Jump to content

Climate Change a real thing or a hijacked agenda?


 Share

Recommended Posts

I respect David Icke but I believe he is wrong on climate change. The seas are changing in temperature with coral reefs dying off. The rainforest has been decimated. Plastic has been found in the snow of the north pole. Human life is destroying the planet. I believe that the change is real but has been hijacked by the elite to further a nwo agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans didn't cause the Ice Age, or wipe out the Dinosaurs, or cause all the major changes to Earth that took place long before Man began abusing it. The planet's constantly going through change and turmoil. Our time on here as the dominant species is but a speck in the grand scheme of things. Climate change is different to Global warming though. I agree the climate is being screwed around to a degree by various man-made things (putting all these 5G satellites up in the sky is not a great idea), and I also agree that the issue is being twisted and hijacked for NWO purposes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

Humans didn't cause the Ice Age, or wipe out the Dinosaurs, or cause all the major changes to Earth that took place long before Man began abusing it. The planet's constantly going through change and turmoil. Our time on here as the dominant species is but a speck in the grand scheme of things. Climate change is different to Global warming though. I agree the climate is being screwed around to a degree by various man-made things (putting all these 5G satellites up in the sky is not a great idea), and I also agree that the issue is being twisted and hijacked for NWO purposes.

When you see the pollution of the planet, the devastation of natural habitats, the extinction of wildlife its difficult to not see the destructive force humans have had on this planet. The issue has been hijacked by nwo but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pollution and Global Warming are two different things. Yes one thing effects the other as is the fact that everything is linked in some way.

 

Pollution is avoidable.

 

Renewable energy has been suppressed for over 120 years.

 

Clean burning of trash is done daily in Norway.

 

Global Warming is a common sinario as is global cooling.

Greenland was ver green and lush when the Vikings colonised the new world. Then it cooled again and the Vikings went home.

 

Just sit down and try to calculate the heat energy that is released by one of the active volcanoes. Chances are every days output of the volcano will add up to a year's output by the human activity on the nearest continent.

 

If you are interested in tackling ocean plastics just research all the hobbiest turning plastic into diesel fuel.... why isn't it done on an industrial scale? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

When you see the pollution of the planet, the devastation of natural habitats, the extinction of wildlife its difficult to not see the destructive force humans have had on this planet. The issue has been hijacked by nwo but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem,

As mentioned above, pollution by the human race is undeniable and that is something that can be addressed. But of course the NWO agenda is not actually interested in cutting pollution for altruistic reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

As mentioned above, pollution by the human race is undeniable and that is something that can be addressed. But of course the NWO agenda is not actually interested in cutting pollution for altruistic reasons.

I'd argue pollution is a deliberate thing. Plastics were discussed as a problem back in the 1970s but they just kept producing more and more until a couple of years ago they were problematic so pretended to decrease their usage and wage war on single use plastics. Until Covid came along and everyone started wearing plastic masks and it was momentarily forgotten.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Diesel said:

I respect David Icke but I believe he is wrong on climate change. The seas are changing in temperature with coral reefs dying off. The rainforest has been decimated. Plastic has been found in the snow of the north pole. Human life is destroying the planet. I believe that the change is real but has been hijacked by the elite to further a nwo agenda.

I can’t speak for Icke, but I don’t think he denies that we’re causing deforestation, polluting the world with plastic, or even that the temperature of the planet has increased. The essential question at issue is, are human emissions of CO2 responsible for climate change, as we’ve been led to believe, or is it a natural process? During the Bølling Warm Period Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4C to 5C in only a few decades (see this paper here) whereas the modern increase in temperature has only been 1C over the past 100 years. So, is the current and relatively mild change in temperature a natural process of caused by human CO2? I would say it’s probably natural, since the radiative forcing from CO2 is very small indeed, at only about 0.01 W/m² per 1ppmv according to the observations of Feldman et al (2015).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, climate change IS real and it IS happening.

 

BUT it is a natural phenomenon, and CO2 emmissions are not the driving force behind it.

 

The 'climate change narrative' is however being used to push the globalists' Agenda 21 / 2030, and like the current 'Covid pandemic' is based on flawed computer modelling data.

 

Our climate is very much influenced by solar activity. The Suspicious Observers website and YouTube channel has many detailed explanations, this one is a good starting point I think.

