tripple alliance

Global Warming / Climate Change

375 posts in this topic

Why you are only getting one narrative from Stuff media.

Stuff is not a free speech site

By WS
 

stuff-police.jpg?w=630&ssl=1

You may have noticed that Stuff  is writing a number of articles at the moment about climate change.

On this blog, we also have a large number of posts on the subject, and a lot of our readers with scientific backgrounds question the issues around climate change, particularly as it is fed to the public by the media.

The overwhelming attitude on this blog is that the science is far from settled, and also that, to date, no one has ever been able to predict future events. For some reason, however, climate change believers think that they can predict the future, and that they know how things will pan out.

Here is the footnote to the Stuff articles, for the attention of commenters.

stuff.png?w=640&ssl=1

In other words, Stuff has come out and said that they are not interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees with them, no matter how convincing or well researched their responses might be.

 

For a mainstream media outlet in New Zealand, this attitude is a total disgrace.

One of our readers decided to contact Stuff and express their concern, firstly over the inaccuracy of their articles, and secondly over their draconian attitude towards comments from sceptics. Here is an extract from the letter sent to the Stuff editor by our reader. quote. 

Yesterday Stuff published an article on Climate Change. 

I could not believe my eyes when I read this!!! – that any journalist would be so one sided as to only print one side of an argument that is not settled.   What happened to free speech?  What happened to questioning?  If you do not understand why this argument is not settled, then you obviously did not read the IPCC report in detail and do not understand the scientific method and scientific approach. My husband attempted to draw relevant facts from the IPCC report which he quoted in response to your columnist, but this was conveniently ignored and not published in the comments.  So, you not only censor your journalistic approach, but you also censor your responses – this is a new low in journalism.

Journalism in NZ used to stand for questioning and scepticism of everything, no matter what your political persuasion was.  Journalism used to stand for printing both sides of an argument whether you agreed with it or not because as a journalist you were not afraid to print all views, you knew your readers had the intelligence to make up their own minds. end quote.

This was a reasonable and well thought out approach from our reader.

Here is an extract from the response from Stuff editor, Patrick Crewdson. quote.

Our position on the points you’ve raised is simple:

1. We accept the overwhelming scientific consensus – as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – that climate change is real and caused by human activity. In that light, providing ‘balance’ from denialists is not a poor service to our audience – it is actively dangerous. This is not a true debate with two equivalent sides, where the views of the scientific consensus and denialists are of equal weight.

2. Regarding comments in particular, Stuff is a moderated platform, not a free speech arena. We have the right to set terms and conditions for comments: https://www.stuff.co.nz/about-stuff/87006221/terms-and-conditions-user-submitted-content-and-comments The Media Council has previously ruled on this point: “We reiterate that the Terms and Conditions for online comment are a matter between the online publisher and its readership. It is not a matter for the Council, nor do we have any jurisdiction to interfere in it.” end quote.

So, leaving aside the questions around climate change itself for the moment, Stuff has shown its true colours in that it is not interested in opinions that disagree with its own, and furthermore, it will delete any comments that indicate any level of dissent at all.

We all know exactly where this type of behaviour leads, and it is important that you are all aware that one of our major media outlets – Website of the Year no less – has openly stated that it opposes free speech and freedom of expression.

We would like to encourage everyone at Whaleoil to contact the editor, Patrick Crewdson to express their outrage over this new development in journalistic jihad. Here are the final comments of his response: quote.

You can rest assured that Quick! Save the Planet will include robust, critical reporting about the range of responses to climate change (in particular around mitigation and adaptation). If new information arises or the scientific consensus shifts, we will reflect that.
If you are not satisfied with my response, you are welcome to contact the Media Council: info@mediacouncil.org.nz

Ngā mihi,

 

Patrick Crewdson

Stuff Editor in Chief

For the sake of free speech and freedom of expression, this needs to be stopped now. Free speech is a fundamental right of western society. We all know how things end when free speech is denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is a result of the weather being manipulated by H.A.A.R.P. (YouTube it for explaination)

H.A.A.R.P. produces climate extremes and weather event extremes that are the symptoms of so called climate change.

The symptoms give creedence to the claims of climate change.

If the weather manipulation were halted..then the weather would settle it's self down after about4-6 years.

..if you want to seek the truth behind so called climate change...then you must research using You Tube...H.A.A.R.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Stupid 101: The most important things to understand about this urgent problem

by idbkiwi 
 

3ded5f00-4f37-0133-0b66-0e34a4cc753d.jpg

Hi Kittens

Welcome to Stuffed University where Captain Crock will lead us through Climate Stupid 101. This is an important subject, so important we will not brook criticism, of any kind, by anybody. This is strictly facts, all facts, absolutely no matter-of-facts.

