Vanishing Sunspot Mystery Has Scientists Worried! The Beginning Of The Ice Age?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 66 times


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 02:42 PM by crimvelvet
reply to post by Blaine91555


This is a very serious issue. A mini ice age means the world can not grow as much food. We had a 35 day supply of food the last time I checked and our fearless leaders have a law against stocking more than 3 months supply or it can be confiscated. Meanwhile Al Gore's buddies in the EPA have this in mind.



"This is no laughing matter," Krause said. "The cow tax and the pig tax are parts of a larger scheme by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act."

"Under the proposal, if a state charged the "presumptive minimum rate" from the EPA, the cow tax would be $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head for beef cattle and a little more than $20 per pig,"... the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that a producer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would emit more than 100 tons of carbon and be subject to the permitting requirements. "These thresholds would impact 99 percent of dairy producers, over 90 percent of beef producers and 95 percent of hog producers in the United States," ..The EPA has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.... "One of those provisions requires permits from anyone who emits more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year and there are millions of sources that emit more than 100 tons of carbon." The Title V permits, are essentially a cow and pig tax... "The economic costs to producers from the cow and pig tax would be great and would impose severe penalties on livestock producers in the United States without effectively reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere." The comment deadline for the cow and pig tax is Nov. 28. Visit www.wyfb.org to find the link for information.



Farmers are already extremely fed-up with the USDA and NAIS. Since the three US meat-packers set the price, expect most of the couple million livestock farmers to retire (average age is 55) followed by a collapse of the feed grain farmers. Digging big pits and slaughtering newborns calves was done in the eighties so we can expect the same again.


The mass exit of farmers from agriculture followed by a temp drop is going to be real interesting. Also once the animals are dead so is the industry. We need to look at the lesson learned from the same laws imposed on the UK a decade ago BEFORE we wipe out US agriculture (we grow over 25% of the world food supply).



“ It is no longer a secret that the present UK government would like to be shot of farming altogether. On the January 3rd Today programme we heard that meetings convened by Defra had discussed whether UK farming was needed at all. Defra has dropped the word 'farming' from its title and, as global recession is at last being openly talked about, the UK government still talks glibly of being in a "post agricultural era"....”

...” big investors are "hurriedly moving their wealth out of stocks and shares and into farmland...." The Times article suggests that, "Across the world, hedge fund managers, property developers and other investors" are all ready to buy up British farmland.”

“Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street's most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with "seed, fertiliser, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc."
warmwell.blogspot.com...


As a farmer I am going to sit on my land with my veggie garden, a few cows, sheep, goats and chickens and my high fences, video cameras, alarms and shot guns and watch the rest of you @@holes starve! I and the rest of the farmers have tried to warn US citizens about the disaster Washington DC is brewing. I and other farmers have handed out lit and cards for three years and been told we are crazy so "STARVE BABY STARVE"


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 03:35 PM by adrenochrome
i thought Clif High had some interesting things to say about the possible coming of an ice age...

...

So our understanding of chemtrails comes from the archetype that The Powers That Be are intensely scared and scared at all these different levels. One of the things they’re scared about is not going into an ice age. If we don’t go into an ice age, as in Lovelock’s book, Gaia is doomed to go the way of, supposedly, Venus. We get extra-hot and everybody’ll die off.

And so, usually at this particular point in our orbital permutations we get to the 100,000-year cycle and we go into a mini ice age, which cools everything down, refreshes the oceans, etc., etc., That is not occurring at this point because we’re lining up with the dark rift on the side of the galactic central, and we’re getting extra radiation coming on in, which is heating everything up. Everything from the GRBs, the solar radiation, the heliosphere radiation pouring on in, etc., is raising the temperature on all the planets, in spite of the fact that, at this point in our cycle of 100,000 years, we should be cooling down, to the betterment of the planet.

So The Powers That Be got really scared and at least at one bespoke level of their internal fear they wanted to react and change the albedo by putting up a radiation shield that would cool the planet down as though we had glaciers all over the place, as though we had gone into the ice age. They hoped to trigger it that way.

...

projectcamelot.org...

...sounds rather specific, but it doesn't hurt to hear all sides of the story!!

EDIT: also, here's some more info from Project Camelot's site:

...weather patterns will continue to become more unstable as global warming also accelerates - caused by solar activity, NOT carbon emissions. A warmer climate means warmer oceans - also heated up by increased undersea volcanic activity.

Warmer oceans mean more hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones (all the same thing) - and also more rainfall. Some climatologists argue that increased rainfall means increased snowfall in northern latitudes and therefore the paradoxical possibility of a local ice age in certain locations, such as the northern parts of Europe, Russia and Canada.

Again, none of this is a civilization showstopper; but the same principles apply, inasmuch as there is likely to be mass migration of people forced to or wishing to relocate, and effects on food production and infrastructure. And this will definitely occur, as weather becomes more unstable and extreme worldwide.

projectcamelot.org...

makes sense - more rainfall makes for a cooler climate. i heard somewhere that constant rainfall alone would eventually produce its own ice age in about a year...

[edit on 25-11-2008 by adrenochrome]


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 03:37 PM by Phage
reply to post by adrenochrome




sounds rather specific, but it doesn't hurt to hear all sides of the story!

