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

Do you have a point to make?

But, what will happen when people figure it out? For example...

People are being brainwashed into the idea of global warming. So they think that the earth is getting warmer. What are they doing about it? Many of the God-faithful are praying. God is answering their prayers. That's why we are getting the global cooling.

When these people find out that they have been praying for the wrong thing, or that their prayers are being answered, they will start to pray the opposite. Then, God will give them warming, and the cycle will start again.



God knows better than we all do what is best for us... Jeremiah 29:11: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future," https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/29-11.htm.

Let's change our prayers for global cooling into prayers that God would direct everything according to what is best for us all.

It's the news but it hasn't been covered as widely as 'climate change' fires.
I haven't seen it anywhere on TV, just one or two online articles.

So the whole 24 arsonists....news or not news?

^ no mention of carbon .. but 'dryness' makes me think the lack of water might have a larger role to play

(sarcasm>)and if carbon is so good at reflecting heat back.. hmm why use water from fire engine hoses. why not smother the fire in carbon (

Barely. I just got back from a month in AU, and fires is not hardly in the news there at all.

FYI, there have historically always been fire issues at times in AU.

That link you posted...that's 'the news'...

This was once a hot subject, but interest has cooled.

Like the Sahara Desert vs. Siberia for hundreds of years now... except for the excess CO2... maybe.

The two are not mutually contradictory. There could be global warming due to CO2, and a Little Ice Age for different reasons happen at the same time.

Perhaps some of the devout believers in Global Warming didn't get the message that they are supposed to be "Climate Change propagandists?"

What gets me is that if you question received wisdom about climate, then you are a climate change denier. We don't deny that climate is changing, we just don't agree about the direction and the causes.

And we are heading into it right now. It might be here in as little as less than 15 years. But the beginning effects of it will certainly be felt by 2050.

Realistically, there is a 100% certainty of another Little Ice Age. There is a 100% certainty of a major ice age.

The only question is "When?"

Because, it has a less chance that the sun can burn and can cause fire in the forest when no one would burn it. If the sun temperature increases then it will turn into dryness.  Even there didn't know on what happen, they can notice it easily by testing the temperature.

There have been 24 people arrested and charged with setting fires in Australia (since this started), but do you hear about that in the news?

No. You hear the propaganda line yet once more.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested-deliberately-setting-fires-season/story?id=68108272

Of course there are no interests willing to pay off and pressure scientists to push your anthropogenic climate change theory right? Of course not! This is where you claim there is no financial incentive to do so, and where I spank you with the revelation of the tremendous amount of money and control to be gained by pushing this farce.

There are some who believe that the Australian and Californian fires were man made, and nothing to do with climate change. This opinion fits comfortably with the current activities to reduce farming to create famine. The new tax laws in Canada are just one example. The changes in banking charges for farming debts are another.

No you do not. What goes on is that scientists are surveyed, asked a question such as "Does man have an effect on the climate?" and the answers are pretty much "yes."

Then those exact questions are misrepresented in the propaganda machines in several ways. Would you like the details or are they obvious?




I just came back from Australia, and there was very little news or discussion about "big fire problems" there. This is quite curious, because there sure is a lot of talk about it here. Or propaganda.

How would you explain that?

People's lives will be greatly affected if the world is getting cold and not warming. Climate change is happening day by day, affecting human health. People need to be prepared to deal with climate change. Keep warm if the earth is getting colder.

We have as close to a universal consensus among scientists as is realistically possible, given that there will always be some who are paid off by the climate-hoax lobby, mega-rich oil firms etc. Climate change is real and ongoing and caused by human activity. There is a mountain of evidence as linked to previously.


Remember how the entire continent of Australia used to not be on fire?

Always consider what someone's motivation could be. If you work for a cigarette company, or if you're a doctor conducting a study that is funded by a cigarette company, the likelihood is you'll find cigarettes are safe. If you're independent and have no covert interests, you'll find they are dangerous. Same with climate change. Same with everything.