 

 

What humans can be 'blamed for' is pollution and environmental destruction, but then again us ordinary folks are not the ones tossing plastic bottles and bags into the sea.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Yes, climate change IS real and it IS happening.

 

BUT it is a natural phenomenon, and CO2 emmissions are not the driving force behind it.

 

The 'climate change narrative' is however being used to push the globalists' Agenda 21 / 2030, and like the current 'Covid pandemic' is based on flawed computer modelling data.

 

Our climate is very much influenced by solar activity. The Suspicious Observers website and YouTube channel has many detailed explanations, this one is a good starting point I think.

 

 

What humans can be 'blamed for' is pollution and environmental destruction, but then again us ordinary folks are not the ones tossing plastic bottles and bags into the sea.

 

If trees could speak human language, they would most likely say "thanks for all the extra CO2. Keep it coming."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2021 at 10:23 PM, Diesel said:

I respect David Icke but I believe he is wrong on climate change. The seas are changing in temperature with coral reefs dying off. The rainforest has been decimated. Plastic has been found in the snow of the north pole. Human life is destroying the planet. I believe that the change is real but has been hijacked by the elite to further a nwo agenda.

From what I have read above and from what I've heard David say, I don't understand how he is wrong? he hasn't denied climate change, just that humans are the cause. As for plastic etc, yes that isn't nice, but is a separate issue to climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's real when you check the changes over the decades. Summers and winters are definitely different from decades ago. But all the alarmism and spoiling the countryside and the seas with wind turbines is crazy. They say it's for the environment but it kills more animals and destroys more habitat than what would happen through gradual climate change. All of our big projects, not just those wind turbines but also huge dams, do more harm to the environment than that they solve.

Edited by Firebird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few articles I have put together on anthropogenic global warming (AGW):

 

22 Reasons to be Skeptical: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/22-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/ 

 

The CAGW Handbook: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/14/the-skeptical-cagw-handbook/ 

 

The 97% Consensus Deconstructed: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/the-97-consensus-on-agw-and-cagw-deconstructed/

 

Why the CO2 Increase Could be Natural: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/why-the-observed-atmospheric-co2-increase-could-be-natural/

 

Been researching this subject for years and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is post-normal science.

Edited by evanslr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 2:13 AM, DarianF said:

 

If trees could speak human language, they would most likely say "thanks for all the extra CO2. Keep it coming."

They can , my last name is tree and I can speak English

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, as OP says something hasn't entirely sat right with me and David's views on this. 

As many are pointing out global warming/climate change vs pollution are two different but interlinking things. I definitely agree the Earth goes through cycles, along with the fact other natural causes such a geothermal temperature increases can lead to melting ice caps, however I feel the effects of pollution are much worse than what they are admitting. It's not in their interest to solve the impacts of pollution, besides big business wouldnt let them. This figure of 10 years before climate change becomes irreversible keeps being quoted and I feel they know this will be when resources are scarce (I remember been taught in 2002 we had 30 years to go so this timeline has long been drawn out). If we're heading for a highly competitive time in terms of resources, it makes sense why in the lead up to this 10 year date they'll want to get the population under control and begin decreasing numbers. Ultimately the rich will be safe in their underground or mountain high bunkers whilst the rest of us are left to fight for what scraps remain. Best thing we can aim for is life off grid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2021 at 2:23 PM, Diesel said:

I respect David Icke but I believe he is wrong on climate change. The seas are changing in temperature with coral reefs dying off. The rainforest has been decimated. Plastic has been found in the snow of the north pole. Human life is destroying the planet. I believe that the change is real but has been hijacked by the elite to further a nwo agenda.

 

The fear machine is a 24/7 operation, no wonder you believe humans are destroying the planet.  We are not.  Fewer clouds along the equator allows more heat to reach the ocean, it is natural.  Coral reefs are living organisms that die. They re-emerge.  The rain forest (I assume you mean Amazon) is OK.  Plastic is like native American arrow heads... they are all over the place.  But because it is plastic we go nuts.  Plastic bottles are not leeching chemicals.  They are an eye sore... but Wind Mills kill more birds than plastic bottles kill fish.  

 

I would be happy to debate this, to show you evidence that the fear is wrong.  But I need specific examples and numbers, not generalities.

