Climate Change: Cobblers Or A True Reality?

[oracle]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Interestingly, the Russians think it is not man made -

 

Putin Tells Arctic Forum: Climate Change Real, But Not Man-Made

Putin made his comments minutes ago at the International Arctic Forum in Arkhangelsk

He said (apologies for rushed transcript):

"What I’m about to say may be unpopular. But we will respect the various agreements and Russia will do just that, just like we abided by the Kyoto protocols. Yesterday I visited the French archipelago and back in 1930s I think, an Austrian pioneer and researcher visited that place and issued a description of the glacier and twenty years later an Italian king visited and found that ice cover had melted. This warming started back in the 1930s. And back then, we did not have these man-made effects, but the warming was already there. It's not a question of prevention, I agree with those who say it's not a matter of prevention because you can't prevent it. [Global warming] may be a global trend, a global cycle. A planetary cycle. You just need to adjust to that. "

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-tells-arctic-forum-climate-change-real-not-man-made/ri19372

so it appears he is also a believer in celestial factors being the primary driver,as I do.

[Kurt Barlow]

1 hour ago, oracle said:

so it appears he is also a believer in celestial factors being the primary driver,as I do.

What celestial factors. Can you be more specific?

[Maynardgravy]

Sky daddy wot done it.

[oracle]

On 30/03/2017 at 8:13 PM, Kurt Barlow said:

What celestial factors. Can you be more specific?

ok, basic trigonometry to start with...my belief is that galactic cycles work on sine/cosine/tangent cycles...as you get to the 90 degree point of one bit you either get an extreme of electrical or magnetic activity...they work at 90 degrees to one another, much like volts and amps do in a normal electrical circuit.

the power factor is the "tangential" bit..it will go stone cold dead at one part of the cycle,and then totally nuts at the other end..and procession (astrologically) is about one phase every 6 and a bit thousand years(26000 years per complete cycle).I think we are coming up to one of the extremities(it's not totally linear,and subject to interference from planets etc,but the general direction follows correctly),...now there may be other stuff like energy levels vis a vis lasers and how they work that come into play(and their relationship with the human psyche)..this might be an explanation for what religeous folks think is a "rapture"...this event may indeed spark a very few people to go up to the next level.

 

it's my belief that this is the actual driver of both the ozone layer depletion(magnetic field collapsing, electrical activity increasing), and also the random behaviour of people....considering haemoglobin has an affinity to electromagnetic stuff.

[long time lurking]

I don`t know if climate change is cobblers(the man made part) but the following is something i always knew was cobblers 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/450m-lost-over-failed-green-power-programme-n7hf0h6ht

[happy_renting]

On 31/03/2017 at 9:18 PM, oracle said:

ok, basic trigonometry to start with...my belief is that galactic cycles work on sine/cosine/tangent cycles...as you get to the 90 degree point of one bit you either get an extreme of electrical or magnetic activity...they work at 90 degrees to one another, much like volts and amps do in a normal electrical circuit.

the power factor is the "tangential" bit..it will go stone cold dead at one part of the cycle,and then totally nuts at the other end..and procession (astrologically) is about one phase every 6 and a bit thousand years(26000 years per complete cycle).I think we are coming up to one of the extremities(it's not totally linear,and subject to interference from planets etc,but the general direction follows correctly),...now there may be other stuff like energy levels vis a vis lasers and how they work that come into play(and their relationship with the human psyche)..this might be an explanation for what religeous folks think is a "rapture"...this event may indeed spark a very few people to go up to the next level.

 

it's my belief that this is the actual driver of both the ozone layer depletion(magnetic field collapsing, electrical activity increasing), and also the random behaviour of people....considering haemoglobin has an affinity to electromagnetic stuff.

Interesting take.

I think the celestial sprocket flange engages with the galactic trunnion spigot every 25,000 parsecs resulting in a grommet dislocation of the ectoplasm gimbal.

But hey, what do I know.

[canbuywontbuy]

Climate change has been happening for billions of years to planet earth.  The only certain thing is change.  The "climate change is only caused by man" cult deliberately ignore this as if the earth has had a stable climate for 5 billion years until the 20th century. What caused the medieval warm period and the little ice age (in just the last 1000 years or so)?

[Neptune]

3 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Climate change has been happening for billions of years to planet earth.  The only certain thing is change.  The "climate change is only caused by man" cult deliberately ignore this as if the earth has had a stable climate for 5 billion years until the 20th century. What caused the medieval warm period and the little ice age (in just the last 1000 years or so)?

Well according to this guy , John Casey, its solar activity.

 

He says by 2031 we will have hit a minimum temp again something like the maunder minimum.

Cant see it myself but in about 10 years I will be making my mind up about CC. 

As for those in the Carbon reduction industry....you're doing a really sh1te job BTW. I can remember the G.W industry really taking off in the mid nineties. So lets have a look a the job theyve done on reducing CO2.

