Climate change due to burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas?

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Crowdpsychology


No worries and there's some important links you provided in this thread.

Like with the Rockefellers funding 'almost everything regarding climate' suppose it's always worthwhile following the money.

Now it turns out there's an emerging field of trading and options in 'weather derivatives' - pretty handy if you've got decades of experience in technology involved in controlling weather.

Sourced by Joseph Farrell

Chicago Mercantile Exchange starts offering rainfall futures and options

PDF File:

A blockchain-based platform for trading weather derivatives (pdf)

And don't forget that the Climate Emergency Fund which funds the Just Stop Oil is a creation of the Getty family. You cant make this sh1t up.

www.nationalreview.com...

One thing I've pondered for a while regarding the fact that we've had the technology to artificially modify weather since the 1950-1960's is. How can insurance companies deny compensation when the damage is attributed to Acts of God events. Which include floods, lightning storms, hail, tornadoes or earthquakes. When we clearly have the ability to artificially create these?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

I love real world science. But I'm not sure which real world science you are referring to. I've posted links that support my claim, but I think you forgot to post your links while solely falling back on your feelings. So please do share

I know that plants and vegetables which are genetically modified is less nutritious and that glyphosate is both harmful for the environment, animals and humans. And I also know that the heavy metal contained in lower stratosphere spraying is bad for the environment, food production, animals and humans.

So again, can you come up with some real evidence and links supporting your opinion? Or are you solely going to play the tinfoilhattery game and continue to back the rhetoric that support the Agenda 21 depopulation agenda?

“A possible geoengineering method to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change is the injection of aerosols into the lower stratosphere, closely mimicking the way large volcanic eruptions cool the climate. This method is called solar-radiation management (SRM) scheme or simply Solar Geoengineering (1). SRM has been suggested to be affordable and have high effectiveness compared with other geoengineering schemes that have been suggested to mitigate global warming (1). While sulphate aerosols are the most studied, it has been recently shown that aerosols with other compositions, aluminium oxide (alumina) and diamond, could be used to dramatically increase the amount of light scatter achieved on a per mass basis. Alumina particles formed after the alumina aerosol injection are more efficient scatterers and may have less severe technology-specific risks than sulfates. Thus, they are expected to be more efficient per unit mass for geoengineering applications “

www.bmj.com...

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: AndyMayhew

I love real world science. But I'm not sure which real world science you are referring to. I've posted links that support my claim, but I think you forgot to post your links while solely falling back on your feelings. So please do share

Oddly enough, there are no more scientific reports to show that stratospheric spraying is not happening than there are that cats do not have 19 legs and live on the Moon

I know that plants and vegetables which are genetically modified is less nutritious and that glyphosate is both harmful for the environment, animals and humans. And I also know that the heavy metal contained in lower stratosphere spraying is bad for the environment, food production, animals and humans.

Currently, there is extensive evidence from multiple studies and meta-analyses that increasing [CO2] will reduce protein and mineral concentrations from a wide-variety of plant-based food sources, with substantial global consequences for human and animal nutrition

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And there is no spraying of anything - albeit there's certainly plenty of pollution being produced from vehicles, factories, etc that's bad for the environment.

So again, can you come up with some real evidence and links supporting your opinion? Or are you solely going to play the tinfoilhattery game and continue to back the rhetoric that support the Agenda 21 depopulation agenda?

“A possible geoengineering method to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change is the injection of aerosols into the lower stratosphere, closely mimicking the way large volcanic eruptions cool the climate. This method is called solar-radiation management (SRM) scheme or simply Solar Geoengineering (1). SRM has been suggested to be affordable and have high effectiveness compared with other geoengineering schemes that have been suggested to mitigate global warming (1). While sulphate aerosols are the most studied, it has been recently shown that aerosols with other compositions, aluminium oxide (alumina) and diamond, could be used to dramatically increase the amount of light scatter achieved on a per mass basis. Alumina particles formed after the alumina aerosol injection are more efficient scatterers and may have less severe technology-specific risks than sulfates. Thus, they are expected to be more efficient per unit mass for geoengineering applications “

www.bmj.com...

No-one is disputing that stratospheric spraying has been suggested. Simply that it is not happening. Mainly because most studies indicate it could do more harm than good

With methods of so-called geoengineering, the climate could theoretically be artificially influenced and cooled. Researchers have now investigated whether it would be possible to prevent the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet by artificially 'dimming the sun'. The results show that artificial influence does not work without decarbonization and entails high risks

www.sciencedaily.com...

While cooling the climate with the help of a known pollutant could reduce some of the impacts from climate change, it would also have other effects, from precipitation shifts to acid rain, leading to trade-offs that remain unclear.

www.sciencedaily.com...



And as I said, if anyone is trying to reduce human population, it's those people (not ignorant - because, like Exxon, I am quite certain they know the truth) who deny that we're adversely (for humans) affecting the climate.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Have you seen what the co2 ppm levels were when dinosaurs were walking the earth?
Did dinosaurs have nothing nutritious to eat??

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Have you seen what the co2 ppm levels were when dinosaurs were walking the earth?
Did dinosaurs have nothing nutritious to eat??

Dinosaurs evolved to eat the plants growing at the time.