Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Ruby Gray

Member
Another typical answer to this problem, is to make hay from the unused portion of the pasture. But that takes expensive machinery. Or else I'd need to take the spring off from blogging, and work at scything and bundling.
YES JERRY!! You definitely need a scythe! Or preferably several.

You have described my sorry farming situation only too well. Seems we inhabit very similar climatic regions, half a world apart. The grass and weeds overwhelm me and everything else in October, in most years continue through November, pasture growth is generally in limbo from December, and a huge amount of herbage translates from lush greenery to inedible standing straw it seems almost overnight. Of course the weeds are undaunted by anything, but they do make great mulch when slain by scythe.and goats do love to eat weeds dried as hay.

The ideal is to mow and conserve that excess while it is still in its prime, just as it begins to flower. Almost every year, I make several tons of hay by hand with scythe, grass rake and pitchfork, and it is the most delightful process that occupies many outdoor hours through the summer. Physically invigorating and aesthetically pleasing. The view is great and birdsong is the loudest noise I hear. But with just one person pitted against the task, of course I can never manage to control it all before the inevitable decline.

You might enjoy the YT video "caffeinated scything" as an intro to the possibilities. I think this guy lives not too far from you. He makes it look easy, which it is, really, when you master the techniques.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Ruby,

A couple of similar events, albeit with fiery and nuclear repercussions, are slated to occur shortly, if John the Revelator can be trusted.
We share the view that Biblical prophecy must indeed be taken seriously. Political figures such as Trump, Netanyahu and Bergoglio certainly do. See these articles & threads:

https://postflaviana.org/apocalypse-how-part-1/

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/part-1-the-futurist-apocalypse-is-now.2022/

I am also detecting a whiff of Velikovskian ideas? We have a Velikovsky forum, here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?forums/ages-in-chaos-ot-chronology-forum.37/
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hi Ruby,



We share the view that Biblical prophecy must indeed be taken seriously. Political figures such as Trump, Netanyahu and Bergoglio certainly do. See these articles & threads:

https://postflaviana.org/apocalypse-how-part-1/

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/part-1-the-futurist-apocalypse-is-now.2022/

I am also detecting a whiff of Velikovskian ideas? We have a Velikovsky forum, here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?forums/ages-in-chaos-ot-chronology-forum.37/
Oh good! I do enjoy me some Velikovsky! I will check it out.
 
My clear position on the debate about global warming (between those who affirm that temperatures are increasing because of C02 emissions, causing drafts, floods, wildfires and sea level increases vs those who affirm that weather has always changed and there is nothing unusual going on, nothing to worry about) is:

yes, the weather is changing, no it's not because of Co2 emissions, no it's not a natural change, it's manmade alteration using advanced technology (HAARP type), yes, there is quite something to worry about, as this is going to turn into the end-times scenario "forseen" in the bible.

This said, my aim is to reassure us that the disasters that are going to happen are not because of our lifestyle (i.e. using fossil fuels and consumism). If we ever want things to be different in the future, I mean those who will survive the staged apocalypse, we must clearly understand that there is an agenda to drastically limit the production of energy, so to keep our numbers low and keep us in a lifestyle like in Middle Ages, in poverty. If those who survive believe that the disasters were caused by the use of fossil fuels, they will all agree to renounce its use, as well the use of nuclear energy and hydrolectric energy and live in total poverty. They will also not understand that any new development of energy will always be sabotaged.

So here I copy an article that disproves the global warming theory based on C02 emissions.

At the end the article talks about the one world socialist government which means to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries. I obviously do not believe that one: they are not going to give wealth to the poorer countries, their objective is to make all countries as poor as the poorest countries. And they will achieve that through all the geological disasters and wars planned.

Global Warming/Climate Change Scaring us into Accepting a World Government
By Dave Robbins

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.
President Barack Obama
Democratic National Convention
September 6, 2012


Everyone on earth would agree with Mr. Obama that climate change is not a hoax. Actually, the climate has changed every day since God created the earth. Today may be a sunny 70-degree day, while tomorrow might bring rain and drop into the fifties. Bingo, the climate just changed!

