Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

One of the better videos and presents both sides of the corrupt process. Not just about Earth's climate change but what else is happening in our solar system. Worth a listen no matter what side you are on IMO

youtu.be...

a reply to: pexx421



www.newsmax.com...



" Global warming theorists have taken yet another hit with a new study out of Denmark which demonstrates that variations in Earth's orbit are the primary causes of climate change, and have been for at least the last 1.4 billion years.

Scientists from the University of Southern Denmark and the China National Petroleum Corporation investigated marine sediment from the Xiamaling Formation in China and determined that the sediment shows evidence that "the same orbital forcing that caused the climate to change 1.4 billion years ago is the underlying force behind global warming "


The Law of Thermodynamics .....For Every Action , there is an Equal and Opposite Reaction..................

a reply to: 727Sky
Someone who attacks both sides of a debate is usually worth listening to since they don't appear to be as biased as others who hold a strong view that seems biased, so I found that interesting until he got to the part about chemtrails. He should have continued to follow his own rule and just not mentioned chemtrails because he lost me at the point where he mentioned those and showed a lot of pictures of contrails, which sort of makes him look like a idiot.

While he lost credibility at that point, it's still not bad advice to "follow the money" and consider the potential for greed-based bias, no matter what money-trail you follow (historical examples of tobacco and leaded gasoline come to mind, and he mentioned the oil and gas industries in this case), and at least he didn't pick only one side when following the politics and money trails of AGW proponents and dissenters, but rather examined both sides.

Just ran accross this. Great read.

stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That whole article is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the paper actually says. It doesn't say that only Milankovitch cycles are responsible for climate change, it says that Milankovitch cycles have been affecting long-term climate (meaning 50,000 years or more) for the last 1.4 billion years. It doesn't mention anything about the greenhouse effect, which is the primary driver to todays climate change.