Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

a reply to: Phage

Allusions are allusions, Phage.

Well, here's one for the sun being blamed.

Nothing is stable, including the solar system. New evidence suggests the solar system is moving into a new energy zone which is altering the magnetic fields of the planets.

There is reason to believe Earth is not the only planet in the solar system undergoing climate change, meaning CO2 emissions are not the primary force responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Growth of the dark spots in Pluto, reports of auroras on Saturn, polar shifts in Uranus and changes in light intensity of Neptune suggests something very strange is happening in the solar system.

Ok, so it's not CO2 according to them.

Fair enough, if all the planets are warming at the same time.


www.space.news...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: southbeach

most of these climate change pushers are being used to forward a social engineering program whereby we will be taxed to death in the name of carbon taxes by a Globalist corporate Government that will live in palaces and fly on private jets as the rest of us are forced off land so we cannot farm for ourselves and will be totally reliant on a totalitarian distopian tyranny.

And, unlike climate scientists who of course know nothing. You know that this is, in fact, what is and what will happen. Everything is fine and dandy as far as the environment goes, it's all just a globalist lie.

That's not what I am saying and you know it.
There are of course scientists on both sides of the fence .
I cannot say for sure who is accurate but I know the likes of Al Gore stand to line his pockets when the whole carbon tax package is rolled out there is also agenda 21 now known as agenda 2030 which is designed to having us living in big cities and off the land and you can witness BLM land grabs as the start of it plus ridiculous zoning laws shutting down home grown gardens.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

Does anybody remember back in 2009 when that Climatology lab in Greenwich, England was hacked and thousands of emails were published that showed many well to do scientists, politicians, and media moguls colluding to distort data in order to pass carbon legislation? This is the one I'm referring to. The head of the facility even publicly admitted he had distorted data and admitted to colluding to distort data. But we never hear about anymore. Somehow in 7 years that climate research facility hack became an inconvenient truth for those on the bandwagon.

Yes, Gavin A. Schmidt, the person who realised the e-mails had been hacked, and knew they were genuine sent this e-mail two days after the hacking, to (lucia liljegren) who had published them.

'Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:48:21 -0500
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: lucia liljegren
Subject: a word to the wise,

Lucia, As I am certain you are aware, hacking into private emails is very illegal. If legitimate, your scoop was therefore almost certainly obtained illegally (since how would you get 1000 emails otherwise). I don’t see any link on Jeff-id’s site, and so I’m not sure where mosher got this from, but you and he might end up being questioned as part of any investigation that might end up happening. I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so. Just my twopenny’s worth
Gavin...'

So you see, this guy is both a bully and a liar, at the time he worked with the UEA, Essex, but based in the US.
Schmidt is now in charge of *GISS/NASA for his er, efforts.
These are not very nice people, despite all the remarks made in the stolen e-mails themselves they were officially 'cleared' of any wrong doing, that does not make it true, there is still concern over the content, that included doing a public hatchet job on another researcher who didn't think their way...I doubt highly that there would be any debate with that person, just a smear campaign.
BTW, the same crowd don't do debates anyway.

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

a reply to: smurfy

So you're saying that the guy that ran the Climatology lab that was hacked now works for NASA?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: smurfy

So you're saying that the guy that ran the Climatology lab that was hacked now works for NASA?

Dr Schmidt although English, worked in NY for UEA Essex, and was under Phil Jones who retired a while after climategate. However, the head of GISS in NY also retired, and Schmidt became the new head of GISS, Scmidt is a climate modeller, that's what Goddard CRU does, that's what UEA Essex does, and I don't think that the models were behaving themselves very well, given that any data they had was pretty ropey with badly, and extremely badly sited weather stations by the scores, and also where there was little data to go on.

More than that, Phil Jones was/is also a peer reviewer for papers submitted to scientific journals, and if he didn't like any research that had differing views about AGW/climate change, an unfavourable critique could be made, and that paper would simply not be published. The peer review process is a mess.

As for Schmidt, he does not do debate over AGW, or climate change with someone who disagrees..you may not have seen this before, though many will have here......ad nauseum



As for Phil Jones, back in 2010 he said this,

"from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
But he also says this,
" I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Some of that confidence is 'gleaned' from in IPCC references, the papers of which have all been peer reviewed by ?

a reply to: smurfy

Good find.

Higher Co2 levels makes the planet more green, sounds like good news, especially in these times.

But.

In 5000 years, humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest, 20 % is left, 10% old growth(untouched forest) and 10% regrowth(replanted forest or just tree's).

Everyone knows that forest is the lungs of the earth, and that it's obvious if you remove 80% of those lungs, trouble will happens.

In the old days before this cut down, the planet had no problem with higher natural Co2 levels as the forest would take advantage of it and process the Co2 as carbon sinks and oxygen .

Today the 20% forest that is left has to take care of the natural Co2 and the human caused Co2 on top of the natural.

You don't have to be a professor or scientist to figure out that it creates a problem, that the lungs of Earth is struggling with those higher than normal Co2 levels, even if it was only the natural levels.

CLICK ME

CLICK ME 2