However, it is Mr. Obama’s definition of climate change that is simply not true. He boldly proclaims that carbon pollution or Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is heating our planet, which is resulting in an increase in droughts, floods and wildfires that threaten the future of our children. Seeing the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that has been given over the years that totally disproves the theory of man-made global warming, one has to wonder why the president or anyone else would even bring it up.

It seems that for decades global elitists have been spinning tales of an impending ice age or catastrophic global warming in an effort to keep the masses in a perpetual state of fear. But, now that global cooling and global warming have been so easily disproven, politicians and their on-staff scientists have resorted to promoting fear of man-made “climate change”. Now they can blame every hurricane, earthquake, drought, flood or snowstorm on human beings.

Wake up everyone! God has been regulating the temperature of this planet for thousands of years. The very idea that a government entity can control the weather or the temperature of the planet by regulating the amount of CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere is preposterous!

But that is precisely the message that Mr. Obama and his cohorts at the United Nations continue to spread. According to Bloomberg, the United States, European Union and Japan, along with other developed nations, have already given the United Nations $23 to $34 billion to fight “man-made” climate change!

The problem with world leaders spreading the message that man-made global warming is heating up the planet, which in turn causes all sorts of climate change catastrophes, is that none of it is true. That’s right America… it’s all a lie! Science has already debunked the man-made global warming scam, and yet, Mr. Obama emphatically claims that it’s true.

So what are the realities? Is global warming man-made, and if not, why are politicians, world leaders, scientists and global dreamers continuing to lie about it?

Is Global Warming Man-Made?

The entire global warming/climate change theory hinges on the premise that humans through the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) are causing the temperature of the earth to rise. As a result, the climate changes, which leads to all sorts of weather catastrophes such as snowstorms, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis, etc. The global warming alarmists contend that the more CO2 humans emit into the atmosphere, the more the planet heats up. They frantically warn that, if this is not stopped, we will destroy the planet.

So, is any of this really happening? The answer is no. None of this is true! As a matter of fact, most scientists do not agree with this man-made global warming theory and have offered sound scientific data debunking the myth. Here are just a few of the many proofs that have been provided:

Proof #1:

Temperature increases CO2 not vice versa…

In his now famous global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore produced a graph depicting the variations of temperature and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 650,000 years according to computer generated models.

In the graph, Mr. Gore strategically separated the two lines and placed the temperature line below that of the CO2 line. This was done in an attempt to create the delusion that, when the amount of CO2 emissions increased, the temperature automatically began to climb as well.

Mr. Gore’s obvious conclusion was that global warming was being generated by mankind’s modern industrial development, which has increased the amount of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. As a solution, Mr. Gore advocated global laws that would revolutionize our lifestyle, redistribute the wealth of the world through his proposed cap and trade legislation, and establish a system of global governance that would end national sovereignty.

However, after experts analyzed the graph by placing the CO2 line directly over the temperature line, they proved conclusively that CO2 levels had risen only as a result of an increase in temperature, not the other way around. A closer look at the graph revealed that the lag time between temperature and CO2 levels changing was at times as much as eight hundred years apart.

This one proof alone has destroyed the entire basis for the global warming theory. An increased amount of CO2 does not result in global warming.

Actually, the opposite is true! But let’s continue…


Proof #2:

CO2 has risen at a record rate for over a decade, but global temperatures have remained the same…

According to an article by James Taylor in Forbes magazine, the U.S. Department of Energy revealed in its “estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010” that, since 2001, carbon emissions had increased 33 percent globally, yet the earth’s temperatures had remained the same for over a decade. He went on to state, “The fact that global temperatures are not rising despite such a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions provides validation of skeptical arguments, not a cause for heightened alarm.”

CO2 emissions do not cause temperatures to rise.

Proof #3:

Dr. Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph…

Dr. Michael Mann’s graph, showing multi-proxy temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1,000 years, appeared in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By gathering data from ice cores and tree rings samples, Mr. Mann’s graph supposedly proved that the earth’s air temperatures were fairly stable for 900 years and then began an unprecedented climb in the twentieth century, which made the lines on the graph look like a “hockey stick.” This increase in temperature was then attributed to man-made greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialization of the world. The chart was widely accepted in the global warming circles and even made an appearance in Mr. Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” global warming movie.


