It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming & climate change - a natural occurrence - not human made - height of hubris!

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
So ~10-12,000 years ago was the end of the last ice age and that is due to temp rising. I'm guessing all the ice didn't melt all at once, a large part did but large parts melted over centuries and then there was a lot left over in the polar regions that have lasted for the last 10 thousand years. Depending on the yearly weather, tilt of earth, sun spots, etc, sometimes the ice shelves and glaciers grow, and other times they shrink. But the fact that we had such a large amount of ice during the ice-age cooled the average temperature of the earth greatly when it melted. So when ice covered everything from about 40deg N to the pole and 45-50 deg S down to the pole, the rest of the planet was also cooler, less trees and tropical vegetation (but still abundant) and average water temps were probably much lower.

When everything started melting, the glaciers and ice caps slowly put cold water into the oceans which slowly changed the entire climate over the earth, lowering the mean temp for thousands of years, even until now. So what we have been living in since 10,000BC has been lower temps than what the earth would normally have, and it has taken time for things to get back to what the temps are "supposed" to be.

Looking back to the days of the mega flora & fauna, we see much higher temps and CO2 levels than we have today, levels that we wouldn't see for centuries even with the most extreme forecasting models. This makes a lot of sense because this is when reptiles and amphibians flourished as reptiles are cold blooded, some live in water where O2 levels are often constant (in areas of continuous oxidization like streams, waterfalls, etc) and the oceans were teaming with life even with MUCH higher CO2 levels (which scientists say are killing all sea life by making it an ocean of acid). The acid they are talking about is about 1/8000th as acidic as your bottle of mineral water (which has CO2 added to make carbonic acid).

WE also see that life was abundant along the coastal shelf, which is now underwater, which is because the water was locked up in ice caps. This rise in sea level was normal and natural and didn't happen overnight or even in a decade of 2, or 4, or even 10. It was centuries or millennia.

All of what we are seeing is the earth returning to its natural warmer period, possible its natural state. For all we know something artificial happened to create the last ice age to allow mammals to have an advantage and kill of (or diminish) reptiles/amphibians. Some think people came from Mars (where humans originated) and we came to earth and found scantly clad neanderthals (their dress would indicate a much warmer climate as well)

Also, having a warmer climate means much less need for technology to to do things like farm, build houses, etc, which is why we see people in Europe, northern Eurasia/asia, all the centers of early technology (and some in the Himalayas and surrounding mountains - indus valley/mountains). This is because they had to invent thing to help them survive very harsh cold winters and these inventions (and manipulation of them) lead to these people becoming more powerful through war b/c they had better technology.

Another odd thing is that we have been told how "EVIL" coal is with it's SO2 (sulfur dioxide) emissions and that is one of the main reasons environmentalists want to phase it out (same thing with a lot of diesel fuel). Well a single volcano can dump as much SO2 in the atmosphere in 1 day that man can do in a decade, a large volcano, even more. And you know what? Scientists are studying this as a way to help cool the planet b/c they now say SO2 has a cooling effect after studying the volcano's (I'm not going to go into the wrong science here either).

This climate change is like 1,000 nutters in a psych ward being told that their food is getting to hot to eat and they have to figure out a way to fix it, and you have 1,000 opinions, ideas, all changing from one day to another, using facilities, illogical thought, and manipulation (by the staff giving them extra food, sometimes hotter or not - or extra food for them to argue against another person - it's entertainment for the staff).

If ANYONE claims to know for certain what the climate is doing and especially WHY it is doing it and WHAT we need to do, they should be locked up and kept away from any equipment which is going to harm people like spraying ultra fine, nano SiO2 (silicone dioxide - sand) which is EXTREMELY cancerous and a horrible way to die - but it reflect sun light and they want to cover the arctic with it, spray over the countries air space, etc. Madness, shear madness and if people act to stop them from doing this, by any means necessary or outcome to the idiot doing this, it is 100% justifiable.