The only thing to affect CO2 emmissions was an enormous financial crisis. That tells me a lot about how much the PTB really want a reduction in CO2.  Every other attempt by them is either lipservice, a scam, or a way to offshore jobs and pollution to China. All wrapped up in some breathtaking hypocrisy. 

[LiveinHope]

1 hour ago, Neptune said:

Well according to this guy , John Casey, its solar activity.

 

He says by 2031 we will have hit a minimum temp again something like the maunder minimum.

Cant see it myself but in about 10 years I will be making my mind up about CC. 

As for those in the Carbon reduction industry....you're doing a really sh1te job BTW. I can remember the G.W industry really taking off in the mid nineties. So lets have a look a the job theyve done on reducing CO2.

The only thing to affect CO2 emmissions was an enormous financial crisis. That tells me a lot about how much the PTB really want a reduction in CO2.  Every other attempt by them is either lipservice, a scam, or a way to offshore jobs and pollution to China. All wrapped up in some breathtaking hypocrisy. 

Haven't watched the video, but it's not a surprise that solar activity has been the main driver of climate. Changes in CO2 follow changes in solar input as a feedback mechanism driving further warming or cooling until the solar input reverses; CO2 changes are due to the influence of the initial changes in solar input upon biology, sea level, winds and rock weathering. Stochastic, massive inputs of CO2 can influence Earth's response to solar input, however. If solar input decreases in the future, and the Earth starts to cool as a result, the response will be different to Earth's response to similar changes in solar activity over the last 800,000 years due to the present and much higher CO2 baseline. Interesting times indeed, and especially so if solar activity doesn't decrease.

[ccc]

Even if we are contributing to climate change and a warming planet - and that remains to be seen - a warming planet is far more preferable to humans than a cooling planet. 

[LiveinHope]

58 minutes ago, ccc said:

Even if we are contributing to climate change and a warming planet - and that remains to be seen - a warming planet is far more preferable to humans than a cooling planet. 

So you keep saying on these pointless threads :-)  and I'll agree cooling from the present will likely be -ve, but, and as I keep replying to you and others who make the same point, it is naive and likely incorrect view that warming will be beneficial for a global popn of 7.3bn + people, and especially if changes exceed 2C above the baseline, which appear likely under present conditions. I appreciate there is no point debating this :-)

A warming planet above 2C may only be beneficial if, under our current way of life, global warming knocks us back to a more sustainable population density, which it will do, probably. I don't expect that the period between 7.3bn and whatever lower number it ends up with will be much fun for those around, however. I'll be dead though, so not my concern.

What we need is a current planet.

[stormymonday_2011]

2 hours ago, LiveinHope said:

What we need is a current planet.

Quite.

Giving current weather systems more energy to play with for whatever reason is a bit of a crap shoot.

One of the big problems is that most man made records of thing such as sun spot activity only go back as far as the Industrial revolution when man made global warning may have started in anger

I am not convinced anyone really knows what is going on or how it is going to play out apart from the obvious changes in observable data

To me the questions are

1) Is the climate changing ?

2) Is it man made ?

3) What will the effects be ?

4) What can we do to stop it or to protect ourself from the impacts ?

To me questions  3 and 4 are as important if not more so than question 2 because if 1 is correct then it impacts what we do

Unfortunately most of the conversation on the matter is conducted at megaphone level about who is right about point two.

I wonder if I am alone in being puzzled by the spectacle of politicians and pundits flying around the world creating a huge carbon footprint and then lecturing ordinary people that they need to cut back on the central heating.

I also can not help noticing that many of the proponents if globalism are the same people who like to lecture us about MMGW.  There appears to be a very definite correlation between rising global temperatures and the largely unrestricted global movement of goods and people since 1980 All the graphs on the numbers involved in international air travel and the amount of global trade  track the rise in the  warming of the planet. To my mind these people have no logical consistency in their approach to these issues.

[ccc]

2 hours ago, LiveinHope said:

So you keep saying on these pointless threads :-)  and I'll agree cooling from the present will likely be -ve, but, and as I keep replying to you and others who make the same point, it is naive and likely incorrect view that warming will be beneficial for a global popn of 7.3bn + people, and especially if changes exceed 2C above the baseline, which appear likely under present conditions. I appreciate there is no point debating this :-)

A warming planet above 2C may only be beneficial if, under our current way of life, global warming knocks us back to a more sustainable population density, which it will do, probably. I don't expect that the period between 7.3bn and whatever lower number it ends up with will be much fun for those around, however. I'll be dead though, so not my concern.

What we need is a current planet.

Warming is preferable to cooling. The end.

[LiveinHope]

1 hour ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Quite.

Giving current weather systems more energy to play with for whatever reason is a bit of a crap shoot.

One of the big problems is that most man made records of thing such as sun spot activity only go back as far as the Industrial revolution when man made global warning may have started in anger

I am not convinced anyone really knows what is going on or how it is going to play out apart from the obvious changes in observable data

To me the questions are

1) Is the climate changing ?