Some sides make sense.

It called for a one liner.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 03:42 PM by ProfEmeritus
Although it is true that there were studies on both sides of the issue of Global Change, during the seventies, the "balance" wasn't upset until the GW advocates of late, went back and "performed studies" that said that all the noise regarding the "Coming Ice Age" came from media, and not scientists. This is nothing more than proponents of GW being very selective in what they considered SERIOUS studies.
Regardless, science is not a democratic process. In fact, very little knowledge is gained when everyone publishes papers confirming what is already known. True advances in science frequently come from those that publish works that challenge the current thinking. That, of course, should be self-evident.
Even "peer reviewed" papers are subject to extreme partiality. Peer reviews work fairly well, when the subject is fairly narrow, the variables are all known, AND ACCURATELY AND CONSISTENTLY MEASURABLE, and multiple disciplines are not involved. On the other hand, when those conditions are not met, then the peer review process frequently fails in its attempt to verify or refute the reviewed thesis.
Global Change falls into the latter category, unfortunately. With Global Climate Change, there are so many variables, in so many different disciplines, and many of those variables are estimated or inferred from other variables, where correlations may be apparent, but cause and effect have not been determined.
Of course, the theses of Global Warming and Global Cooling, naturally rely on temperature data. Over the last century, although temperature data may have been directly measured, but changes in instrumentation and methodology have been common.That is the GOOD news.

The BAD news is that as we go back in time, temperature data has to be inferred from other indicators, such as CO2 levels, plant and fossil evidence, sea levels, solar activity, etc. Many of the GW advocates point to CO2 levels of the past and claim that those levels correlate with temperature directly. Unfortunately, it is not clear which variable is the leader and which is the follower. In addition, there are so many other variables, as many have pointed out, that to point to one variable as the cause of GW or GC would be foolhardy.
In addition, when an issue, such as Global Change is politically charged, it is hard to get an impartial group of referees. The only thing a referee can do, in such cases, is either verify or dispute facts, as they know them or BELIEVE them to be. Since "PROVING" that Global Warming or Global Cooling is occurring is virtually impossible, given changes that normally take place over millennia, the peer review catches nothing but obvious facts.
I won't even get into the selection of the referees by the editor, and all that entails. That is the subject of another thread.
I'm afraid that as long as we look at one variable as the causal agent, any attempt to get closer to the truth of Global Change is doomed to failure.
I believe that IF this issue is resolved, it will be resolved as a DISPROOF BY EXAMPLE. Again, though, that may take a few hundred years, and I don't think many of us will be around to see that.
One thing that seems fairly certain is that global change has been occurring for over 4 billion years, from a boiling planet to a frozen one. Since man's footprint has only been present for about 1/20th of one percent of that time, and since measured temperatures, solar observations, ice packs, etc. have only been conducted directly for about 200 years, which is 1/40000000 of the earth's lifetime, any theory as to Global Climate Change would be, as we say, in science, a pure SWAG.


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 03:57 PM by Maxmars
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Food for thought regarding the evidence of "Carbon" impact on the planet.


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 08:16 PM by DisgustedOne
Originally posted by GodForbid
Originally posted by BlackCat13
after just watching the movie I really wonder, "if this global warming tendancy" is really happening, and the climate issues are neglected, what will happen if this mini ice age is over?


That is exactly what sprung into my mind as soon as I read the OP.

What happens if both theorys are correct? What happens if we are thickening our atmosphere with CO2, creating a green house effect, but the solar minimum triggers a mini ice age, so we continue to neglect the atmosphere issues, then when the ice age is over, we would be in for some serious heating.

So from frozen, to boiling very quickly. :O


You are referring to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", correct me if I am wrong. That movie was loosely based on a book by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber called "The Coming Global Superstorm". I would recommend the book over the movie any day. I found its theories to be well written, researched and presented. As we are all aware, the earth has been through several ice ages in its past. What preceded the Ice Ages? I would venture.... Global Warming! It is a normal cycle in our planets history. We are seeing polar melt like never before. Blue water at the north pole and polar bears looking for a home. Global warming concerns me only because I think the snap back to an Ice Age will be the result. And if you think about it, it makes sense. The earth started hot and has been cooling ever since. Entropy ensures this. And I think Man will have little impact on this process, either way. Mother nature rules. We may help her along and hasten our demise, but this has been on the way for some time now.

IMHO.

Edit - Whitley not Whitney

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DisgustedOne]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Lake Vostok Antarctica: breakthrough imminent.
  Posted 8 days ago with 175 member flags
Sky Sounds 1/25/2012 Atlanta, GA Personal Video/Audio
  Posted 16 days ago with 146 member flags
Strange sounds warn us of incoming, and very soon...
  Posted 4 days ago with 133 member flags
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
  Posted 5 days ago with 121 member flags
6 of the oldest trees from around the world.
  Posted 9 days ago with 108 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
  Posted 6 days ago with 87 member flags
CONFIRMED: Global Warming \'Ended 15 Years Ago\'
  Posted 12 days ago with 75 member flags
Pictures from the Aurora lightshow
  Posted 17 days ago with 73 member flags