To think we can correct mother nature is the absolute height of hubris and leave it to the Boomer's to be the tip of the spear and spread their diseased though to the younger generation. It's time for some "concentration clinics/camps/facilities" where they can sit and concentrate on what the problem is and where/why they are thinking so wrong. By concentration I mean "CONCENTRATE'" - to think intensely - like a nice "mental ward"/hospital with family visits, open to public and none of the nastiness of those associated with the past. It's just the name is apt and suits what needs to be done.




posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Warming = over active (not operating ultimately) solar plexus chakra. Cooling = under active (not operating ultimately) solar plexus chakra. Period.

Next?



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I've said this for years and will say it again, YES we DO and HAVE played a role in climate change but how much is on us and how much is on nature and the natural cycle of Earth. I don't believe we are the only reason heck at one point they were blaming cows and their farts lol, so yes we are doing some but how much I have no clue and neither does anyone for absolute sure. Look at the claims of Al Gore for starters heck look at any of them and you see that those who warn about climate change are doing more damage than the average person.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

It's time for some "concentration clinics/camps/facilities" where they can sit and concentrate on what the problem is and where/why they are thinking so wrong.


I agree, send the alarmist to the camps.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

One paragraph worthy discourse. The rest hype and and alarmist ramblings.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85




heck at one point they were blaming cows and their farts

That was the UN and their IPCC (know of one agency in the UN that has never been found to be corrupt ? I dont)
The only ones (well , besides Al Gore) that still actively promote the myth



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The great global warming swindle - Full version documentary

[Editor's Note:Feb. 3, 2007. Currently, we are being bombarded with a torrent of propaganda titled "Global Warming" Every TV and radio news broadcast, every TV talk show that touches on politics, every radio talk show, every major news stand magazine and newspaper are singing in almost perfect unison: "The Sky is Falling Unless We Do Something Soon about Global Warming"!

I just spoke on the phone yesterday with Dr. John Coleman (not the weather channel John Coleman seen in the video below), author of The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the Moral, Cultural, Political, and Economic Decline of the United States of America. He vigorously concurred that the 'Global Warming' blitz is a classic Tavistock propaganda campaign of the highest priority. Apparently, no effort or amount of money or 'expert scientific opinion' is being spared to bring us this 'inconvenient truth' so that we might all become convinced that the story line laid out by the propagandists is true, and therefore we must acquiesce to the new "regulations" or laws that will be set in place to "prevent the catastrophes that will surely ensue if we don't curb Global Warming"'. I've been hearing some of the most absurd and ludicrous statements over the radio from Global Warming 'experts' concerning the dire "consequences" that will follow within 50-100 years if we don't follow their recommendations to 'put the brakes on Global Warming'. It's an insult to the intelligence of every human being on this planet to accept this unbridled hokum from those who posture themselves as 'leading academic scientists' and authorities on this subject (read Rockefeller/Rothchild-purchased and bribed [grant recipients] ' talking heads').

I'll be posting articles here which will dissect and expose the misdirection, deceit, and false conclusions being promoted by Global Warming promoters. If you find articles, blogs, or forums which address the Global Warming deception, please forward them to me for possible inclusion here.

Update, March 1, 2007 I'm being sent many excellent articles debunking the Global Warming myth, but two scholarly masterpieces written by Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount, Monckton of Brenchley) and published on November 5 and November 12, 2006 in The Sunday Telegraph (London) laid bare Al Gore's truth twisting and deceptive claims with devastating effect. Gore was sufficiently stung that he felt compelled to reply to the Monckton charges in the November 19 edition of the newspaper (see below).

The November 5, 2006 Sunday Telegraph article by Monckton was titled Climate Chaos? Don't Believe it. Within the article, there is a link to a scholarly (and well documented) 40 page summary aptly titled Apocalypse Cancelled (educate-yourself.org...) that eviscerates the entire Global Warming hoax using the very thing that Gore claims underpins the Global Warming thesis-scientific data. (www.telegraph.co.uk...)

Gore responded to Monckton's articles with a rebuttal published in The Sunday Telegraph on November 19, 2006. Christopher Monckton in turn responded to every word of Gore's rebuttal-statement by statement- with yet another stinging refutation of Gore's pathetic calumny and indifference to the truth with Gore Gored (educate-yourself.org... ) published on November 21, 2006. . .Ken Adachi].

