Long story short. I'll try to compress all facts and logic to the few sentences.
The main thing they don't tell you about climate change and greenhouse effect is that the grow of mean temperature is not the only result of greenhouse. You also get huge reduction of temperature gradient between day and night, winter and summer and across the globe. We already have local greenhouses in tropic forests. The overall gradient is less than 10 Celsius. At the same lattitudes, where are no greenhouse you get ... deserts, with temperature gradients more than 60 degrees.
Overall, if you have -10C to +40C overall gradient, with mean temperature +15C, really you would not get -5C to +45C hell if mean temperature will rise for 5C. You probably will get something like +10C to +30C, that is definitely much better than current -10C to +40C.
Earth already had greenhouse climate in the past multiple times. Eocene, last one, is a good example. There was 1000-2000 ppm CO2. Planet was really green from pole to pole and had mild warm climate everywhere. Eocene is age when mammals developed. In the memory of that we keep temperature and humidity in our houses at values exactly equal to that of eocene. Check the paleontology studies, you will find a lot of interesting stuff, including temperature charts.
Warm greenhouse periods last much longer than ice ages. Every Ice age was unnatural for the Earth, and was a result of some catastrophic event. Extinctions happen only when ice ages began. Return to normal greenhouse climate always lead to evolution and life diversity on the planet. Sea levels was not high in eocene, say Antarctic continent had 25% more territory above sea level than now. They just forgot to tell you, that plants is 80-90% is water, so the water from melted ice will also go to the mass of endless forests and disappeared deserts, and not only for sea level rise. Sea level could be even lower than now, as many eocene studies show.
As the result of global warming we will get literally green planet, with moderate climate everywhere. No drinking water problems, less energy for heating and cooling, endless lands suitable for agriculture, no hunger, more flora and fauna diversity, we even will get rid of all that damned seasonal flus, because there will be no winter. How this could be bad? And for whom?
So, the question is - why all that ecologists fighting with climate change leaded by well known "philanthropists" want Earth stay half dead, like now? Why they try to stop the natural process of exit from ice age happened on Earth multiple times, that will give us endless new territories with pleasant climate where humans, animals and plants could live without constantly fighting with climate? Why that "warriors for the green Earth" spend all their efforts to prevent Earth from becoming literally green from pole to pole? Why they need us to survive on the half dead planet with very few comfort spots over planet?
They don't care about the earth, its a religion
The global warming scam was an earlier attempt at the same great reset agenda being pushed now. Citizens of western countries must pay a carbon tax, yet there would be no such demand placed on china and india and throughout the third world. More wealth in the west would be siphoned to the top of the pyramid so the ruling cabal could enrich themselves prior to the coming economic collapse. White people are expected to not have kids and adopt a minimalist lifestyle to save the planet, yet still accept millions of third world migrant trash and their extended families, most of whom have a higher carbon footprint. You even see the same 'science by manufactured consensus' you see now with covid-19, even though science is fundamentally not about consensus. and of course there's many ways to debunk the global warming propaganda by pointing out the correlation of climate with solar activity and so on. And in general the earth's climate is too complex a phenomenon for our models to really say much about the predicted outcome given how small in magnitude the perturbation to the climate from manmade global warming would be.
It seems that global warming could be real, so it is not a scam itself. Scam is in labeling global warming as a problem, when it is really a solution for nearly every problem rised in front of humanity. From drinking water to energy losses on heating/cooling. Even depopulation agenda, so beloved by tptb become completely obsolete.
Exactly. That anti-science 'consensus' thing began to poison even physics.
Currently, meteorologinsts could not predict damned weather for more than 3 days. With some strain for 7 days maximum. So there are definitely no any working model available to predict climate even in a year span. All that 'models' they show us about climat change is an absolute scam. One could easily create a 'model' to show anything about anything, but that will have nothing with reality. The only real scientific data we have about possible outcome of rising CO2 levels to 1000-2000ppm from our current 300-400ppm - is paleontologic data about eocene, that definitely shows that there will be climate paradise on Earth if we reach that levels.
What does that Gretta think about the Grand Solar Minimum? Very quiet.
Whatever is in Antarctica can't be released
Man there's a lot surrounding Antarctica. Operation highjump, the strange Piri Reis map, (depicted some 260 years before official discovery) potential pyramids. Buzz Aldrin's claimed accounts of "danger and evil" (of course dispooted)
Yeah antarctica is such a fun topic. The Nazi UFOs thing is my favorite conspiracy to read about even if I don't quite buy into it at heart.