_{https://time.com/5753584/bushfires-australia-catastrophic-fire-alert/}

Like I said, this is why I don't bother having any logical debate with you any more and just call you out for the religious propagandist you are. You worship the religion of communism, and logic has no sway on your beliefs. There are plenty of newer sources on all of those topics (as if being old makes them invalid some how), but I am not going to waste my time throwing pearls before swine. No one said anything was settled except for you. All I am pointing out is the information you claim settles it has already been widely dismissed in spite of the marketing campaign ongoing to push this concept of anthropocentric global warming in order to bring in wealth redistribution and global government.

It is not known for certain on whose side the truth is and whether there is any truth here at all. If everything turns out as you say, then nothing special will happen. Remember how it used to be possible to smoke on airplanes, a cigarette advertisement advertised by doctors! And many other examples.

Therefore, everyone will simply say: "It seems we were mistaken, recently it became clear that everything is not as we thought."
The media will sort it out and give the audience something new.

spendulus ill come back for you next time
Not one legitimate source on the topic.   You didn't evaluate sources and its been critically damaging to your perspective.  You think you are reading science but are just reading right-wing bullshit straight from the industry.  


Forbes link
the new american links

climatechangedispatch link

and an ancient technology review article
It definitely wasn't settled back in 2004.(At least its a good source, just 25 years too late...

It seems an imbalance of nature? Nature is imbalanced.

Ever been caught in a hurricane? Seen a roof torn off your neighbor's house by a tornado?

Maybe you need to revise what you think nature is?

This may be true that some parts of the world are cooling like Winter or snowing in some parts of the Middle East, heavy rains in  Dubai, etc Bur If you look on the other side Australia is burning. This is climate change and it seems its an imbalance of nature. Climate change is real, whether it is cooling or warming, people are suffering and lives are lost.

Many people around the world are already waking up to this reality. Eventually, a tidal wave shift will occur and the farce will be fully revealed. It is only a matter of time.

This is something I have been trying to even get another view and I think why the global warming is on the high side is because large portion of the world is witnessing warm compared to the part that are witnessing the extreme cold you are referencing here. People in Canada would disagree strongly strongly that there is global warming because from their end, its like the cold is coming on another level and it does not seems it will stop anytime soon but for someone is West Africa, it seem the earth is further closer to the sun considering the level of heat as well as the extent at which rivers are drying up among other effects of global warming.

You likely "considered evidence" that was shaped and formed to make it appear overwhelming.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/global_cooling_the_real_climate_threat.html

NASA's page on solar influence clearly states that changes in the sun largely determine Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures.  Astrophysicists and climatologists measure these changes in the sun in terms of quantifiable phenomena such as sunspot activity and solar cycles.

However, in recent times, NASA has succumbed to pressure from climate doomsday proponents.  NASA's original page on the sun's impact on our climate system is now hidden from the public domain.

With the advent of dangerous man-made global warming theory, CO2 has taken the limelight, and the sun has been relegated to a mere spectator.

This could be warming-obsessed alarmists' biggest mistake ever.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

So, FROM NASA:

NASA 2010: What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?
The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

According to the Wayback Machine the text disappeared in early 2011 under Obama’s reign. Some people say Trump hides climate science, but Trump deletes propaganda, while Obama denies the Sun.

The Sun drives the climate on Earth
There are many mechanisms that the Sun can change the temperature of Earth (and not just through solar radiation). As we’ve discussed here many times, not only is there Henrik Svensmark’s theory about the solar magnetic effect on clouds through cosmic radiation, there are also potential effects (backed by observations) that magnetic fluxes, solar particle flow (the solar wind) and changes in the spectrum of of the UV and infra red may affect all kinds of climate markers on Earth. That includes atmospheric pressure, jet streams (Rossby waves), clouds, floods in Europe, rain in Asia, groundwater recharge in China, lightning over Japan, and wind and rain over Chile. The pervasive effect of the Sun even correlates surreally with human fertility, lifespan and jellyfish plagues.

If that's the case (which is likely not), I'd be very happy. I live in a very moist region that get too much water half of the year so it'll definitely reduce the flooding and storms. Not sure how dry the summers would be but at least they'll be cooler. 