2) Is it man made ?

3) What will the effects be ?

4) What can we do to stop it or to protect ourself from the impacts ?

To me questions  3 and 4 are as important if not more so than question 2 because if 1 is correct then it impacts what we do

Unfortunately most of the conversation on the matter is conducted at megaphone level about who is right about point two.

I wonder if I am alone in being puzzled by the spectacle of politicians and pundits flying around the world creating a huge carbon footprint and then lecturing ordinary people that they need to cut back on the central heating.

I also can not help noticing that many of the proponents if globalism are the same people who like to lecture us about MMGW.  There appears to be a very definite correlation between rising global temperatures and the largely unrestricted global movement of goods and people since 1980 All the graphs on the numbers involved in international air travel and the amount of global trade  track the rise in the  warming of the planet. To my mind these people have no logical consistency in their approach to these issues.

 

Quite.

We need to reduce the return of sequestered atmospheric CO2 to the atmosphere. Now we're all agreed upon that

let's go fracking.

[winkie]

The climate has always been changing and always will, with or without people....the ever growing numbers of people that want to pull ever diminishing finite resources from our world the faster the climate will change.....can't blame people seeing and wanting the comforts others have got, certain 'special' people are not more entitled to it than others......some had their industrial revolution years ago and nothing was said then about it at the time.....isn't fracking the burning of fossil fuels, that what told is doing so much harm to the climate?......afraid when money comes into it selfishness and greed means that sense and reason flies out the window......consequences = live now let others pay for it later.

 

 

[LiveinHope]

1 hour ago, ccc said:

Warming is preferable to cooling. The end.

A very terrestrial viewpoint, when the planet is ~75% ocean and the life within it is the major influence upon our ~25%.

[ccc]

7 minutes ago, LiveinHope said:

A very terrestrial viewpoint, when the planet is ~75% ocean and the life within it is the major influence upon our ~25%.

Warming is preferable to cooling. The end. 

[Lavalas]

On 31/03/2017 at 9:18 PM, oracle said:

ok, basic trigonometry to start with...my belief is that galactic cycles work on sine/cosine/tangent cycles...as you get to the 90 degree point of one bit you either get an extreme of electrical or magnetic activity...they work at 90 degrees to one another, much like volts and amps do in a normal electrical circuit.

the power factor is the "tangential" bit..it will go stone cold dead at one part of the cycle,and then totally nuts at the other end..and procession (astrologically) is about one phase every 6 and a bit thousand years(26000 years per complete cycle).I think we are coming up to one of the extremities(it's not totally linear,and subject to interference from planets etc,but the general direction follows correctly),...now there may be other stuff like energy levels vis a vis lasers and how they work that come into play(and their relationship with the human psyche)..this might be an explanation for what religeous folks think is a "rapture"...this event may indeed spark a very few people to go up to the next level.

 

it's my belief that this is the actual driver of both the ozone layer depletion(magnetic field collapsing, electrical activity increasing), and also the random behaviour of people....considering haemoglobin has an affinity to electromagnetic stuff.

That's interesting, but on Ozone depletion... isn't that on the way to being resolved as a result of human intervention or do you not believe that?

[Riedquat]

16 hours ago, ccc said:

Warming is preferable to cooling. The end. 

If you live in a barely habitable freezing place (which won't get affected by sea level rises) then yes. If you live on the edge of a barely habitable desert then no.

[Hail the Tripod]

2 hours ago, Lavalas said:

That's interesting, but on Ozone depletion... isn't that on the way to being resolved as a result of human intervention or do you not believe that?

There is an alternative theory for ozone depletion which proposes micrometeorites as the primary culprits. It may be that efforts to curtail human production of CFCs saved us all. Or it may be that it was all just coincidental. I'd say that CFC reduction solved the problem passes the "balance of probabilities" burden of proof test, but not the "beyond reasonable doubt" level.

[ccc]

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If you live in a barely habitable freezing place (which won't get affected by sea level rises) then yes. If you live on the edge of a barely habitable desert then no.

Of course. I'm talking generally here. Another ice age (And its going to happen whether we like it or not) will completely decimate the human population.

[freelander2]

Look up this site and the work done by Dane Wiggington the man behind it :

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Weather modification is proven /real and happening on a mostly daily basis. The effects of it create 'climate change' .

The BBC documentary 'Dimming The Sun is linked on this site, its a must watch BBC documentary and an extremely important watch for any that wish to better understand the truth, and the dynamics of the all out assault on planet Earth by the climate engineers.

[Hail the Tripod]

16 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

'Completely' and 'decimate' don't go together.

If it kills exactly 10% of the population, why would completely decimate not be correct?

[ccc]

I'm not too bothered about the grammar !!

The point is a simple one. 

[Steppenpig]

19 hours ago, freelander2 said:

... its a must watch BBC documentary and ...

I think you may have misjudged your audience.