“Earth’s warming is largely related to the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These absorb heat from the sun as it is reflected off the earth’s surface and send it back again.”
Professor James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University Wellington, says this process is akin to having a blanket on a bed.
“A thicker blanket, a warmer body; a thicker blanket over the earth, a warmer earth.”

So, there you have it, Stupids. The earth’s atmosphere is a blanket, except it’s not. The atmosphere is hugely gaseous, a blanket hugely solid. The atmosphere enhances convection while a blanket suppresses it, but they are the same, so sayeth Stuff. No correspondence will be entered into.

 

“The key thread in that blanket is carbon dioxide (CO₂), which takes thousands of years to break down and all the while absorbs heat, sending it back to earth and triggering warming.” In fact, the key thread in planetary liveability is water vapour, responsible for over 64% of the entire ‘greenhouse effect’ that allows us to populate this planet, but y’know: Stuff said otherwise and what they say can’t be untrue. By decree.

Notable dullards, including the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, must be fully replete with absolute morons and evil denialists if Stuff’s Captain Crock is to be believed: “As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate.”

“Since the start of the industrial revolution around 250 years ago, emissions of CO₂ have sharply increased.” Oh. Golly. That’s terrible. If you thought the industrial revolution began much earlier, in 1712, well, what a fool you have been. Still ‘emissions’ though, what a thing! Terrible, ain’t it, that women who used to spend much of their day labouriously digging peat in the UK for burning in order to heat their family homes and meals had their earthly energy needs superseded by a product so small, compact and affordable, that they chose it in preference to peat-piling. What a pack of bitches. Lazy bastards all of them.

In fact, the first machine of the industrial age was a water pump designed to drain mines: coal mines. So popular was the product that mines were sunk deeper and deeper chasing coal seams to enable the taking of the wonderful product: a product so good that infant mortality dropped in the immediately ensuing period from one-in-three to one-in-fifteen. Killers, all of ‘em, those coal users, they have the blood of tiny babies on their very hands.

“All the while absorbs heat, sending it back to earth and triggering warming”. Crikey; I dunno, but 3rd Form chemistry told me that molecules re-radiate energy in every possible direction, emitting across their entire circumference, including into outer space, but apparently it ain’t true ‘cos Stuff says so. Overturning 187 years of molecular science, the latent energy of CO₂ molecules is able to be directed, laser-like, back to planet Earth, and Earth alone. Boy, how I have been misled. Thank God for Stuff; otherwise, I’d be living in ignorance.

This amazing heat is also able to travel backwards, “all the while absorbs heat, sending it back to earth and triggering warming” thereby defeating the Second Law of Thermodynamics; namely the notion that heat may only flow from warm to cool and not vice-versa. That’s why we cannot cook a roast in the refrigerator, nor cool a beer on the barbecue, but Stuff says we can, so it must be true.

Please experiment with the above on your own, give it a go and let us know how you get on. However, no correspondence contrary to our position will be entered into. You can get Stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ohokaman said:

Some interesting stuff.....the last one explains a lot. The last four years have been the hottest on record.

IMG_3706.JPG

IMG_3707.JPG

IMG_3708.JPG

IMG_3709.JPG

Ohokaman , you will have to do better than that .

53.5 billion tons , highest ever ,  just cherry picking ,  currently the world average co2 level is 406ppm , the historical average over 4 billion years is 2000 ppm co2 , how many tons would 2000ppm equate to , without co2 nothing grows , we die of starvation . Now the reality check , the US emissions are down , China and India are up and climbing higher , as their trend continues and they have both announced they have no intention or won't attempt to reduce them until 2030 ,  how many tons of co2 in the atmosphere by then , 100 billion? , they don't care they just want money and are playing you lefty's .

Historical global temperatures over millions of years range from 12 deg c / 22.5 deg c , currently we are averaging 14.2 deg c over that period . 

Antarctic ice has increased , any melting lower down is because that area has the most volcanic activity any where on the planet .

Co2 emissions , 2014, really , I suggest you check the latest info and don't forget to check the USA under Trump .