However, there were some major scientific errors with the chart. (1) The ice core and tree ring samples were taken from the northern hemisphere, which hardly provided a true global temperature reading for the last 1,000 years. (2) The graph totally dismisses the Medieval Warming Period (800 AD -1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300 AD – 1900 AD), which are two climate events that are widely accepted in the scientific community.


The graph was further debunked when Keith Briffa of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) presented tree ring data calculations that revealed a decline in temperature beginning in 1961. This new data prompted the “Climategate” email from CRU director Philip Jones to Michael Mann and others which stated, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1980 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline (in global temperatures).”


This “hide the decline” remark was an obvious cover-up for Keith Briffa’s actual data that showed the decline in global temperatures and placed yet another nail in the global warming coffin.


In the aftermath of the Climategate scandal and in a last ditch effort to keep the global warming hoax alive, global warming alarmist attempted to explain away the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) by stating that perhaps there were isolated areas of warming. However, there were too many easy-to-understand proofs.


For example, during the MWP the Vikings sailed in waters now frozen. The Vikings took advantage of the ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. Around 1000 AD the climate was sufficiently warm for the north of Newfoundland to support a Viking colony that came to be called “Vinland” because of the fine grapes and wines produced there. These areas are under ice today. This provides absolute proof that it was warmer back then than it is now, and there were no factories or SUVs.


Conclusion? Global warming was not man-made then, and it’s not man-made now!


What Do Scientist Say?

On June 22, 2012, USA TODAY published an article titled, “Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real”. In the article, author Doyle Rice states, “Nearly all the experts agreed that it is very likely that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century… As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found that their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues…” Is this true?


Let’s see what a few of those “below average” scientists have to say about man-made global warming and climate change…


I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism….I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect….Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.
 
Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy


What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth….carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth’s atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow….’Mars’ atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming.


Dennis Hollars, Astrophysicist


The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth.
Bob Ashworth, chemical engineer, 16 U.S. patents, has written 55 technical papers, American Geophysical Union, authored a 2008 technical analysis of global warming

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Fred W. Decker, professor of Meteorology-Oregon State University

The new green left (environmentalist) propaganda reminds me of the old red left (communist) propaganda. The dirty word is now carbon rather than capitalism. The game is simply to intrude and control everything.
Vincent U. Muirhead, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering, researched gas dynamics, University of Kansas

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [IPCC process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Chris Landsea, former IPCC scientist

As a geologist, I love Earth observations, but it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.
 
Jack Schmitt, geology scientist and U.S. astronaut

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.
Kiminori Itoh, member of IPCC process, award-winning environmental physical chemist

…Consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true. And I don’t even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it’s just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth’s climate.
Mark L. Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy

Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways…if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we’re not.
Mike MiConnell, hydrologist/geologist, professional Earth scientist U.S. Forest Service


I believed [global warming theory]. It made sense….” He then conducted extensive climate research and wrote a detailed analysis announcing that he had reversed his views…. “Did the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2.
 
William F. McClenney, professional geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor, former global warming proponent

Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over. The fear-mongering hysteria about human-caused global warming is completely unjustified and is totally counterproductive to our Nation’s essential needs and security.

Martin Hertzberg, retired U.S. Navy meteorologist


(read the last part of the article here)

https://www.endtime.com/articles-endtime-magazine/global-warming-climate-change-scaring-us-accepting-world-government/
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
no it's not a natural change, it's manmade alteration using advanced technology (HAARP type),
If this is what you believe, where is your evidence? The article you posted has nothing to do with this idea. In fact, proof #2 and proof #3 are denying that the temperature is changing at all.

So here I copy an article that disproves the global warming theory based on C02 emissions.
No, this article doesn't disprove global warming theory. It proves that oil companies and other billionaires have been able to hire a very few so-called scientists to make fools of themselves. And that the evangelical fundamentalists at Endtime Ministries are only too eager to buy into this rubbish.

Specific rebuttals to the canards raised, can easily be found on the Internet. I will leave this as an exercise for the interested reader.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Thanks Emma for this very sane and helpful post! It includes the rational but little-known statements of many professionals and scientists whose opinions are swept under the rug by the MMGW agenda.

