actually feed the planet for pennies

politicians are not the problem. its the entities below them that have been allowed b politicians to do things.

for instance
government did not screw the economy themselves. .. but they stood back and let the banks screw the economy.
government did not start wars themselves. .. but they stood back and let the generals of 'defence' practice 'offence'

government does not send people into space. they just let companies like nasa, spacex, and such do it

this is how governments feel they are not the problem, because someone else holds the gun. not them themselves.

governments are not on a power trip of starting wars or putting people in prison. instead its the technical, defence, scientific advisers and lobby groups that have the power. and kiss gov ass to get allowed to do things. by wrding it in a way that sounds beneficial. but hiding the facts of what happens after the action is taken.
in short government are dumb and just agree to stories they are told that seem to benefit the majority

.. with all that said.
yes we will see agencies and corporations trying to make change for a profit

...
take african economic challenge 70 years ago. feign corporations convinced african government that selling land to foreign investors would make the forex exchange rate better and boost african economy, create jobs and such. so the government agreed.
next thing. rainforests destroyed, natives displaces and big-agri stepped in with industrial farming methods that didnt require huge labour. meaning those displaced didnt get jobs, lost their land, homes and ability to grow thei own food. the food big-agri grew was exported using the corps own forign internal network so the african economy didnt get the boost. and then unicef,redcross and other agencies had to step in to spoonfeed the displaced. and yes even the 'charities' stepping in got rich.

so although african gov didnt displace the natives themselves. by letting big agri do what they did. alot ofhate for the gov insued and civil wars began

..
i dont see big-industry doing cloud control in the form of the myth of spraying chem-trails in the sky. firstly the cost is huge and the results are small.. big-industry would be getting grants and tax reliefs to desalinate sea water and spray water onto land. to allow the cooling at ground level and also evaporation to cause clouds. for further cooling
i can see the proposed benefits of 'artificial mist' in fields. i can see all the possible positive spin of 'cheap water' 'desert to green' but i can see the after effects of all that excess water when it seeps back into rivers with its toxic chemicals from fertilisers and insecticides which would then cause a need for the next industry revolution

all that is happening is corporate industry finding ways to make money from 'feel good' projects that are aimed at helping the planet. which then cause issues of their own to chin react new industries to form to 'feel good' about cleaning up the mess of the last industry.
i see you might like your conspiracy theories so here is a trail for you to follow

saudi-star (african big-agri) ->american redcross(ceo linked to john hopins aramco(saudi aramco(oil+medical research))
when you look at all the things like what caused all the disease in africa due to the displaced people and then look at the medical profit to treat them. and then the big agri-oil-natural resouce grab from the displaced land. you see how the chain reactions link
(big agri cause a african disaster, then grow food.. ship it out of africa.. redcross/unicef buy it using charity money/tax grants. ship it back into africa)


.. now that was just from a land grab. image the cause and effect form a water grab

Whether we are heading towards cooling or warming, the answer to global disturbance is plant more trees, use less plastics, less carbon emission etc. One thing is clear that we are in rush to destroy this plant earth and our coming generations will suffer. 

I think it was John Bolton who said that the US could bring a country to its knees by changing its climate. I believe that they experimented with California to develop this, and now it is being used on Australia. The fires there, and the loss of groundwater don't seem to be natural. The use of Plutonium that than Thorium for nuclear powwer seems to have been driven by the weapon grade output from Plutonium plants - good for India for starting to switch to Thorium. Fracking is extremely destructive, as it messes up the groundwater. It's another example of Washington exploiting the US with no regards for the population.

Thar sick Greta girl would be better served by drawing attention to the so-called medication that gave her Aspergers, rather than trying to promote the bird blenders that are used to generate power from wind, and trying to destroy farming by reducing ruminants which are an important part of the life cycles of the environment.

You've obviously done serious studying on climate or just know about it, and have an ability to put the issues in simple terms that people can understand.

But I differ on this issue. If you go with the trend "that there is a climate problem, and our valiant politicians must SOLVE IT..."

That is a guaranteed fucking disaster.

Reflect a bit on what would happen if you gave politicians control over a part of the hydraulic cycle.

First of all, they would sense the power in weather control, and then they'd use it for every corrupt payoff imaginable. The result would be in part a continual harping on the "climate problem."

In fact, there may have been no "problem." Or there may have been a nominal change in climate based on man's actions. This is only about a power grab. That's all it ever was.

The really serious problem would be the onset of another "Little Ice Age." That is because of the distribution of people, many in large cities, many close to the coast. If one looks at the loss of crops during the LIA and asks what would happen if we had a similar loss today, that would be a disaster like the human race has never seen.

That would be a problem cause by an internal nature cycle of the Sun, affecting the Earth indirectly. It would affect the level and distribution of small atmospheric particles around which clouds form. (ref CERN "Cloud" experiments). Could engineers control cloud formation such as to negate the effects of a "quiet Sun" and cause life to go on as normal?

That's a huge question and it is a real question. But so far, and possibly inalterably, the politicians will jump on any false narrative that yields them power and money. The more difficult option of actually solving a problem is never even addressed.

i see a couple decades of 'carbon' fundraising to cover 'carbon emission efforts'

next is things like desalinating water to use sea water for drinking/agriculture/ just wetting dry land. and ofcourse the 'microplastic' cleanup of ocean industry..

I suspect the AGW shills will trick the normie idiots into trusting them again somehow for whatever their next scam is once the man made global warming myth goes tits-up..

climate change is an apt term.. some places are heating up some are cooling.
though the average for the globe is just a degree and fears of a couple degree rise has been spouted as doomsday. the truth is that its multiple degrees higher in one area and multiple degrees cooler in another.

the other deflection of facts is whats the cause/reaction/ threat.
carbon is not the threat/cause/effect. water is.

so in the UK yes we are going to get colder winters. and because we only get a few weeks of proper summer. though those summers may be hotter then usual. overall because we dont see much of it. we will generally feel the bitter winter cold for a longer period and feel it as a colder climate average for just UK

where as africa who hardly get to see a winter. will feel the summer feel more intense.

the result is UK gets more storms and snow and wind. africa gets more droughts and bushfires and desertification.

any way. the whole carbon emissions need to drop in next 20-50 years will happen anyway no matter what environmental campaign is done. simply because there is no unlimited supply of fossil fuels. even in the 1990's they revealed oil/gas stores were being depleted. so carbon will not be an issue in a few decades anyway. the whole plastic tax(carrier bags) and carbon tax(emissions) is just to invest money into giving energy companies a free new power plant without affecting their profit line so they can move from coal to renewables totally cost free. because without these taxes and with depleting fossil fuels their share value would tank hard unless they shifted.

but that all doesnt solve the actual climate problem. carbon is the energy problem and human lung health problem.
the climate problem needs solutions related to controlling the water cycle

Government and political action is geared to climate change, but are they working on the wrong trend, and making things worse for us. We are entering a period of global cooling, but all the publicity is about global warming. We are destroying carbon sinks, and pretending that we are making things better by trying to reduce carbon dioxide - the lifebreath of the oxygen producers. Out world is based on carbon, and we need to recycle it to maintain life as we know it.

So what will happen when the public realises that the whole of the climate change industry is designed to reduce food production, and to reduce life as we know it?