Political play is found all around, and now this has got moved towards the climate change. Further on with the statement from Greta Thunberg scenario has changed and the heat on that particular topic reached the peak. Controversies were always part of discussion, but these discussions were always temporary. Once gets hot for a while and in a short when something else happen automatically people get deviated towards other conversation. This way nothing happens good rather than mesmerising by someone's talk.

https://thecount.com/2020/01/06/australia-fires-arson-deliberately-set/

https://globalnews.ca/news/6366259/what-causes-australia-wildfires/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/bushfire-arson-warning-ahead-of-school-holidays/11528192

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/27/teenage-volunteer-firefighter-charged-with-arson-alleged-to-have-lit-seven-nsw-bushfires



https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2017-10-25-arctic-sea-ice-volcanic-eruption-trigger-melting

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/volcanic-activity-melting-ice-at-the-north-south-poles/

https://thedailycoin.org/2017/08/14/91-volcanoes-found-arctic-ice-big-blow-climate-alarmists/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologically-warmed-ocean-is-melting-arctic-sea-ice-not-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/08/massive-heat-source-was-just-discovered-under-antarctica-driving-melting-volcanism/

Climate change could be use interchangeably one of its effects is global warming trapping heat creating green house gases that unables it, to go through our ozone layer.
That's causing burning hotter temperature like what happened in Australia bush fire and even Antarctica big blocks of ice to melt increasing the ocean waters changing the geography of a country. You could watch vlogs and documentations of India. One thing is for sure climate change is real based on facts gathered around the world.

I am not doing this because I know how you operate. When you are presented with facts and documentation contrary to anything that confirms your existing bias you either ignore it completely or make up some absolutely horse shit reason why everything you present is fact and anything anyone who disagrees presents is a lie. Just for fun, here is some documentation as to why your claims are absolutely proven to be horse shit.


" '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

"Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth"
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-97-climate-consensus-myth/

"The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

"UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level "
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

"IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud"
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6748-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud

"Global Warming Bombshell A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

"German Climatologist Unloads: ‘IPCC Is To Deceive People’, Hockey Stick Graph A Fake"
https://climatechangedispatch.com/german-climatologist-unloads-ipcc/




The climate change agenda is simply a vehicle to introduce socialism, communism, and wealth redistribution. This is what socialism and communism do best, hide their true goals within other organizations and ideologies and mutate them toward communist goals at the expense of the goals of the original organization. This is of course why you are such an adamant supporter of these claims, not because you truly believe them, but because you think the ends justify the means.

Just to let you know there are some of us here, like you, who have considered the evidence and find it absolutely overwhelming. The fact that human-caused climate change is happening is really established fact now; it's ludicrous that in some spheres it is treated as a theory (like how evolution is treated as a theory to go alongside unscientific unsusbtantiated bible nonsense creationism).

The consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing the planet to heat up has now passed 99%.

You can always find 'evidence' to back up any crazy ideas, but if <1% of scientists are in agreement, the likelihood is it's nonsense... and if >99% of scientists are in agreement, then you should really give what they're saying some serious consideration. They are the experts in this field, they are the highly trained and highly skilled professionals who know what they are talking about.

No you did not. You asserted a page linked to was a responses to an assertion. In fact it was a mid 1990s level of topical scientific opinion.

It is about you, because you don't know what you are talking about, but keep insisting that you do.

Also the very phrase used to indoctrinate the public was changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Clearly the latter phrase incorporates both cooling and warming.

Why do you want to be a Denier?

You mean NASA's wrong.  And every other major organization of Scientists.  This isn't about me. I simply directed you to their resource. Thats the difference with what I'm doing and what you're doing.  I don't care about my feelings or opinion on the matter.  I'm not using my own ideas to challenge an impeccable body of research. I have faith in the global scientific community.  That doesn't mean its 100% guaranteed to be true.  But the scientific community is a hell of a lot more credible than some randoms on bitcointalk.org. 

Or it is simply you that is wrong.

I didn't go to google, I simply made two clicks to the FAQ of the page I posted in my previous post.  I didn't make any conclusions either and never claimed that the post was me doing science.  Its simply a reference to an explanation of scientific information that is presented in a way everyone should be able to understand.  That way, you don't have to trust me or take my word for it.  Even if your claim was true, you would still see a correlation between temperature and solar irradiance over the past 60 years.