I found the quote by Jack Schmitt to be very interesting! Although I respect him as a geologist, as the Apollo 17 astronaut who kangaroo-hopped about the airless moon for 6 hours at a time with a hollow backpack - hmmm, not so much! I must find and post the video screen captures of this heroic feat.

It is true that, with HAARP technology, man is now able to alter the atmosphere such that insolation can be manipulated locally, allowing harmful solar radiation to reach the earth. That is evocative of this warning for the end times,

Revelation 16:8,9
The 4th angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire.
They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give Him glory.

Evidence of manmade weather effects on 9/11 for instance, is found in the satellite photos of Hurricane Erin, the potentially catastrophic storm that approached New York on a beeline for several days prior, stopped dead off the coast on that day, then performed a sharp about-face and departed afterwards. The eye of this hurricane on 9/11 was a sharply-defined perfect pentagon, with a 60 degree diagonal disruption in one side of it, uncannily representing the damage pattern caused in the Pentagon in Arlington later that day.

The sun is of course responsible for 99.96% of earth's energy, and surely volcanic activity and other earth-based heat sources such as hot springs, undersea geysers, plus the natural cycles of lightning strikes, bushfires etc must be responsible for a considerable portion of the remaining 0.04%.

So that leaves what tiny amount of global warming to have anthropogenic cause?

And man's reduction by whatever tiny percentage of that minuscule proportion of that insignificant figure, is reckoned to be capable of entirely reversing the disputed trend of "global warming"?

What temperature?
Measured where?
Recorded by which impartial scientist?

It only takes one Krakatoa event to plunge the earth into decades of deadly climate cooling due to the atmospheric dust particles blocking insolation. No amount of fossil fuel burning could then warm the planet sufficiently to avert mass starvation by crop failure, even though there would simultaneously have been a massive ejection of volcanic CO2.

I find it interesting that the earth's "increasing" CO2 levels are recorded in the environs of Mauna Loa, a rumbling CO2-emitting volcano, in the centre of the earth's largest emitter of CO2, the Pacific Ocean.

The oceans absorb greater quantities of CO2 at cool temperatures, and emit increasing quantities of CO2 as the sea temperature rises. What causes this rise in oceanic temperature? Could it be rising atmospheric CO2 levels? Well that would be possible only in an oxymoronic scenario!

The sun is what warms the oceans that cover 2/3 of the planet's surface. Therefore the sun is responsible for the cycle of cooling and warming which triggers the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2, that benevolent molecule that is the backbone of every organic creature on earth.

If the earth is to be restored to its former green forested state, then we are going to need to provide much higher than the 350ppm starvation level of CO2 to feed those trees.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
No, this article doesn't disprove global warming theory. It proves that oil companies and other billionaires have been able to hire a very few so-called scientists to make fools of themselves. And that the evangelical fundamentalists at Endtime Ministries are only too eager to buy into this rubbish.

Specific rebuttals to the canards raised, can easily be found on the Internet. I will leave this as an exercise for the interested reader.
As ever Jerry, your incisive arguments are noted and appreciated!
But Emma does not reckon herself in the evangelical camp, whereas I claim allegiance there.
Nor would Jack Schmitt the actronot support the evangelical view, methinks.

Claims of the oil industry underwriting climate change skeptic opinion can just as validly be countered by pointing the finger at the NWO whose agenda is not to create a green paradise earth where we all can exist in harmonious peace for ever, but to manipulate, enslave, control and eventually kill off the majority of us CO2-emitting parasites.

This fact is endorsed by NWO advocates such as Prince Philip, and by Bill Gates whose ideal is to reduce the world's population drastically. The Georgia Guidestones proclaim the intention of ""maintaining" world population at 500 million. That clinical statement belies the messy process by which (at current rates), 6.5 billion people will be annihilated.

Of course this process was also prophesied 1,900 years ago.

Revelation 6:8
Behold, a pale horse! And it's rider's name was Death ... and they were given authority over 1/4 of the earth, to kill with sword and famine and with pestilence and by wild beass.

A little later, after 1/4 of the population has been killed, 1/3 of the remaining inhabitants are killed:

Revelation 9:16,16
So the 4 angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill 1/3 of mankind. By these 3 plagues 1/3 of mankind was killed, by the fire and smoke and sulphur coming out of their mouths.

