Duker said:
Charles said:
But this is not the message within the article. The message is about the fact that people are "willing" to obey the authorities, once again, who pretend to know how the "do" something about ... climate change. And on a sidetrack, I think that the contribution of human activity IS present, but most probably it is not the MAIN contribution of what we are seeing displayed before our eyes in terms of weather extremes.
Can we say that the authorities are selling red herrings?
Charles, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning on this. The authorities are not interested in controlling the people by telling them that global warming IS an issue.
Oh but they are, I think. They are interested in anything that changes the "status quo", so that they can have their greedy finger in it by planting disinformation and lies, tap "energy" by sitting on the resources for instance, so that they can keep their status quo. They are parasitic remember.
To further detail my "reasoning", well, let's say, that I am not convinced that it's only due to human activity that this sudden burst in global warming is happening.
Here is what I found what one of the sessions with the C's said about global warming, and which I read many years ago.
02-22-97
A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
1) Wave approach.
2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer.
3) Change in the planet's axis rotation orientation.
4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways.
Be vigilant. Be observant. Be cautious in your planning and be aware. Do not let emotional anomalies cloud your knowledge base. This is not a "time" to let one's guard down. Be especially careful of travel to unfamiliar locators, as well as sleeping in unfamiliar surroundings!!!
Q: (L) All right, were those given in the order in which they are occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation. Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much, much faster than thought.
It does not explain a lot scientifically, but we might use it as a sort of guide.
There's only two factors of the four mentioned that probably include human activity. It is the increase of chlorofluorocarbons and artificial tampering.
"Tampering" it is said. To me such term does not seem to include the burning of fossil fuels. You also have perfectly natural wood fires, and volcano activity. Why would one suddenly call it "tampering" if there is an upright walking animal burning fossil fuels? And the tampering is done by 3rd and 4th density STS forces.
"STS forces" it is said. Although the C's also made clear that we all are still STS, I do not see you and me as being part of STS FORCES. The STS forces are named in one breath with 4th density STS forces as if working in conjunction? And the tampering is done in a number of different ways. Again this does not seem to point to our excessive burning of fossil fuels.
The problem of global warming is very complex with lot's of negative feedback loops that buffer the system, but also with lot's of nasty positive feedback loops. There's always new popping up, and the matters involved are not sufficiently charted. I became rather skeptical with the sudden Kyoto fuss.
And than I read something on Davesweb which was like a true eye-opener. Now Dave has his ways of getting to go look for the right data, the ones you can do something with. And here he is using it to proof that the so-called peak oil is nothing but a scam. But these same data also do something else...
www(dot)davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64(dot)html
Dave said:
So ... I was taking care of some important business the other day, and being a multi-tasking kind of guy, I was also idly leafing through a copy of one of Uncle John's Bathroom Readers. Now, Uncle John is not normally one of my primary sources of information, but I happened to stumble across a subject that immediately caught my attention: underground coal fires (I later conducted a Google search on "underground coal fires" to verify the information provided by Uncle John).
I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000.
Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years. Other coal fires are of more recent vintage, often started through the actions of the notoriously destructive human species. But underground coal fires long predate mankind's proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning today are due to entirely natural causes.
New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have occurred spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) Radio Nederland added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that underground coal fires have been occurring naturally for at least one million years." (Anne Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global Warming," Radio Nederland, March 10, 2003)
And how much coal, you may be wondering, do these fires consume annually? No one can say with any certainty, but it is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up in smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export.
"Very interesting," you say, "but what does any of this have to do with 'Peak Oil'?" Glad you asked. Coal is, you see, a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in finite, non-renewable quantities at a specific time in the earth's history (when the stars were, I'm guessing, in the proper alignment). And yet this allegedly precious and limited resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons per year, year in and year out, for at least a million years, and probably much longer.
This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?
Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure.
So China, the biggest exporter of coal for the entire globe, burns more coal underground in spontaneous combustion than that it exports to the rest of the world? So there is more carbon dioxide production due to spontaneous underground fires of coal, within China, than that is produced due to burning of ALL the coal that China exports to the rest of the world. I do not think that the exported coal is used to make sculpture. I think that it is burned.
A friend of me knows a geologist so he checked with him. He could confirm these underground coal fires and he knew of one in Belgium and two in France, but that there must be many more.
I know it is a daring picture, because it goes against the mainstream.
But if you get this picture than you know that the human contribution to carbon dioxide production must at least be only a fraction of the total.
I have been thinking about the possibility that this little added fraction by human activity of the past 100 years, could have broken certain buffering systems. But I doubt it.
For some reason there's way less re-uptake of the carbon dioxide by the plant kingdom. Plants and algae should thrive on higher carbon dioxide levels. And it hasn't been as high in the past one million years.
There's less solar energy reaching the biosphere, and that has been measured (About 20% less for London for instance). It won't make much of a difference when one would look for an agricultural terrain, because most plants there are not able to capture 100 % of solar energy anyway. But for tropical forest it can tell. A drop of solar influx of 20% equals a drop in carbon dioxide re-uptake of almost 20%. A tropical forest is very efficient. And so can be the oceans because of the algae.
Algae are very sensitive to UV light. It kills them straightaway. Because they then flocculate together it is often used to clear pea soup ponds from the algae. Water filters UV very well, so the pond water is passed along a UV source at close distance. Same happens when the algae get to close to the water surface. They get killed. Same happens when the influx of UV increases as with the depletion of the ozone layer, due to the presence of chlorofluoro carbons, which brings us back to the first factor mentioned in the c's session. And maybe there is way more released into the atmosphere than the part that is released due to domestic use and the sometimes accidental release.
Not such a bad guide this C's session has been.
So, what is the real tampering about?
And what about the approach of the wave ?
How could gravity waves produce heat on such a scale? Anybody?
