The end is nigh...

I don't know if you noticed but california and other places had severe drought this past summer. Many crops failed. Climate has changed in the past and we ended up with mass extinction.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=geoengineering+

Geo engineering and weather manipulation have been going on since the 70's.
If you aren't familiar with these things, educate yourself. http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
It isn't a secret or a conspiracy theory, the information is available. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/agenda21explained18may14.shtml
Crops planted with heirloom seeds don't grow in soil filled with aluminum oxide and barium, only Monsanto GMO seeds do.
Control the food, control the people. 95% of us are supermarket hunters.
The water of the earth we all own, gets bottled in unsafe plastic and resold to us at higher prices than gasoline, we are so smart.
Think bottled water is better than the tap? Keep drinking it up, the elites love you for being such an obedient, brainwashed slave.

Plastics and chemicals are certainly bad, but if you test any potable water source you will find tons of prescription pills which cannot be filtered out. Birth control, psychotropic drugs, anti depressants, we are all being slowly poisoned and changed into one gender of unhealthy humans that can't survive.
Men are drinking up estrogen, why do you think we have so many sissies now?
Genetic manipulation, Eugenics, that's why! Look it up.
Everyone trusts Bill Gates right? He's rich, smart, let's see what he has to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ9IzCBRLEQ Watch to the end. I call him Doctor Death.

Just in case you guys forgot, millions of liters of nuclear radiation waste poisoning death is still pouring out of Fukushima into the ocean every day, non stop, nothing on the news......everything is fine...... :rolleyes:

If you need something to watch today, make it this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T-62uxbMBM
 
Uh oh, do we have yet another inconvenient truth the alarmists are trying to squash with fiction and mis-direction?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...tes-are-lying/



Quote:

by JAMES DELINGPOLE15 Jan 201661
The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.

Turns out the satellite data is lying.

And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
“Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.

In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.

These sound plausible criticisms till you look at this graph provided by one of the scientists criticized in the video, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

GL_MT_Avg_2015

What it shows is how closely the satellite data corresponds with measurements taken using a completely independent system – balloons. If the satellites are lying then so are the balloons.

Christy told Breitbart:



Quote:

There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.

First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.

The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.

The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them. They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view. Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000? Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING? Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?
He adds:



Quote:

I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense. The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?
Yes, we do. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

Among the beneficiaries of Grantham’s green largesse are Lord Stern — author of the heavily discredited Stern Report, now with a cosy sinecure at the Grantham Institute — and Bob Ward, a failed paleopiezometrist and crop-headed pit bull impersonator who is lavishly funded to write angry letters to newspapers and other institutions explaining in boring detail why climate change sceptics are evil and wrong.

As for the motivation behind this well-funded smear video – it’s actually explained at the website which is promoting it.

In coming days, we will hear announcements from NASA, NOAA and others that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.

There will be pushback from the likes of climate denier Ted Cruz, who uses a misreading of satellite temperature data to claim, as he did on Seth Meyer’s show – “no warming in 18 years”

This is the story of how that distortion came to be.
In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game:

If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.
 
So you believe climate change is man made?

PS, deniers aren't attempting to tax and control countries and economies around the world through carbon controls and whatever other non-sense they can dream up, the alarmists are.... ;)

Accelerated climate change is man made.....unless you live in cloud cuckoo land and believe that humans burning coal, oil and gas and deforesting millions of hectares of land has zero effect on anything. Plus as we haven't had climate change like this before no one can say for certain what this means except to err on the side of caution and do something about it now.
 
Did nature make cars and other fossil burning products?
Did nature make fracking chemicals?
Did nature make radioactive chemical we have to store underground?
Did nature chop down the trees or pollute the seas?
Did nature create those massive miles on end fishing nets?

boggles my mind how any half brain human would not think that we altered the ecosystem by introducing foreign matter.
When you get sick (foreign matter e.g. virus, bacteria)...your body heats up to kill it. That is how your body gets rid of the problem to fights back to try to get rid of it...hmmm nature is heating things up or if needed cool it down....either way the earth is simply doing what it is designed to do...survive.
 