1/4 of 6 = 1.5.
6 - 1.5 = 4.5
1/3 of 4.5 = 1.5.
4.5 - 1.5 = 3.

1/4 + 1/3 of the remnant = 1/2 of the original figure slated for termination.

So 3.5 billion to be killed so far. It makes the token figure of 3,000 sacrificed on 9/11 sound almost insignificant, which of course it was to the perpetrators. That was merely the taster of their fiendish NWO scheme.
 
no it's not a natural change, it's manmade alteration using advanced technology (HAARP type)
If this is what you believe, where is your evidence? The article you posted has nothing to do with this idea. In fact, proof #2 and proof #3 are denying that the temperature is changing at all.
Jerry, I'm starting to get sick of your unpleasant attitude. I am not under a police interrogation.

First of all, my introduction to the article was only to specify my position in relation to the article. I wanted to make it clear that I endorse the arguments given to disprove the C02 climate change theory, while I do not endorse the idea that everything is fine, that nothing is going to happen as far as geological disasters are concerned.

Second, I cannot put so much information all in just one post.

Third, I have talked about weather change, not necessarily planet temperatures increase. In fact I don't believe that planetary temperatures are increasing, but I notice higher temperatures extremes around the world, hot and cold, sudden increases and sudden cooling.

Fourth, I am not crazy to embark in a discussion to prove HAARP to somebody like you who doesn't believe it. There is enough evidence on the Internet for the interested reader, as you said:

Specific rebuttals to the canards raised, can easily be found on the Internet. I will leave this as an exercise for the interested reader.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The sun is of course responsible for 99.96% of earth's energy, and surely volcanic activity and other earth-based heat sources such as hot springs, undersea geysers, plus the natural cycles of lightning strikes, bushfires etc must be responsible for a considerable portion of the remaining 0.04%.

So that leaves what tiny amount of global warming to have anthropogenic cause?
While the sun is the source of energy, the entire amount of that same energy is re-radiated into space. It is either reflected as light, or else lost as thermal (black body) radiation.

The amount of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, H2O and methane) play an important role in determining the equilibrium temperature of the earth, such that the solar insolation balances the thermal radiation. Greenhouse gases block infrared from escaping, thus requiring a higher temperature to keep things in balance.

It only takes one Krakatoa event to plunge the earth into decades of deadly climate cooling due to the atmospheric dust particles blocking insolation.
Events similar to Krakatoa (which would include Santa Maria, Guatemala 1902 and Katmai, Alaska 1912) typically cause temperature drops of about -.4 degrees celsius the first year, and returning completely to normal within three years. See:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1988.pdf

Wikipedia claims that Krakatoa caused -1.2 C the first year, returning to normal within 5 years, but as far as I can tell that's based on a misquote of the above-linked paper that's given as the source.

I find it interesting that the earth's "increasing" CO2 levels are recorded in the environs of Mauna Loa, a rumbling CO2-emitting volcano, in the centre of the earth's largest emitter of CO2, the Pacific Ocean.
Mauna Loa was chosen as the first monitoring site by Dr. Keeling in 1958 for a number of good reasons. Keeling was of course the first scientist who decided to monitor this parameter. There is now a global network of monitoring stations, all showing the same trend.

So Ruby, are you denying that CO2 is increasing as a result of the vast quantities of fossil fuel that has been burned by mankind since the industrial revolution?

The oceans absorb greater quantities of CO2 at cool temperatures, and emit increasing quantities of CO2 as the sea temperature rises. What causes this rise in oceanic temperature? Could it be rising atmospheric CO2 levels? Well that would be possible only in an oxymoronic scenario!
There is nothing oxymoronic about the scenario. Increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 cause increasing absorption of CO2 by the ocean. Increasing atmospheric temperatures cause increasing ocean temperatures.

If the earth is to be restored to its former green forested state, then we are going to need to provide much higher than the 350ppm starvation level of CO2 to feed those trees.
Wasn't the earth in a green forested state, far superior to its present condition, when CO2 was 280 ppm pre-industrial?