Polar bears , remember the near extinction prediction , more crap , they are at record levels 

In the 1960s and 70s, man-made global cooling was the fashion. In 1971, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich predicted: “By the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” Ehrlich is now a warmist.. Whom or what to believe? After 50 years of failed predictions, people are reasoning that something other than science is behind this alarmism. And that something is the UN. What else? Its global reach, back corridors and duplicity have allowed it to build an unchallenged, mutually ­reinforcing $1.5 trillion industry of captive politicians, scientists, journalists, crony capitalists and non-governmental organisation activists bent on globalism through anti-Western sentiment and wealth transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ohokaman said:

Fuck me there are some morons on here... 

Simple question, Who would you rather believe - Sir David Attenborough or Donald "the orange turd" Trump...??

I rest my case....wake up you :rcf-clown::rcf-clown::rcf-clown:

I like your sense of humour , seriously Attenborough , his entire career is a broadcaster , zero scientific credentials , he's being played for an old fool , why has he been invited , he has no right to attend such events , he's being used . Trump on the other hand is working on advice and a great instinct for seeing a scam , so far he has saved the USA hundreds of millions and reduced emissions at the same time .  cindy on the other hand just handed over close to a billion of our money for no logical reason , I'll take Trump any day .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ohokaman said:

Fuck me there are some morons on here... 

Simple question, Who would you rather believe - Sir David Attenborough or Donald "the orange turd" Trump...??

I rest my case....wake up you :rcf-clown::rcf-clown::rcf-clown:

Patrick Moore Retweeted Richard Dawkins

It's a real shame, but Sir David has allowed himself to be used as a prophet of doom. Who knows what caused his mind to be sucked into this deviance from his once celebratory view of living creation? The demonization of CO2 is an evil act against the most important food for life.

 

Fancy quoting CNN propaganda....When you control the the news you control the mind and yours is controlled by corrupt CNN haha

More Co2 is a really good thing....do some real research you lazy moron.

 

Patrick Moore @EcoSenseNow
FollowingFollowing @EcoSenseNow
More

Patrick Moore Retweeted J.A. Puntanen

Same for trees around the world. We are entering a Golden Age of CO2, after millions of years of semi-starvation for nearly all plants on Earth.

Patrick Moore added,

DtbWA5DWoAAvz1o.jpg
J.A. Puntanen @puntanenyahoo
Replying to @EcoSenseNow
Trees in Finland grow atm at an unprecedented rate.
10:18 AM - 2 Dec 2018

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ohokaman said:

Fuck me there are some morons on here... 

Simple question, Who would you rather believe - Sir David Attenborough or Donald "the orange turd" Trump...??

I rest my case....wake up you :rcf-clown::rcf-clown::rcf-clown:

 

 

We repeatedly get scare-mongering appearances by Attenborough with the latest this evening being the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is imminent if we don't change our CO2 emissions. He has become a propaganda mouthpiece. However we don't hear a word in the media from his contemporary, the noted biologist David Bellamy who has rightfully identified that current CO2 emissions provide huge benefit for life on Earth. MSM have minimal scientific training and publish stories that suit their ideological bias.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rdytdy said:

 

 

We repeatedly get scare-mongering appearances by Attenborough with the latest this evening being the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is imminent if we don't change our CO2 emissions. He has become a propaganda mouthpiece. However we don't hear a word in the media from his contemporary, the noted biologist David Bellamy who has rightfully identified that current CO2 emissions provide huge benefit for life on Earth. MSM have minimal scientific training and publish stories that suit their ideological bias.   

 

 

Jesus Ted, I thought you had half a brain, clearly I was wrong.....the other twats on here we knew about..:rolleyes:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12170823

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knock me down with a feather; Herald prints a climate retraction

by WH 
 

Sort of.

nzh1.png?w=594&ssl=1

On the 2nd of November, the NZ Herald published the same scare story that all major media outlets were covering. In fact, they got it from the lefty Washington Post.

The scare was based on a ‘peer reviewed’ paper published in Nature, no doubt rushed out in time to bolster COP24.

An independent scientist (mathematician and physicist) took a few minutes to read the introduction to the paper and immediately sensed that there was something wrong.  He published his findings and sent them to the Nature paper’s authors.

They have looked at the criticism, re-examined their numbers and have agreed that their numbers do not really support their conclusions.

To their credit, the authors have attempted to get media outlets to update the story and, to their credit, the NZ Herald has done just that, again thanks to copying the Washington Post. (Nothing so far from Stuff and Nonsense)

nzh2.png?w=599&ssl=1

The NZ Herald has also tagged the original story with an update: Quote.

nzh3.png?w=639&ssl=1

This study has been updated by the researchers involved since this story was published. They had claimed that the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim. End quote.

So why the “Sort of” to start this post?

