Global Warming – The new apocalypse

in anarchy •  last year

Whether its religious leaders or Zionist controlled governments doing the fear mongering, guilty modern man takes to being told the end is nigh, like a duck to water.

Back in the 70s, the story was that we were all doomed because of global cooling – a new ice age was coming, and that along with the fact that oil was going to run out, would spell the end of humanity.

It actually may be true that we are moving towards an ice age eventually, but the oil thing is a whole different story. Oil being abiotic (not a fossil fuel) is no more likely to run out than molten lava.

Following the guidelines of KISS (the acronym for “Keep It Simple Stupid” rather than the 70s band with tight pants and lots of make up. I’ll just focus on one key thing here because it’s very important.

The earth’s orbit around the sun is elliptical and takes one year to complete.

Now for the interesting bit - there is a variation in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit that follows a roughly 100 000 year cycle. The shape of the eclipse changes over time, and it takes about 100 000 years to shift from its widest to its tightest orbit and back again. As the orbit path changes, the seasons change, and the cold parts get colder. These variations are called Milankovitch cycles, and it's safe to say that reading about them in detail is a lot more complex than this post.

Basically, for most of the time, the climate is colder than it is now, and as we shift away from the agreeable orbit path that we have enjoyed for the past 10 000 years, the climate will shift back into colder state with more ice and lower sea levels (the opposite of what Al Gore was saying). But don’t panic, this will take about 50 000 years, and is entirely beyond the control of mankind.

Because humans really don’t relate well to 100,000 year time cycles, people like to freak out about time spans in the region of 100 years. But orbiting planets don’t really work in 100 year cycles. There are a bunch more things I could go on about now, but I’ll stop here because I’m aiming for KISS.

Now here is an analogy.

Imagine if there was a large global organisation that specialised in lying to the people. Let’s say they were called the “Doom Is Coming Organisation” (DICO). They controlled 99% of all the media on the planet and they were presenting a story that the world going to fall into permanent darkness.

They neglected to mention that every 24 hours, the Earth rotates on its axis, and had everybody freaking out each day as evening fell fearing that the darkness was permanent. After a few years, the population became skeptical, so DICO started saying that permanent daylight was coming instead, and managed to freak the public out for a few more years.

Eventually DICO had to come up with something a bit more versatile – an apocalyptic vision that could cover both night and day, so they invented an undefined threat called “Daylight Change”. The way to prevent daylight change was global government, depopulation, and in the short term, more taxes. And the guilt ridden population eagerly embraced these ideas.
Does any of this sound totally fruitloops?


@Sift666 AKA Ian Gregson usually ends his posts with technical details like how big his aperture is or what brand of computer he used to write the post.

But for this post, just in case anyone gives a toss, he will mention having a degree in geography from Victoria University, and having been reading about the global warming scam since 1999 before eventually getting around to posting a web page about it in 2008, which is still online pretty much as it originally was with just a couple of quick updates - http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/global-warming .

In between photographing cow’s arses and worrying about the apocalypse, he likes to surf Reddit looking for climate change deniers and is currently developing a new website portal to rival Steemit called http://www.frot.co.nz


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

With the headline, I was about to think I was going to have to reach for the barf bag on the Steem Plane. But thankyou very much for not doing this, and clever tactic to suck in the Faithful.

On the Bight side all this extra carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures will make crops (and your lawn) nice and green.

·

The warmer temperatures won't be coming for 100000 years so my lawn may get a bit lackluster before then...

And carbon dioxide comes mostly from water vapour, and also from plants, so levels could drop a bit over that time span too.

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT – IT IS A NATURALLY PRODUCED GAS

CO2 is produced by ALL LIVING ORGANISMS. Bacteria and other microorganisms produce more CO2 than all humans put together could ever produce. In fact human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.3% of the total.

Where does the rest come from? – well, from water vapour mostly.

Oceans, rivers, lakes, clouds, that sort of stuff. Not Humvees all that much.

·
·

And carbon dioxide comes mostly from water vapour

Really? Please explain how heating H2O creates CO2.

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT – IT IS A NATURALLY PRODUCED GAS

Lots of things are naturally produced. That does not mean that dramatically increasing their production has no consequences.

CO2 is produced by ALL LIVING ORGANISMS. Bacteria and other microorganisms produce more CO2 than all humans put together could ever produce. In fact human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.3% of the total.

Which is totally why atmospheric CO2 massively increased when we started using fossil fuels.

Where does the rest come from? – well, from water vapour mostly.

Yep, that magical water magically creating Carbon atoms that aren't part of water at all!