Good point! :)
But what it could be, and why is it so undesirable for "them"?
What else would ecologists do, but fight "climat change"? Even an average normie "ecologist" has an interest in keeping the "climate change" scare going, or there would be no need for him and he would lose his livelihood.
I guess there is a real thing called "pollution" that they could be fighting, but it must not be worth it by itself, since barely any of them do fight pollution without appealing to the "climat change"
the green planet part reminds me of this nasa video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
every (northern hemisphere) summer, plants absorb the shit out of our surplus...
I am a geologist. Literally, when I learned about Milankovitch Cyclicity I was enthralled. I own his book, Cannon of Insolation. Actually, I still haven't read it. If you don't know about Milankovitch Cyclicity, it's really cool shit; think of a spinning top. It is entwinned in the whole Giza pyramid theme, etc. (Graham Hancock)
I graduated with a BSc in Geology in 2000 (later MSc). What you need to understand is they have literally changed the history books on the subject. You can still find the prediction/projections from pre-2000 (Mann). Global Warming is nothing short of a call for depopulation and money laundering. PERIOD. (That's what Jordan Maxwell would say)
What you need to understand is this; "real" geologists are like hunter-fishermen. We consider ourselves stewards of the Earth.
https://youtu.be/I11sc3lfZek
Please educate yourself on the PDO & AMO. https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/ https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
This is all about short-term cycles in unnatural and unstable climate of ice age prone to high sensitivity to small changes in insolation and other stuff. Greenhouse effect will smooth all that effects.
Current climate is completely unnatural for our planet. That is the main thing they don't tell us.
Current climate is a consequence of some catastrophic event or events happened nearly 2.5 millions years ago, that started quaternary glaciation after approx. 60 millions years of normal climate.
Take a look in scale of millions of years. There no any regular cycles in ice ages. Nobody knows the real cause of ice ages, there are only theories about volkanos, asteroids, celestial events etc. In earth history ice ages was relatively short in comparison to greenhouse periods. And Earth climate always returned to warm greenhouse climate for next tens of millions years.
1.) I read many 19th century books as a kid (poverty, buy them by the pound), and there was a chapter on melting the ice on the poles by sprinkling the ice with coal dust. Deliberate and proud geo-engineering was a thing before the 1900s.
2.) Climate change was a worry in the 70s, too, but it was actually the other way around: the fear was that we were most certainly heading for a new ice age. I read two science fiction novels, one for children, and several articles in reader's digest on the matter. The dawning ice age was patently scientific and apparently mainstream meteorology until 1980 or so.
3.) The temperatures have been moving up since the dawn of the industrial revolution. This is a problem, because CO2 output was ridiculous at that time. What's more, the Chinese in the north were producing a lot of CO2 in the 1100s, when they had a huge iron/steeloid industry as big as that of Victorian England. No increase in temperature, though.
Easiest and most basic answer is that they are not "pro-life" people. It can be observed in their every move. Not only abortion. If there is a problem because people are destroying biosphere by using and producing too many stuff and dozering the natural environment, their solution is to produce more. Produce more wind and solar electricity with much more environmental damage what needs enormous amount of land and resources, blocking more land surface from life itself. Continue to till the land and erode soil, to let release more CO2, and to provide more "evidence" for them to act more viciously.
Planting trees is fashionable only in Africa and India. No huge funds for it in the western world, not letting the discussion into pro life direction.
And on the other hand, invoke a jihad against CO2, choking the economy and creating another problem, what would never get resolved because of the initially wrong vision.
check-mate for humanity
Interesting that there is real problem with industry pollution with really harmful substances. However, they forcefully shift everything to normal and even useful CO2 pollution, when we have CO2 levels from 2 to 5 times lower than normal. Nobody now talk about real poisons, like cyanides, fluorides, soluble metal compounds and halogen-organic things (from that 'green' things production too), everything is about that meaningless 'carbon footprint'. Total attention shift from real thing about industry to harmless CO2.
I would be not surprised if they introduce 'breathing tax' soon. Do you know, that on every breath every human breath out nearly half a liter of air with 40000ppm CO2? That's a threat! Carbon footprint!
Great post.
As always, we have to take all the crap but are not even the worst offenders. Others, namely cyano bacteria and their stupid, self-serving photosynthesis, have wreaked havoc on the planet you would not believe. Oxygen is highly toxic and made contemporary organisms literally burn alive. That happened over the last billion years or so, and is still ongoing, but nobody talks about that.