Detracting from the import of the retraction, which cast a tiny shadow of doubt on the ‘settled science’ mantra, the NZ Herald reproduced a selection of Tweets:

Environment celebrity Attenborough is rolled out and quoted spouting the usual nonsense.

nzh4.png?w=466&ssl=1

Then the poor old polar bear is trotted out despite the fact that there are so many of them that they are now a nuisance:

 

nzh5.png?w=449&ssl=1

Then a snide aside at some Aussie politicians:

nzh6.png?w=512&ssl=1

I am confident that there are a diminishingly small fraction of people in the world who would say that the climate never changes.

So what are the takeaways from this fiasco?

  1.  Use people who understand maths to review your work.
  2.  Don’t use ‘pal review’.
  3.  Don’t rush to publication to meet a COP deadline.
  4.  Perhaps the science isn’t settled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 8:16 PM, Ohokaman said:

Jesus Ted, I thought you had half a brain, clearly I was wrong.....the other twats on here we knew about..:rolleyes:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12170823

When I see actual proof on humans causing Global warming then I may be convinced. However I am not easily conned.

Especially for you Ohokaman. 

Have a listen to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rdytdy said:

When I see actual proof on humans causing Global warming then I may be convinced. However I am not easily conned.

Especially for you Ohokaman. 

Have a listen to this.

 

It amazes me that people can believe stuff from some unknown and rubbish someone like Attenborough who has spent his whole life looking and studying the Earth we live on. The evidence is staring you in the face....and South Park videos change nothing.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12172123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making Stuff up… again

by Christie
 

climate.jpg?w=1240&ssl=1

David Farrar at Kiwiblog is also taking Stuff to task for simply making things up, and then not allowing anyone to contradict them. Remember, folks, this is a powerful propaganda trick that was used in the 1930s to control the masses.  Silence dissenting voices in any way possible (gulags work well here) and then feed the people your propaganda unopposed. Most people will either believe it or will be too scared to say or do otherwise. It worked a treat in all communist countries.

You may want to think about that for a minute. quote.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s carbon emissions totalled 0.17 per cent, but when grouped with other small nations with similar emissions the total rose to 30 per cent globally, larger than the three biggest – United States, China and India.  

On the assumption they mean greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2) this is way off the mark.

NZ is 0.17% of total emissions. If you include all countries with emissions of 0.20% or less they total 7.5% of global emissions, not 30%. end quote.

7.5%… 30%… meh. Nothing in it really. What is it they say? Lies, damned lies and statistics? quote.

Even if you go up to all countries with emissions of 0.50% (three times the NZ level) and less, they only comprise 13.5% of global emissions. end quote.

 

Yet Stuff has made this extraordinary claim… and remember, you are not allowed to even try to refute it. All comments that are in any way disagreeing with their position are simply deleted.

Farrar is a numbers man, however. Here is his table on total emissions by offending countries. quote.

Here’s the percentage of total emissions by the top few countries:

  • Top 5: 54.9%
  • Top 10: 62.4%
  • Top 20: 74.8%
  • Top 30: 82.0%

And for the bottom countries:

  • Bottom 100: 2.9%
  • Bottom 150: 12.5% end quote.

You can rest assured that New Zealand is well and truly in the bottom 150 emitters in the world.

The trouble with this ‘inconvenient truth’ is that it will be almost impossible to persuade New Zealanders to panic about climate change and ditch the car for the bike if they realise how small our carbon footprint actually is. It really is a drop in a bucket compared to most developed countries, so Stuff has to make up the numbers instead.

You have to wonder what Stuff’s agenda is here. Why are they doing this? Is it government controlled propaganda? Is it a way of controlling the masses by making them think that we are all going to die?

We are, of course, but probably not as a result of global warming. Here is my favourite comment on the Kiwiblog article: quote.

Don the Kiwi

Was reading up on UK & Europe climate the other day. Around 8000 BC at the end of the last ice age, the Dogger Bank in the North Sea was actually dry land, joining England to Europe. As the ice age ended, the rising water gradually inundated Doggerland to isolate Britain, so that by around 6,000 BC, the climate was warmer than it is now. Must have been all those mammoths & deer and bison etc. and a few humans doing a lot of farting to warm the atmosphere.
Same as the Roman warm period – warmer than today.
Its mostly bullshit – Humans do obviously contribute a little, but catastrophic warming caused by humans?? Nup. end quote.

I often point out to warmists that Britain grew vines and produced wine in the Roman era – a feat that they have only been able to repeat in the last 20 or so years. It must have been fairly warm there in Roman times, and there were no power plants or gas-guzzling vehicles to contribute to the atmospheric warming.

Stuff is becoming ridiculous. Everywhere you look, they are being mocked for their climate change propaganda but while most of their articles are just cringeworthy, this is the first time that they have just made up the numbers. Well done, Stuff. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you.

propaganda-reno.jpg?w=754&ssl=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more for you Ohokaman.  Have you realized you have fallen for the UN hoax yet?

 

It’s cool to question the IPCC

by WH 
 
cop24.png?w=745&ssl=1

Screen grab Whaleoil

Having called the climate faithful to prayer in Poland, with thousands fawning over opening-act-Attenborough’s ‘celebrity’ alarmist tripe and Stuff and Nonsense, TVNZ et al regurgitating it all with breathless intensity, one could almost be led into thinking that we are all doomed.

Fortunately, we are not alone in presenting a questioning view. Peter Ferrara looks at some issues that the IPCC never mention in his articles for Forbes.  Quote.

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response. End quote.

That is why the narrative was subtly transitioned from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. The world had simply stopped getting warmer as predicted by the models. Now even if it gets cooler it will still be ‘climate change’ and CO2 will still be blamed.   Quote.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).

Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death. […]

Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC. End quote.

Remember the IPCC is tasked only with investigating “human-induced climate change”.  Sunspots, ADO, PDO and all other natural cycles are not within their field of interest.  Expect only CO2 and political control from the climate faithful in Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Uriah Heap said:

I see the Greenland Ice sheet is melting, when all thought this had ceased.. Are we all in agreeance that, for whatever reason, the sea level is rising at a concerning rate?

PERHAPS  it is , it's all been done before , the climate change has always changed but it's never been used for political gain , to control peoples lives or to apply socialist ideology's on people . Just look what's happening , we are handing over $14 billion (10 years , reserve bank)  to some corrupt climate fund who will dish the money out to their mates, it's a scam . Before Trump departed  he insisted country's had to be designated developed or developing which under much protest happened , today country's are trying to alter their developed status to developing to qualify for money .

China actually qualifies as developing yet has made no commitment to lower emissions or even attempt to lower emissions before 2030 . It's a scam , that's why the name change , global warming to climate change , after many years of forecasting temps would go through the roof it wasn't happening to any great degree so change the name .

Now , Greenland . Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, spiders and insects including butterflies from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away .

 

As you can see , it's all been done before and no amount of taxing , dominating lives or a socialist world order will stop it , if these historical events  ever happen again we will adjust , we are not God , we cannot control nature .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we can't control nature" but we do manipulate the weather and have been for forty years by now.

Go and YouTube H.A.A.R.P. and find out all about it because not knowing about it will lead you all 'up the garden path' when trying to decipher the truth around so called Global Warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tripple alliance said:

PERHAPS  it is , it's all been done before , the climate change has always changed

Nah...no "perhaps about it. I'm pretty certain the sea level is rising; whether it be from man made climate change or merely nature running it's course. I see the Insurance Companies are going to bump up their rates for sea front properties. Surely those fat cats getting wealthier is  not a part of your "socialist world order".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uriah Heap said:

Nah...no "perhaps about it. I'm pretty certain the sea level is rising; whether it be from man made climate change or merely nature running it's course. I see the Insurance Companies are going to bump up their rates for sea front properties. Surely those fat cats getting wealthier is  not a part of your "socialist world order".

Go down to the beach where you used to go 20 years ago , very little will have changed . No surprise insurance company's love climate change , it's a money maker for them . Your point about fat cats is at the core of the climate battle , the socialist , globalist , global warming religion is a direct attack on the traditional wealth of the world , if you want comrade cindy and her like ruling your life then fine , that's why she likes capitol gains taxes , wealth taxes , death duty's etc . 

Now something the climate zealots refuse to acknowledge about sea levels because it will destroy the climate scam . Recently we had the Christchurch and Kaikoura quakes , the seabed rose around 4 mtrs in parts of Kaikoura , CH had similar movement . In 1840? in Wellington the sea bed rose around 16 feet , the basin reserve was a swamp and in those days travel  between wellington to Petone  was only possible at low tide , that quake lifted what is now  a motor way and hutt park raceway came up from under the sea .  last week we saw a huge quake around New Caladonia , the sea bed must have lifted , the Indonesian quake killed thousands and the sea bed lifted , work it out , sea bed up , sea level up , nothing to do with climate change .

For the study, Toshiya Fujiwara and colleagues at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology compared seabed maps made in 1999 and 2004 to those made only days after the March quake  Their analysis also revealed the seabed may also have risen by as much as 33 feet (10 meters).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now