Did nature make cars and other fossil burning products?
Did nature make fracking chemicals?
Did nature make radioactive chemical we have to store underground?
Did nature chop down the trees or pollute the seas?
Did nature create those massive miles on end fishing nets?

boggles my mind how any half brain human would not think that we altered the ecosystem by introducing foreign matter.
When you get sick (foreign matter e.g. virus, bacteria)...your body heats up to kill it. That is how your body gets rid of the problem to fights back to try to get rid of it...hmmm nature is heating things up or if needed cool it down....either way the earth is simply doing what it is designed to do...survive.

All good points, really. In the course of ~150 years we have extracted and burned roughly half the accessible petroleum stored in the upper crust, material that was deposited over hundreds of millions of years. As a result, in that same time period the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from a steady-state value of ~280ppm in the early 1800s to over 400ppm today. Having nearly doubled the concentration of a known GHG (and, by way of feedback, releasing increasing amounts of more potent GHGs like methane from things like cow flatulence and melting permafrost...) I don't really see how people can say we are too puny to have an effect on the atmosphere and the climate it produces.
 
Accelerated climate change is man made.....unless you live in cloud cuckoo land and believe that humans burning coal, oil and gas and deforesting millions of hectares of land has zero effect on anything. Plus as we haven't had climate change like this before no one can say for certain what this means except to err on the side of caution and do something about it now.

What evidence do you have the climate change is accelerated and if so, that it's accelerated by mankind?
 
All good points, really.
Seems to me that if those points are good ones, the thing that needs banishing is mankind............

In the course of ~150 years we have extracted and burned roughly half the accessible petroleum stored in the upper crust, material that was deposited over hundreds of millions of years. As a result, in that same time period the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from a steady-state value of ~280ppm in the early 1800s to over 400ppm today. Having nearly doubled the concentration of a known GHG (and, by way of feedback, releasing increasing amounts of more potent GHGs like methane from things like cow flatulence and melting permafrost...) I don't really see how people can say we are too puny to have an effect on the atmosphere and the climate it produces.

How do you know that our global climate has a steady state value of anything if you only go back to 1800?

PS, as already posted earlier, Antarctic ice is growing and the Polar bears have seen this all before ;)
 
[video=youtube;3koOUFp4crU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koOUFp4crU[/video]
 
Seems to me that if those points are good ones, the thing that needs banishing is mankind............

Or perhaps we could just change our ways. Seems a little less drastic.

How do you know that our global climate has a steady state value of anything if you only go back to 1800?

I chose that as the starting point because that's around the time the latest massive change in CO2 concentrations began. For example, over the last 10,000 years:

co2_10000_years.gif


If you want to go back a few hundred thousand years you see a pattern emerge:

co2_var.jpg


One could argue that the variant pattern seen was the "steady state", with natural variations causing CO2 concentrations to vary from ~200ppm to ~300ppm with a periodicity of ~100,000 years. The value starting at around 1800 (~280ppm) fell within that norm. But then, when you get to the mid-1800s, suddenly the CO2 concentration goes nuts, shooting way past the normal maximums seen for the last half-million years or so. I've yet to see a theory that explains this anomaly better than the one that goes something like "humans have, in just over a hundred years, liberated half the carbon it could get to, sequestered in the crust over the last 3- or 4-billion years, which is directly causing CO2 concentrations to go from 280ppm to over 400ppm in that same time period."

PS, as already posted earlier, Antarctic ice is growing and the Polar bears have seen this all before ;)

Meaningless cherry-picked anecdotes akin to saying "It's snowing where I am. Pfft, global warming..." or, conversely, someone saying "Wow, that was a powerful hurricane. It must be global warming."

Climate is not local weather nor is it a single snap-shot in time of anything from snow storms and hurricanes to mountain glaciers and polar ice coverage.
 
Climate is not local weather nor is it a single snap-shot in time of anything from snow storms and hurricanes to mountain glaciers and polar ice coverage.