Claims of the oil industry underwriting climate change skeptic opinion can just as validly be countered by pointing the finger at the NWO
Agreed that there is an issue with university science departments & government funded research. The thing that's surprised me to learn, is that if you look for those scientists who are not taking NWO money, you find that they're more worried about global warming that the IPCC scientists, not less.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jerry, I'm starting to get sick of your unpleasant attitude. I am not under a police interrogation.
I was only meaning to ask a question. Thanks for your clarification.

Fourth, I am not crazy to embark in a discussion to prove HAARP to somebody like you who doesn't believe it.
I meant to object to the idea that HAARP could cause global warming.

I'm not so sure whether HAARP can be used to create weather patterns, either. But I do agree that weather modification technologies exist, and could be used.

We seem to agree that the rate of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, draughts, and record high/low temperatures, is increasing. And I can't deny the possibility that at least some of these extreme weather events are intentionally caused by clandestine use of weather modification technologies.
 
It is true that, with HAARP technology, man is now able to alter the atmosphere such that insolation can be manipulated locally, allowing harmful solar radiation to reach the earth. That is evocative of this warning for the end times,

Revelation 16:8,9
The 4th angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire.
They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give Him glory.
Exactly, Ruby.

Evidence of manmade weather effects on 9/11 for instance, is found in the satellite photos of Hurricane Erin, the potentially catastrophic storm that approached New York on a beeline for several days prior, stopped dead off the coast on that day, then performed a sharp about-face and departed afterwards. The eye of this hurricane on 9/11 was a sharply-defined perfect pentagon, with a 60 degree diagonal disruption in one side of it, uncannily representing the damage pattern caused in the Pentagon in Arlington later that day.
Thank you, I did not know that. It is evident that they want us to know that they are altering the weather patterns.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Exactly, Ruby.
...
Thank you, I did not know that. It is evident that they want us to know that they are altering the weather patterns.
Hi Emma. I don't have access to my images of a Hurricane Emma on this tablet, or I would have posted that most intriguing photo. But it can readily be found on the wwweb.
And please don't be cross with Jerry, he's lovely! Even when disagreeing.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
While the sun is the source of energy, the entire amount of that same energy is re-radiated into space. It is either reflected as light, or else lost as thermal (black body) radiation.
How can this be true? In that case, the sun may as well not shine at all.
Surely the majority of this energy is translated into thermal energy that warms the physical structure of the earth, especially the oceans; or is directly utilised by all plant life to sequestre carbon in the process of photosynthesis; and some of course is hoovered up by photovoltaic arrays that convert it to electricity. Etc.

Events similar to Krakatoa (which would include Santa Maria, Guatemala 1902 and Katmai, Alaska 1912) typically cause temperature drops of about -.4 degrees celsius the first year, and returning completely to normal within three years.

The after-effects of even 3 years of global crop failures would last for decades, surely. How long does it take to recover from mass starvation of man and beast?


So Ruby, are you denying that CO2 is increasing as a result of the vast quantities of fossil fuel that has been burned by mankind since the industrial revolution?

I don't doubt that vast quantities of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere by liberation from fossil fuel. I believe this is greedy and shortsighted, benefiting mainly the affluent West, which is a very bad thing. But of course this is not the only source of CO2, and I am unconvinced by claims that the trend is not a phase of a normal cycle buffered by the vastly vaster capacity of the oceans to slurp up "excess" CO2 than man's capacity to add to CO2 levels.

There is nothing oxymoronic about the scenario. Increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 cause increasing absorption of CO2 by the ocean. Increasing atmospheric temperatures cause increasing ocean temperatures.

I think my words were phrased a little differently.
The colder the ocean, the more CO2 it absorbs.

The warmer the ocean, the less CO2 it can absorb, no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

And solar energy is what warms the ocean, more directly than atmospheric temperature.

In fact, as seen by the effects of the Gulf Stream, warmer ocean currents which sweep around the British Isles, increase the atmospheric temperature there above what would be expected above 50 degrees latitude.

So the oxymoron to which I refer is that higher atmospheric CO2 levels could warm the oceans sufficiently to increase release of CO2 from the oceans.


Wasn't the earth in a green forested state, far superior to its present condition, when CO2 was 280 ppm pre-industrial?

