Climate Change - Where shall I begin?

originally posted by: Justoneman
Scot that was later the narrative changed to warming by CO2. There was no consensus of anything but what they tell you to believe and not what the data showed us, period. That started the whole mess of "fake news" and I am here to do my best to correct the lies. The cool down crowd is right, they were slammed and now the data is showing a chance for a dip in temps. You Scots should know it was way warmer on your island in recorded history. What gives you would not know this?


it is a cycle and the liars want to say it is us. We do ruin our drinking water and pollute the soil. If we fixed those things we are going to see huge improvements in the environmental health of the land. The Sun doesn't care what we do, it is going to Sun us. Some times too much, and sometimes too little. The cycle is about to cool according to Solar data and sunspot predictors. When the Sunspots slow down enough it might start back up with a real big bang too after this particular cycle. Maybe 10-20 years out a possible small Nova event is being predicted and the consequences would explain the whole whacky leadership world wide if they are in the know as they should be.

And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.

So as I stated they started on the right track then,,, fake news... And Murray was part of the problem.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

The data showed an Ice age was coming and they said AGW......
here you go!

Mianstream news 1975

Your link says the opposite.

How prevalent then were worries about global warming? An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future.

That's not what your article says as per the text I quoted.

The ten warmest years on record for the UK were in the last 20 years.

You are "cherry picking", I posted the quote from the article that proves my point. You are trying to prove something out of order as I proved 1st they said Cooling, then the liars came in and said AGW, period. I am done. You are off on a tangent to the point. No surprise from you.


quote]originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman
Scot that was later the narrative changed to warming by CO2. There was no consensus of anything but what they tell you to believe and not what the data showed us, period. That started the whole mess of "fake news" and I am here to do my best to correct the lies. The cool down crowd is right, they were slammed and now the data is showing a chance for a dip in temps. You Scots should know it was way warmer on your island in recorded history. What gives you would not know this?


it is a cycle and the liars want to say it is us. We do ruin our drinking water and pollute the soil. If we fixed those things we are going to see huge improvements in the environmental health of the land. The Sun doesn't care what we do, it is going to Sun us. Some times too much, and sometimes too little. The cycle is about to cool according to Solar data and sunspot predictors. When the Sunspots slow down enough it might start back up with a real big bang too after this particular cycle. Maybe 10-20 years out a possible small Nova event is being predicted and the consequences would explain the whole whacky leadership world wide if they are in the know as they should be.

And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.

So as I stated they started on the right track then,,, fake news... And Murray was part of the problem.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

The data showed an Ice age was coming and they said AGW......
here you go!

Mianstream news 1975

Your link says the opposite.

How prevalent then were worries about global warming? An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future.

That's not what your article says as per the text I quoted.

The ten warmest years on record for the UK were in the last 20 years.

a reply to: Justoneman

I'm not chery picking, you seem to have misunderstood the article you linked.

The point of the article you linked is that global cooling wasn't the prevalent scientific view and the myth it was comes from the media.

A lot of the media interest in a new ice age in 1975 was down to one man: Nigel Calder. However, even he admitted (in his book that sparked it all off: "The Weather Machine") that most climate scientists nonetheless believed we'd actually see global warming due to CO2 emissions ....

(Yes, I do own a copy of the book)

Meanwhile, for more info:

skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The problem is, we know the physics of releasing specific amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know if you release X amount of CO2 into the air, it will absorb Y amount of heat and cause Z amount of heating. Now of course other variables could affect that, but there WILL be a net effect on the atmosphere. So we cant really say we can dump tons upon tons of CO2 into Earths environment and its effect is negligible. Thats physically impossible.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The problem is, we know the physics of releasing specific amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know if you release X amount of CO2 into the air, it will absorb Y amount of heat and cause Z amount of heating. Now of course other variables could affect that, but there WILL be a net effect on the atmosphere. So we cant really say we can dump tons upon tons of CO2 into Earths environment and its effect is negligible. Thats physically impossible.

This is the subtetly that is missed a lot of the time.

Unless someone can show me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that humans aren't changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there is no doubt that we are affecting the climate.

Now other factors may impact it in other ways but the claim we aren't (as is made on this site often) seems remarkably uniformed.

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

I feel as if there's some sort of plan for the Maui and Canadian fires, air quality worsened during the NY fires and it became worse during Maui and Canadian fires. Carbon Dioxide is released during these fires which would speed up global warming. Maybe it's a plan for mass extinction, or to lower standard brain capability. Global warming would probably be normal, except we´re speeding it up and worsening it. There are pros and cons, but more pros and cons to a higher power.
This is where I say it was planned, Maui fires were caused by lightning strikes, the Mexico fire was started by lightning strikes, the Maui fire was started by lightning strikes, and the Canadian fires started because of, well also lightning.
I'm not saying that lightning fires can´t happen naturally, I'm saying the feeling of it not being coincidental are still there.

The government at one point tried to weaponize lightning strikes.
www.forbes.com...

(there should also be a declassed file on it as well)

Maybe there's more to the picture, it would worsen this planet which would endanger everybody, but. cars use oil and burn it which of course brings carbon dioxide into the air. We would´ve found alternatives for cars, but we didn´t) so if we could use water to run cars, the guy died and we don´t know how anymore. Why not find out again? My belief is simply that there´s a plan to kill us off in the slowest way, yet most effective way possible.

any debunking wanted I'm here to talk about what I believe and break it down. let me know your thoughts.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The climate change agenda is just another way to introduce Marxism into our society.

More like feudalism

the thing with the green agenda is we have the original conservative manifestos that clearly state its to create the perfect serfs, the detail goes back to the pre nazi liberal eugenicists that crosssed left to right and created a welfare state designed to cull populations rather than help or heal.

we know this as we have the manifestos and conference details, be it from the 20s and 30s or 70s the ideas are still the same find acceptable ways to sterilise the different sand euthanise the poor/ sick and elderly..

much of todays west mirrors that eugenicsts plans and create the risk of states mirroring the way the nazis copied it as the idea of using lethal chambers predates the nazis by a long way, the difference is only in terms of the groups the different governments wanted to eradicate.. the uk establishment wanted then like now to rid themselves of poor whites, as they desperately want the perfect serf.