Does NASA not employ scientists? 
Does NASA not carry out Science? 
Did NASA somehow get all of that wrong? 
Did NASA just completely overlook the role of the sun on climate?
Is NASA not credible?
Are the dozens of similar organizations all lacking credibility in the same exact way?


If your answer to any of those questions is no...well then you are lost. 

1. global averaged temperatures.
however different latitudes vary when not averaged. funny part is some area's are getting colder and some hotter and the average then cancels most of the differences out

2. markedly?? 0.9 degrees over many decades is not a remarkable amount. infact on the 15^o previous makes the 0.9^o not even a 7% change.
its a fear of a future 2.5^o change not an actual 2.5^o already occuring.

3. adding to that the whole hype of carbon as a greenhouse gas which affects the reflection in the upper atmosphere is an empty debate. the upper atmosphere is showing cooling not warming.

4. the temperature fear is land temperature change not upper atmosphere change. and do you know what helps reflect heat up and away from land..... WATER

carbon is just the excuse to make the running out of coal/oil be switched from the fault of oil farming to be a citizens are to blame for using so much electric from coal and so much fuel from their cars. yep the petroleum companies are not getting the blame. but while citizens feel guilty and agree to pay 'carbon taxes' that money then goes towards changing the technology at no cost to the energy sector and keep them in business

take many people on this forum blaming bitcoin miners for co2. instead of blaming the energy sector for using carbon based sources to make electric.
take the banking crisis caused by private banks... but now suddenly its a public debt and figure show estimates of how much debt people are into by quantifying the debt vs population.. instead of just making it private debt as it should be where the banks owe people money

its like people blaming fir coat customers for buying fir. when it should be the manufacturers for making coats using animal fir

but hey. while we pay for new electric plants, the change of temperatures wont get affected because the greenhouse gas of the upper atmosphere is not showing the effects they are fearmongering.. i said this before elsewhere but. the truth is in the next 50 years we will run out of oil/coal anyway.. its not in unlimited supply

.. better efforts can be made by desalinating sea water and letting it irrigate over land to stop it drying out.

You should stop, you are contributing to global warming! Also, stop L.A.R.P.ing as a scientist. You are not a scientist, and if you even are really teaching people you shouldn't be because you are doing them and the world a disservice.

Yawn. 2 clicks shows only how ignorant you are on the subject. You do not even understand the etiology.

Who said the subject was ...

The amount of solar energy received by the Earth has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly.

Nobody. Nobody said that was the mechanism by which the Sun affects the climate of Earth. The mechanism appears to be its effect on cloud formation.

It's a bit hilarious, you starting with the conclusion and then trying to affirm it with google. That is not science.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
you only needed 2 clicks to answer that

Solar scientists are faking evidence?

But we can validate their claims of a cooling sun. The raw data is available.

But those scientists who claim it is warming?

Will they hand us all their data, so we can validate their claims?

There are no ideas in this thread.   No one even bothered to post links to pseudo-scientific websites that are so often used to "substantiate" this nonsense.  At this point, if you aren't sure if the world is cooling or warming, there isn't much I can do to help you over the internet.  I'm just venting.  Scientists are humans too.  This is not a professional setting.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/

I could post that link and talk about how it has all of the information and evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, data, and FAQ laid out in a clear, concise way but its likely that these people are so far off the deep-end, that they don't even trust nasa.   We're talking flat-earth type stupidity.  If me responding with science in a message board could possibly help these people, they wouldn't have needed help in the first place.  

This is definitely the kind of terminology scientifically minded people use to criticize ides they don't agree with, and is certainly not focus group marketing terminology designed to associate anyone who disagrees with the now debunked global warming models with Holocaust deniers. Essentially you are calling people Nazis for not agreeing with your unsubstantiated theories. This is what some one who has science on their side does?

I've been spending most of my life in Central Europe and can tell you that the weather is going crazy. From my point of view it's getting warmer, because when I was a child it was completely normal to have snow in December, and temperatures -20*C in January and February. For the past 2 years we had very little snow and this Winter has been probably the least snowy in the last 10 years. The coldest it gets is -8*C and that's only at night. Both this and last Winter we haven't seen -10 even once during the day.