Exactly. And the climate has been changing since the dawn of time so fundamentally climate change can't be "bad", it's in fact both normal and natural.

So the issue with alarmists is, they claim man we were warming the planet, which turned out to be untrue (I've posted how NASA says we've been cooling as of late).

The alarmists then changed their tactic by calling it "climate change". An astute person would ask themselves, what happened to all of the horse manure settled science about global warming and of course why should we believe the new settled science. Furthermore what is the real agenda underlying their need to pivot their claims to "climate change"?

Putting aside the real underlying agenda, the progressive approach is a always shrill "we must to do something, anything!!!" as a feel good measure which generally means more taxes or ridiculous carbon trading schemes but of course no results.

PS, The only major difference between "alarmists" and "deniers" is that us "deniers" know that climate change is normal. ;)
 
Again, who are you arguing with? There's no alarmists posting in here. Just people showing reasonable concern for the environment.
 
Exactly. And the climate has been changing since the dawn of time so fundamentally climate change can't be "bad", it's in fact both normal and natural.
<...>
PS, The only major difference between "alarmists" and "deniers" is that us "deniers" know that climate change is normal. ;)
I guess what's worrying people is, with the historical data (in thousands of years), the level hasn't gone that high that fast and currently the rate is not decreasing.

And also think about it, we have trees and plants absorbing part of the CO2 being put in the atomsphere. But now, we're expelling more CO2 than normal, and cutting down more plants/trees. Consequentially, we're reducing our capacity to absorb more CO2 as we're increasing its proportion.

Random 'just made up' theory i just came up with (and we may discuss it) maybe if we look at the recent million years of tracking, the cycle would increase and decrease by itself as we had more absorption capacity to deal with the "natural" climate change that was happening. But now we're basically accelerating it with our human-made production of CO2 as per
Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[SUP][71][/SUP] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO[SUB]2[/SUB] containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration.


as well as we're reducing our absorption capacity by deforesting on a very large scale (of course, water still absorbs a bunch of the CO2 with some consequences)

To me just looking at these two facts (we are producing more CO2 than what was naturally produced in the 'recent' history and we are deforesting at an alarming ;) ;) ;) ;) rate) it's pretty straightforward to me that we're kinda putting ourselves in a situation that's a little bit more difficult to deal with.
Yes vegetation will thrive for a while in higher CO2 environments, but once they're done absorbing the maximum they can absorb..they can't absorb more... well maybe if they evolve and mutate, but that takes time. Maybe we'd be able to engineer better plants for that matter? (Hello Monsanto 2.0?)
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And the climate has been changing since the dawn of time so fundamentally climate change can't be "bad", it's in fact both normal and natural.

Well, "normal and natural" doesn't, by definition, include forcing by anthropogenic means. That's sort of the whole problem here and why it's most correctly known as "anthropogenic global warming" or AGW. As demonstrated by the simple charts I posted, there is nothing natural nor normal about the CO2 concentration increases that are most likely caused by humans nor do we have a full picture as to the full extent of the climactic change that will follow.

So the issue with alarmists is, they claim man we were warming the planet, which turned out to be untrue (I've posted how NASA says we've been cooling as of late).

Putting aside for the moment that you also wrote in post #48 "Of course if NASA says so then in must be true huh?" :) , you may have missed the following in that story:

"While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily."

The alarmists then changed their tactic by calling it "climate change". An astute person would ask themselves, what happened to all of the horse manure settled science about global warming and of course why should we believe the new settled science. Furthermore what is the real agenda underlying their need to pivot their claims to "climate change"?

Global warming is the problem. Climate change will be the result. It's really that simple.

Putting aside the real underlying agenda, the progressive approach is a always shrill "we must to do something, anything!!!" as a feel good measure which generally means more taxes or ridiculous carbon trading schemes but of course no results.

That's debatable. When the use of certain chemical compounds like CFCs were found to be directly responsible for ozone layer depletion things were done relatively rapidly to eliminate their use. Freon, for example, was replaced with, say, R134. The economy didn't blow up, countries didn't collapse and the environment benefited as a result.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom