Climate Change: Fact vs. Fiction

[Mystic Wanderer]

There are so many people/leaders who believe climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, as per the article below.
I'll post a few paragraphs from it, then you can read the rest from the Source Article if you choose.

Can We Stop Climate Change? Maybe, If We Take Steps Now to Stop Emitting Greenhouse Gases
Newsweek 22 hours ago

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

Earth’s climate is changing rapidly. We know this from billions of observations, documented in thousands of journal papers and texts and summarized every few years by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The primary cause of that change is the release of carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas.

One of the goals of the international Paris Agreement on climate change is to limit the increase of the global surface average air temperature to 2 degrees Celsius, compared to preindustrial times. There is a further commitment to strive to limit the increase to 1.5℃.

Earth has already, essentially, reached the 1℃ threshold. Despite the avoidance of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions through use of renewable energy, increased efficiency and conservation efforts, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains high.

But, according to the information in the video below, released on July 3rd, what we are being told is all a lie. (Most of us here have already done the research to realize this.)

The information is very important for those who think our climate is being affected by humans driving cars, factories, and cow farts. I implore you to watch the video and learn what's really going on.

 It's not us, it's the sun; it's cooling down, and the truth is being kept from the masses to avoid panic.
 In the mean time, it appears the 'elite' are trying to profit from the lies we're being fed.

https://youtu.be/8cetRiiUYRg

[guohua]

Yes it's a LIE, it's a Scam, It's nothing more than Money in the Bank for Politicians and Lobbyist.

[guohua]

Here is an article I read yesterday.

The study titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” examined how Global Average Surface Temperature data is gathered. GAST datasets are adjusted after temperatures are recorded to account for “contamination” in urban areas and other issues, and climate change skeptics have questioned those methods in the past.

The researchers used historical data and known cyclical patterns to weigh whether or not the temperature adjustments were factual and found that “the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
If you compare the 1980 chart and the 2015 chart, it shows that global temperatures only appear to be rising because GAST data has been manipulated, Stu explained.
“You’re talking, you know, almost all the warming is because of this,” Stu said.
“Because of the adjustments,” Pat added.
Source

[Mystic Wanderer]

Here is an article I read yesterday.

The study titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” examined how Global Average Surface Temperature data is gathered. GAST datasets are adjusted after temperatures are recorded to account for “contamination” in urban areas and other issues, and climate change skeptics have questioned those methods in the past.

The researchers used historical data and known cyclical patterns to weigh whether or not the temperature adjustments were factual and found that “the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
If you compare the 1980 chart and the 2015 chart, it shows that global temperatures only appear to be rising because GAST data has been manipulated, Stu explained.
“You’re talking, you know, almost all the warming is because of this,” Stu said.
“Because of the adjustments,” Pat added.
Source

The speaker in the video (which doesn't tell his name), said the way the Global Warming thing got started was because Margaret Thatcher was tired of dealing with the paperwork from the unions, so she went all the way back to the 1890's and found an article on how CO2 emissions causes warming, so she used that, even though it had been debunked already after the article first came out.

It took on a life of it's own from there, and the government saw a way to make money and use it toward their NWO agenda, so that's what they did.  And now, you have most of the population believing it's true, and they think Trump is evil for stepping away from the agreement, but he is actually smarter than them.  

[guohua]

@Mystic Wanderer, Yes we can Blame Margaret Thatcher, I agree.

Margaret Thatcher helped launch global warming to break the coal miner union’s death grip on the UK.

Source

1989 Nov 8 We
Margaret Thatcher
Speech to United Nations General Assembly (Global Environment)
Document type: speeches
Document kind: Speech
Venue: United Nations Building, New York
Source: Thatcher Archive
Journalist:
-
Editorial comments: Text as printed and released by the No.10 Press Office.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 4051
Themes: Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Foreign policy (general discussions), Foreign policy (development, aid, etc), Foreign policy (International organizations), Science & technology, Transport

Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to return to the Podium of this assembly. When I last spoke here four years ago, on the 40th anniversary of the United Nations, the message that I and others like me gave was one of encouragement to the organisation to play the great role allotted to it.
Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance—I refer to the threat to our global environment. I shall take the opportunity of addressing the general assembly to speak on that subject alone.
INTRODUCTION
During his historic voyage through the south seas on the Beagle, Charles Darwin landed one November morning in 1835 on the shore of Western Tahiti.
After breakfast he climbed a nearby hill to find advantage point to survey the surrounding Pacific. The sight seemed to him like “a framed engraving” , with blue sky, blue lagoon, and white breakers crashing against the encircling Coral Reef.
As he looked out from that hillside, he began to form his theory of the evolution of coral; 154 years after Darwin 's visit to Tahiti we have added little to what he discovered then.
What if Charles Darwin had been able, not just to climb a foothill, but to soar through the heavens in one of the orbiting space shuttles?
What would he have learned as he surveyed our planet from that altitude? From a moon's eye view of that strange and beautiful anomaly in our solar system that is the earth?
Of course, we have learned much detail about our environment as we have looked back at it from space, but nothing has made a more profound impact on us than these two facts.
First, as the British scientist Fred Hoyle wrote long before space travel was a reality, he said “once a photograph of the earth, taken from the outside is available … a new idea as powerful as any other in history will be let loose” .
That powerful idea is the recognition of our shared inheritance on this planet. We know more clearly than ever [end p3] before that we carry common burdens, face common problems, and must respond with common action.
And second, as we travel through space, as we pass one dead planet after another, we look back on our earth, a speck of life in an infinite void. It is life itself, incomparably precious, that distinguishes us from the other planets.
It is life itself—human life, the innumerable species of our planet—that we wantonly destroy. It is life itself that we must battle to preserve.
For over forty years, that has been the main task of this United Nations.
To bring peace where there was war.
Comfort where there was misery.
Life where there was death.
The struggle has not always been successful. There have been years of failure.
But recent events have brought the promise of a new dawn, of new hope. Relations between the Western nations and the Soviet Union and her allies, long frozen in suspicion and hostility, have begun to thaw.
In Europe, this year, freedom has been on the march.
In Southern Africa—Namibia and Angola—the United Nations has succeeded in holding out better prospects for an end to war and for the beginning of prosperity.
And in South East Asia, too, we can dare to hope for the restoration of peace after decades of fighting.
While the conventional, political dangers—the threat of global annihilation, the fact of regional war—appear to be receding, we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger.
It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries.
It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.
Of course major changes in the earth's climate and the [end p4] environment have taken place in earlier centuries when the world's population was a fraction of its present size.
The causes are to be found in nature itself—changes in the earth's orbit: changes in the amount of radiation given off by the sun: the consequential effects on the plankton in the ocean: and in volcanic processes.
All these we can observe and some we may be able to predict. But we do not have the power to prevent or control them.
What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.
We can find examples in the past. Indeed we may well conclude that it was the silting up of the River Euphrates which drove man out of the Garden of Eden.
We also have the example of the tragedy of Easter Island, where people arrived by boat to find a primeval forest. In time the population increased to over 9,000 souls and the demand placed upon the environment resulted in its eventual destruction as people cut down the trees. This in turn led to warfare over the scarce remaining resources and the population crashed to a few hundred people without even enough wood to make boats to escape.
The difference now is in the scale of the damage we are doing.

There is much more of her speech here: Souirce

[Mystic Wanderer]

Thank you for that, Ms. @"guohua".    


While I don't believe CO2 emissions are responsible for 'Global Warming', I don't think we should be stripping the world of it's forests by cutting down so many trees, and the rain forest needs to be protected, our oceans need to be cleaned up from all the waste we pour into them, and we need to take better care of Mother Earth... this isn't just our home, but all the animal life out there too that keeps the ecological plan in balance, and we're seeing them go extinct in massive numbers from our behavior.
 
Man is causing some problems in the environment, but causing the Earth to heat up isn't one of them.

[727Sky]

[guohua]

YES!