Edited by Scogan
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Old Knight said:

 

Look into BPA and Phthalates.

 

Leeching BPA into plants and soils enough to be harmful is not a thing.  Organic matter prevents that from happening.  Otherwise all plastic irrigation tubes within AGRI business would have long been abandoned.  The question being, does a plastic bottle destroy the soils in which it degrades?  The answer seems to be no.  They are unsightly objects reminding us of our littering habits that can on rare occasion be harmful to hungry animals and sea life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They leech into your water from the bottle or if your food is wrapped in plastic. They're in everything and mess with fetuses while in the womb leading to developmental problems including downstairs. Dinner trays, baby chew toys, dummys, till receipts, credit and debit cards, microwave meals which heat releases more of the chemicals. 

 

BPA is also estrogenic and both BPA and Phthalates are endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2021 at 1:36 AM, Not Thoth said:

I'd argue pollution is a deliberate thing. Plastics were discussed as a problem back in the 1970s but they just kept producing more and more until a couple of years ago they were problematic so pretended to decrease their usage and wage war on single use plastics. Until Covid came along and everyone started wearing plastic masks and it was momentarily forgotten.

 

Cos those big companies love churning plastic out as it makes them $$$$$$$$££££££££

 

And food companies keep making more and more "ready meals" in plastic packaging. 

 

No attempts to curb any of that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists Find Bacteria That Eats Plastic

German researchers have identified a strain of bacterium that not only breaks down toxic plastic, but also uses it as food to fuel the process, according to The Guardian.

The scientists discovered the strain of bacteria, known as pseudomonas bacteria, at a dump site loaded with plastic waste, where they noticed that it was attacking polyurethane. Polyurethane's are ubiquitous in plastic products because they are pliable and durable. However, when they reach the end of their usefulness and end up in landfills, they decompose slowly and slowly release toxic chemicals into the soil as they degrade. They are also notoriously difficult to recycle, according to Courthouse News.

 

Since it is so difficult to recycle, millions and millions of products containing polyurethane like sneakers, diapers, kitchen sponges and foam installation end up in landfills. Polyurethane usually kills most bacteria too, so it surprised the researchers to find a strain that not only survived, but also used polyurethane to thrive, according to The Guardian. The findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology.

 

"The bacteria can use these compounds as a sole source of carbon, nitrogen and energy," Hermann J. Heipieper, a senior scientist at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ in Leipzig, Germany and co-author of the new paper, said in a statement. "These findings represent an important step in being able to reuse hard-to-recycle polyurethane products."

 

Pseudomonas bacteria are part of a family of microorganisms known for its ability to withstand harsh conditions, such as high temperatures and acidic environments.

While the little germs offer hope for a solution to the plastic crisis polluting land and water around the globe, scientists are still a long way away from being able to use the bacteria on a large scale. Heipieper estimated that it could be 10 years before the bacteria are ready to consume plastic at a large scale. He added that in the meantime, it is important to reduce the use of non-recyclable plastic and to cut the amount of plastic used around the world, according to The Guardian.

 

Our reliance on plastic has created a waste crisis. In 2015, polyurethane products alone accounted for 3.5 million tons of the plastics produced in Europe, according to a press release from the journal that published the study. More than 8 billion metric tons of plastic has been produced since the 1950s, according to The Guardian, and a vast majority of it has polluted the world's land and oceans, or ends up in landfills. Scientists say it threatens a "near permanent contamination of the natural environment."

 

As for polyurethane, its heat resistance make it a difficult and energy intensive to melt down. Because of that, it is disproportionately tossed into landfills around the world where its slow degradation releases toxic — and often carcinogenic — chemicals, according to Courthouse News.

 

In the laboratory, the researchers fed key components of polyurethane to the bugs. "We found the bacteria can use these compounds as a sole source of carbon, nitrogen and energy," Heipieper said, as The Guardian reported.

 

"When you have huge amounts of plastic in the environment, that means there is a lot of carbon and there will be evolution to use this as food," Heipieper said as The Guardian reported.

 

"Bacteria are there in huge numbers and their evolution is very fast. However, this certainly doesn't mean that the work of microbiologists can lead to a complete solution," he added. "The main message should be to avoid plastic being released into the environment in the first place."

 

https://www.ecowatch.com/scientists-find-bacteria-that-eats-plastic-2645582039.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...