Summers are also different with higher max temperatures and very warm Springs. I remember years (probably 2002 -2006) where real Spring used to start in April. Last year we were grilling in the garden in early March and it was +15 and sunny outside.

This is such a sad thread.  There is so much data and explanation available from reputable sources demonstrating how where and why the world is warming.  Its middle school level science.   How can BS be posted and so many users go along with it?  I thought at least we were at the point where science deniers posted links to fake evidence and pseudoscientific explanations of their claims but we don't even have that here. We just have a consistent flow of unsubstantiated nonsense.  

I agree,  if we dont know weather the earth is cooling or warming it will be hard for what is the thing that people need to do.  If its true that the earth is cooling surely it can freeze lot of places and also cause harm to human health especially for those who do not have protection for coldness.  What we need to do is be ready and always update to the news for us to easily know what we need to do. 

This is like a cross road most of this element are important in terms of use but are hazardous in terms of environmental issues.
Finding a balance to this that we can not completely eleminate either of the two is the real solution and being

This means we don't have concent that whether we are towards cooling or warming the earth. If we are not clear in cooling or warming the earth then how can we address the issue. Time is running out and remedies to fix earth problems are very clear. All we need is initiate the actions.

Or maybe this is actually what they are preparing for and just misleading people? A cooler Earth is a drier Earth, there'll be less precipitation so the large scale agriculture we are accustomed to would become unsustainable. Especially if large parts of the northern hemisphere freeze over like with the last "true" ice age (humans were mostly hunters then so they just lived off the megafauna like woolly mammoths)

Maybe that's why they are trying to reduce population? Less people fighting over limited food, less conflict for them.

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...

Some will love it.

https://www.theonion.com/nations-snowmen-march-against-global-warming-1819568251

based on your comments on many topics

badecker. try to get out the house now and again. experience a bit of the world. learn some stuff
because at the moment, your lung health is more at risk from inhaling too much dust from the house your cooped up in.

i know the world seems a scary place, i know you fear working because you think its slavery
i know you fear socialising because you think its communism to interact with others. you also fear they might be terrorists. and yes you fear climate will torture you. and of course you fear police will arrest you because you dont want to get a licence to drive a car.

but please just get out the house once and a while and realise what the world is really like. yes you might find new threats to fear but atleast you might learn what the real problems are too

^^^ Right. Lung health is very important to people dead from climate change.

the forest and co2 o2 is not about climate change. its about lung health

however forests do have another function the keep the land like a sponge due to the root system and tree foliage.

in africa they are planting tree's to turn deserts back to green. only problem is big-agri are destroying other forests just as fast. thus just shifting one desert area to another. thus making water sources and the water table underground move.

just remember forests are called rain forests not carbon forests for a reason

The Australian fires are manmade.

And @OP do you have any stats for the cooling argument?


How are trees going to help anything?
I never understood people who think planting trees is going to help the planet somehow with anything.
We already have enough O2 and we already have forests.

funny part of climate change is how much wood and plastic is used for their placards

i laugh when climate change activists complain how much resourses are wasted on powering computers. if only they knew how much resources were wasted if all data on computers was actually printed out on paper and couriered out between businesses. then they would truly be crying
imagine a world witout computers. and we went back to VHS tapes.think of how many plastic VHS tapes would be needed to record all the videos on youtube. vs the plastic of a memory stick using todays tech
imagine the paper of every media story if media had to go back to print.
all them contracts, documents and letters instead of emails

that greta girl screaming about how global warming is going to kill her grandkids. well. with an attitude like that i dont think she will be able to find a man to get her pregnant when she is older. and secondly her hometown gets 8 months a year of winter so i dont see her suffering from drought any time.

i personally would have prefered to see an african kid do the global WARMING advocacy and greta doing the global cooling advocacy..

i think climate activists need to up their game and truly find the real path of what they are opposing and what solutions they feel will solve it. the simple "do something or i will scowl at you" is just empty of any plan

Life can be and it is working on being reduced with diseases that are considered that cannot be cured.
They can actually cure them but they keep banning or raising sanctions to the medicines.
The world get extreme temperatures in both sides - warm,cold - due to the climate change.

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?