Was it? Where was the climate measuring station located at that time? How do we know the global CO2 level when the world's forests abounded? With that degree of precision? I doubt we can. For every scientist on one side of the fence, there will be another on the opposite side.

If the CO2 level was only 280 ppm, then growth of all those forests would be severely restricted, as much more than 350 ppm is needed for optimism growth, up to a constantly replenished level of about 1,100 ppm in an enclosed greenhouse environment. As soon as the sun shines, within a few minutes, plants in a closed greenhouse will have absorbed all available CO2, and photosynthesis will then cease, until more CO2 is pumped into the system. I am always surprised at how greenhouse growers do not get more frequently quoted on this fact.

Perhaps, as with e.g. "butter" and "cholesterol", the connotations of the word "greenhouse" have now become so distorted as to cause the general public to recoil in horror at every mention. But butter is better, cholesterol is an essential macronutrient for all mammals, and the heavily forested Amazon could only have flourished in the presence of a consistently high input of CO2 and H2O.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Specific rebuttals to the canards raised, can easily be found on the Internet.
I'm sorry, I was indeed feeling crabby & pressed for time, when I wrote that.

There seems to be a pattern, that people who are concerned about State Crimes & Conspiracies, are also skeptical that MMGW is just another conspiracy or hoax. And since I have taken it upon myself to run an Internet discussion forum, it's incumbent on me to review the basic grounds for my beliefs from time to time.

Proof #1:
Temperature increases CO2 not vice versa…
As explained here:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

In natural glacial and interglacial cycles which have occurred in the past, temperature and CO2 content have been coupled together due to positive feedback. During interglacial periods, increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2, which cause further increases in temperature, and so forth. When glacial conditions return, these same feedbacks operate in reverse. It's believed that the cycles are initiated / triggered by changes in solar energy, but once they're under way, they continue until some self-limiting point.

Ralph Ellis thinks that the initiating factor could be that when CO2 falls low enough, then vegetation dies back & burns all over the planet, causing dust storms & massive albedo change. I wouldn't be surprised if his theory is correct.

But it doesn't mean that increase in CO2 can't be the triggering factor.

Proof #2:
CO2 has risen at a record rate for over a decade, but global temperatures have remained the same…
First of all, notice that this essay accepts the premise that CO2 has been rising at record rates.

Secondly, note that this is dated 2013.

For a variety of reasons, global temperatures fluctuate randomly from year to year. Weather patterns, changes in insolation and sunspot activity, volcanic activity, and ocean currents are just a few of the many reasons. The random changes are large compared to the long-term warming trend. So, if you look at the graph of temperature vs. time, it appears to be slowing up sometimes, and speeding up other times. The period from 2003 to 2013 was one of those random times. When you fit a line using proper least squares statistics, the rate of increase wasn't really zero, just slower than average.

See:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/how-to-fake-a-pause-in-global-warming/



Proof #3:
Dr. Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph…
As Robbins more or less explains, the problem Dr. Mann and colleagues were dealing with, was some anomalous tree ring data that didn't agree with all the other information sources. They came up with a statistical correction. They wrote some emails that were quoted out of context. End of story.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
A little consultation of Wikipedia reveals that not only did Krakatoa cause the Year Without A Summer in 1816 across many northern hemisphere countries, but it also had some unexpected consequences, among which were the writing of "Frankenstein" and Dracula".

100,000 Irish people perished from cold and famine, and many others elsewhere.

The failure of the fuel source (the oat crop) for the transport system of those days, horses, led to invention of the velocipede, and soon to the horseless carriage. Just see how that turned out!

So it was apparently Krakatoa which led the charge to create the combustion engines and mine the fossil fuels which caused MMGW ...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Surely the majority of this energy is translated into thermal energy that warms the physical structure of the earth, especially the oceans; or is directly utilised by all plant life to sequestre carbon in the process of photosynthesis; and some of course is hoovered up by photovoltaic arrays that convert it to electricity. Etc.
The energy makes its way through the various cycles & systems, before being re-radiated. Plants capture CO2 and sunlight, and manufacture carbohydrates. Animals and microbes eventually eat the plants, and the CO2 is re-emitted along with body heat. Photovoltaic arrays capture the energy and convert to electricity, which is then used to move cars (creating friction to heat the road and the air) or to operate LED lamps and computers, whose energy again winds up as heat and light.