Jesus where did you learn your science? Oh right, conspiracy theory sites...

don't worry too much about telos, he's just a poor soul who thinks that science equals ad homonym. i've started a score board for how many times he says conspiracy theorist. the count that i have compiled stands at 7. if the establishment propaganda is for it, then he is for it. there is absolutely no reasoning with him. i like the post.

The difference between religious apocalypse predictions and global climate change is that one is based on evidence. Kind of like how praying that someone will get your message doesn't work quite as well as texting using your phone.

Now look at this and get back to us on how thr sharp increase when we started using fossil fuels matches up to a gradual 100,000 year cycle:
https://xkcd.com/1732/

Or, you know... Just rely on your faith rather than evidence.

·

Yes the religious leaders do have better evidence :)

That chart isn't looking at 100 000 years, it only goes back 22 000 years so doesn't line up very well!

CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY

The mainstay of the Global Warming movement is that CO2 causes global warming.

They like to show a chart of global temperatures next to CO2 levels, and say things like:

“You can see almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperature”

And indeed you can, because CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature – and this is a rare instance where the warmerists like to pull out a long term chart.

The long time frame allows them to transpose the temperature and CO2 data from the ice core samples in such a way as to make them look simultaneous.

But a more detailed chart would reveal that the CO2 rises hundreds of years after the temperature goes up.

They get all fired up and say things like:

“The graph shows that after the invention of the automobile CO2 started to increase and hasn’t stopped in the last 100 years since – I rest my case”

To which someone might ask – Was it cars that caused the rise in CO2 130,000 years ago as well? And then if we are going to be picky we might also point out that this chart shows CO2 starting to rise sharply around 15,000 years ago, which somewhat predates the invention of the car…

But I digress, it’s probably best to KISS, or things can get very confusing.

·
·

No, 130,000 years ago it was something to do with trees dying and having no organisms to biodegrade them leaving them as massive kindling for lightning strikes.

But it's interesting that

A) You didn't respond, at all, to why the CO2 level increased sharply at the moment humans started using fossil fuels.

You implied that it takes hundreds of years, ywt that would be very interesting timing for us to happen to start using fossile fuels at the exact right time for warming crom 100s of years ago to start taking effect!

B) literally the only evidence you cited is the records that agree with me. You haven't coted any evidence of your claims.

C) Correlation <> Causation is not the same as Correlation Disproves Causation.

·
·
·

What my chart shows is that CO2 levels rose sharply a few hundred years after the temperature rose sharply every 100000 years. That chart goes back 400000 years so the pattern is repeated four times.

"130,000 years ago it was something to do with trees dying and having no organisms to biodegrade them leaving them as massive kindling for lightning strikes" - yikes I can't argue with that statement because I don't know where to start - so I'll just say LOL...

"Fossil fuel" is not that big a factor in pollution, even if that was a key to "global warming". Coal is the only commonly used fossil fuel (coal is fossilised oil - oil itself is abiotic).

http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/peak-oil/

http://www.bucksworld.net/Imgs/bloggage/AnatomyConJob-Ebook.pdf

http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm

·
·
·
·

What my chart shows is that CO2 levels rose sharply a few hundred years after the temperature rose sharply every 100000 years. That chart goes back 400000 years so the pattern is repeated four times.

No, what you said yourself was "a more detailed chart" would show that. This one does not. Furthermore you have given no reason whatsoever as to why CO2 would rise in response to temperature increases. If anything, higher temperatures mean more plant growth which should reduce CO2.

yikes I can't argue with that statement because I don't know where to start - so I'll just say LOL...

I had one detail wrong, it was a volcano rather than lightning strikes. Watch this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3a8x20

You might want to see if it's on Netflix or something instead though, DailyMotion is a shit website trying to run a shitload of javascript so the playback is all jumpy.

"Fossil fuel" is not that big a factor in pollution, even if that was a key to "global warming". Coal is the only commonly used fossil fuel (coal is fossilised oil - oil itself is abiotic).

This is idiotic. First, your sources look like spammy comspiracy theory sites. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's technically fossil fuel or not. What matters how much CO2 it produces. Third, we use a shit-ton of coal, it's one of the things we should stop doing. Fourth, yes CO2 causes global warming.

·
·
·
·
·

The first reference is to a page on my own website - having written it myself, I quite like it. The second is a link to an ebook. And the third is a well written summary that got me thinking about the subject a decade ago.
I suspect we are not going to arrive at a point of agreement about this stuff, but so long and thanks for all the fish.

·
·
·
·
·

@corbettreport has written an excellent article on the myth that is 'man-made global warning'. Why do you pop over to this post and try to convince him, and others that what you are saying is true.

https://steemit.com/climate/@corbettreport/who-wants-to-be-a-carbon-trillionaire#@steemtruth/re-corbettreport-who-wants-to-be-a-carbon-trillionaire-20160925t170111348z