30,000 Scientists Worldwide Challenge Al Gore's Global Warming Fraud, but Can't Be Heard or Seen Anywhere on Controlled Mainstream Media



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   
See article here explaining why the recent warming could be natural: chipstero7.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Climate is dependent on several factors. There is the Milankovitch Cycle, which has to do with the orientation of the Earth's pole in relation to its orbit, the Earth's albedo, which is the amount of light it reflects, and the composition of the atmosphere. The Earth is heating up. Storms are getting more violent and sea levels rising. Which of the above factors can we control? If we want to simply accept that it is happening, how shall we budget our resources to remediate the inevitable damage?



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That shut everyone up.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof




It's time for some "concentration clinics/camps/facilities" where they can sit and concentrate on what the problem is and where/why they are thinking so wrong.


It's a well known problem: profits, especially the profits you'd lose in case the climate change folks get things done for a change.

Poor chap, have a cookie? No, even better: have a state sanctioned act of violence for your entertainment with tree-hugging hippies:

www.dw.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Oh yeah I actually forget it was pushed by the UN (mostly) lol



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: Gothmog

Oh yeah I actually forget it was pushed by the UN (mostly) lol


So rather than discuss alternatives you want to deflect into an anti-UN mode?



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
climate change is natural. although humans do impact it on a local scale. and forget about the silliness of green house gases and the like. more the things that those who believe in the farce of human caused global climate change and the good old global warming almost completely fail to take into account. and that is the heat created by humans, especially in cities. the roads, sidewalks and buildings that heat up in the sun, and continue to radiate heat, even as the area should be cooling off at night. just look at some of the first snows after a warm period. you will find snow readily sticking to natural ground once it has cooled off. but even when the snow is staying on that natural ground, it is melting from the heat of things like roof, roads, sidewalk, and parking lots. for longer periods of time since it takes those man made things longer to cool down.

then you have the actual heat that is constantly released by humans. should probably call it heat pollution. this is true for anywhere humans are, and work. but is especially concentrated in cities, due to the fact of the concentration of humans found in them. every vehicle be it a private car, or public transit such as buses, trucks, trains etc. all put out major amounts of heat as the engines need to be cooled, to run efficiently. and that is not limited to gas vehicles, but also electric vehicles in which both the batteries and electric motors put out heat. even electricity production puts out heat pollution. especially artificially heating up the natural water sources as it is used to cool the electricity production equipment. each hydro dam, nuclear power generator, and many coal/oil/gas electrical plants cause this. in fact nuclear is likely the worst of those offenders putting out a huge amount of heat pollution into the water. and water just as things like buildings, streets and parking lots, takes a long time to cool down. then you have solar generation, which also tends to radiate heat. especially the ones that concentrate the suns rays creating massive amounts of heat as they do so. even wind power put out heat, although probably not quite as much as other electric production, from their generators, which like vehicles radiates heat into the air it uses to cool them. and water generation in bodies of water also put out that excess heat, although into the water just like hydro dams and the other electric plants that use water for cooling.

and these are almost just the tip of the iceberg of heat pollution. then you have all the heat created in order to keep ourselves comfortable. otherwise known as heating and air-conditioning. and yet again, cities create more of this heat pollution than anywhere else, just due to the high concentration of people doing this. heating your home and work so that you don't need to wear heavy clothing when it is cold, puts out a heck of a lot of heat pollution. air-conditioning does as well being it cools the air by radiating the heat to the outdoors. (seriously walk by a bank of air-con units on a hot summer day, you will notice that where they are venting is putting out higher temperatures than it already is outside. a very noticeable difference the hotter the outside temp is.

then you have all of our appliances and electronics. they all put out heat. your hot water heater and dishwasher heats up the air, as well as the water that you use that goes into the sewage system, to be released to the outdoors. refrigerators put out heat the exact same way that an AC unit does, it cools the inside of the ref, by exchanging that heat to outside of the ref. and pretty much every electronic device puts out at least a little heat when running. especially bad are TV's, video game systems and computers, all of which put out phenomenal amounts of heat. i have even turned my PlayStation around so the exhaust will blow on me to uses as a heater when it is too cold for my liking. computer also put out a lot of heat. enough so that laptops are a well known fire hazard, when they overheat to the point of causing combustion. every charger for electronics, and power converter involved, also create a lot of heat, especially for their size, yet another known fire hazard when they overheat.