There are a couple of very small exceptions to this general rule. Some plants and animals sink to the bottom of the ocean and leave the web of life, sequestering carbon and energy. Volcanoes can release CO2 and energy into the system. In the long run, these are very tiny effects compared to the constant flux of solar energy into, through and out of the planet.

And, with the sudden influx of carbon caused by fossil fuel burning, the system has been thrown temporarily out of equilibrium. Even this imbalance is tiny. The solar constant (energy arriving constantly from the Sun) is 1362 watts per square meter, and the imbalance is thought to be less than 1 watt per square meter, less than 0.1%. It's that little bit of energy, working constantly over decades of time, that's slowly warming the planet and restoring the balance.

Here's a picture of the great flows through the system, from https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy



I am unconvinced by claims that the trend is not a phase of a normal cycle buffered by the vastly vaster capacity of the oceans to slurp up "excess" CO2 than man's capacity to add to CO2 levels.
You are referring to the carbon cycle. US DOE estimates that in the pre-industrial world, terrestrial plants would absorb 120 gigatons of carbon per year for photosynthesis, and another 90 gigatons/year were taken up by ocean photosynthesis. But all of that carbon was released back to the atmosphere (210 gigatons/year) due to respiration and decomposition. The system was in exquisite balance.

Again according to the DOE, human activities are now adding 9 gigatons/year of additional carbon into the system. Out of that, 3 gigatons are going into the soil, 2 gigatons are going into the ocean, leaving 4 gigatons of carbon added into the atmosphere. So the balance is destroyed, the oceans are acidifying, coral reefs are dying, the atmosphere and the oceans are both getting warmer.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle



This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, and red are human contributions in gigatons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon. (Diagram adapted from U.S. DOE, Biological and Environmental Research Information System.)
Where was the climate measuring station located at that time? How do we know the global CO2 level when the world's forests abounded? With that degree of precision? I doubt we can. For every scientist on one side of the fence, there will be another on the opposite side.
Instruments & techniques to make accurate measurements were developed in the 1950's by David Keeling. At that time, CO2 was 310 ppm. Before that, measurements are taken from bubbles of air captured in layers of ice in the polar ice caps. This is considered very accurate & reliable. There really aren't any scientists on the opposite side of this particular fence.

As soon as the sun shines, within a few minutes, plants in a closed greenhouse will have absorbed all available CO2, and photosynthesis will then cease, until more CO2 is pumped into the system.
Of course, because the greenhouse is closed and full of green plants, the limited CO2 in that small volume of air will be quickly absorbed. The CO2 would not be released back to the greenhouse interior for weeks or months, as the processes of respiration and decomposition are much slower than photosynthesis. Glasshouse growers need quick results, so they pump in additional CO2.

During ice ages, the ice cores show that CO2 has gone as low as 180 ppm, but plants did still survive through those times.

High CO2 levels can cause crops to grow quickly, incorporating lots of carbohydrates, but they might be less nutritious in vitamins and minerals. See: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
A little consultation of Wikipedia reveals that not only did Krakatoa cause the Year Without A Summer in 1816 across many northern hemisphere countries, but it also had some unexpected consequences, among which were the writing of "Frankenstein" and Dracula".
Not to be nitpicking here, but you're referring to the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815, not Krakatoa 1883. The Mt. Tambora event is considered to be about ten times bigger than Krakatoa.

An even more extreme weather perturbation was reported by Procopius and other annalists, dated 535-536 AD according to conventional chronology. There seems to be some problem linking this to a particular volcanic event. Could this problem reflect a Velikovskian-type chronology error? Anyhow, a volcanic explanation seems most likely. Volcanoes can cause a short-term cold spell because of particulates blocking the sun, followed by longer-term warming caused by CO2 after the particulates settle out of the atmosphere.

About 252 million years ago, at the end of the Permian age, life on the planet was nearly wiped out. Estimates are that 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct. The most popular hypothesis is that this was caused by CO2 emitted from volcanoes in Siberia. Some paleontologists & climate scientists are saying that the human race is currently triggering a similar sequence of events.
 
Top