then just to top it off there is all the heat created by most industry. seriously if there is any truth to humans causing climate change at all. it is due quite literally to all the HEAT that we produce. this is why cities tent to be decently hotter in the same areas than where a city is not. because of all that heat that all the masses congregated in the cities put out.

in fact anyone who thinks that humans are causing the climate to change, the first thing they should be doing is to get rid of the giant heat producing centers that cities are. to spread everyone out so that out heat pollution is not concentrated in such small areas, and has a much better chance of dissipating. and then working on ways to reduce the heat that humans are constantly putting out in the form of heat pollution. then you can be worried about all the silly stuff like cow farts.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

Yes, the climate changes over time. Right now it is heating up. How should we respond? Every year Congress has to vote for emergency relief funds. Every year the bill gets more expensive. Shouldn't they increase spending in the budget for disaster relief? Better still, shouldn't they figure out a way to reduce the damage in the first place? Mandatory flood, earthquake, and fire insurance? Or is that too much like socialism? Well?



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: generik

Yes, the climate changes over time. Right now it is heating up. How should we respond? Every year Congress has to vote for emergency relief funds. Every year the bill gets more expensive. Shouldn't they increase spending in the budget for disaster relief? Better still, shouldn't they figure out a way to reduce the damage in the first place? Mandatory flood, earthquake, and fire insurance? Or is that too much like socialism? Well?


the main reason cost go up, is quite simply the costs to build and repair go up, due to this little thing called inflation. so yes those funds should increase with the rise of inflation.

and it is not all that hard to reduce the damage. something they are starting to do in other countries. and that is to stop people from building in those damage prone areas. don't let people build on coasts which can have things such as hurricane/typhoons, and tsunamis. don't let people build on floodplains. that right there would stop some of the biggest costs from disasters. as for the fires they can easily reduce costs by first, stop putting out every fire. and instead just concentrate on protecting things like houses that are in danger. if we let the fires go as nature intended, they would in the end not be anywhere as bad. because the fuel would not have a chance to build up to the point of causing devastation. and ironically it would also save all the money and resources they spend on putting out every fire.

and yes insurance companies can play their role too. but not by making different insurance mandatory. but by refusing to insure things built in damage prone areas such as on coasts and floodplains. and that would include government funding to rebuild in such areas. "sure you are welcome to build your home on that place that is likely to flood. but when it does flood, it's all on you. no money for rebuilding".



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: generik


the main reason cost go up, is quite simply the costs to build and repair go up, due to this little thing called inflation. so yes those funds should increase with the rise of inflation.


No, not inflation. People are building more in high risk areas, resulting in more damage.


and it is not all that hard to reduce the damage. something they are starting to do in other countries. and that is to stop people from building in those damage prone areas. don't let people build on coasts which can have things such as hurricane/typhoons, and tsunamis. don't let people build on floodplains. that right there would stop some of the biggest costs from disasters.



That would be a good idea, but real estate investors call that "government interference" and "over regulation."



as for the fires they can easily reduce costs by first, stop putting out every fire. and instead just concentrate on protecting things like houses that are in danger. if we let the fires go as nature intended, they would in the end not be anywhere as bad. because the fuel would not have a chance to build up to the point of causing devastation. and ironically it would also save all the money and resources they spend on putting out every fire.


But that would endanger the recreation industry.


and yes insurance companies can play their role too. but not by making different insurance mandatory. but by refusing to insure things built in damage prone areas such as on coasts and floodplains. and that would include government funding to rebuild in such areas. "sure you are welcome to build your home on that place that is likely to flood. but when it does flood, it's all on you. no money for rebuilding".


So the government determines who wins or loses?

The argument over anthropogenic climate change is just a smokescreen. Politicians are refusing to ask the hard questions. What can be done within the framework of a liberal democracy?




top topics



 
9

log in

join