Chill out Simon You are too close to Vatican to get hitsimonshack wrote:Any idea about when this will happen? I need to protect my tomato plants with some heavy armor plates !Dcopymope wrote:And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. - Rev 16:21
bostonterrierowner wrote:simonshack wrote: Any idea about when this will happen? I need to protect my tomato plants with some heavy armor plates !
My poor tomatoes just can't catch a break eitherChill out Simon You are too close to Vatican to get hit
I don't think a story has to be sensationalized to be fake. I think there are weird minor stories all the time that are completely fake, just to help make everyone used to believing anything on the "news." A lot of things about this don't seem real to me, and mostly I'm noticing the symbolic calling cards of the fakers if you know what I mean.CTGal1011 wrote:Not sure the truth to this particular sinkhole, but I have had the unfortunate experience of being a rubber-necker in Montreal when a sinkhole opened up on Sherbrooke St. It was massive and if you had been on top of the asphalt when it opened up, you're good as dead. It reminded me of a mine shaft. I've also seen a pretty big sinkhole on the 174, that swallowed a car to the back bumper. They were able to pull the car out. I didn't get to see the car myself, but I did see the hole a few hours later. Again, it was disturbing. Wouldn't surprise me if this guy was swallowed up by a sinkhole in Florida. Seems like one of those "well, it is Florida" believable stories. And all of the media seems to be reporting the same thing and not really sensationalizing it. The only thing I can think of is that his house was apparently "safetied" the year before. Maybe a way for the government to mandate whose homes are safe and whose homes aren't, and resettle people whose homes are on "unsafe" ground? (Thinking Big Oil here....)
I'm curious about this statement. What's the difference between right and wrong weather? What exactly is "wrong" about the weather in the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years? Are you saying the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years have seen unprecedented types of weather events or patterns than any other 10 years (or 2-3) in history? If so, how and in what ways? If not, are you comparing them to what you're used to in your own lifetime? And wouldn't that be too tiny of a sample set to make any sort of determination either way?edgewaters wrote:I would have to say the weather has felt decidedly wrong over the last decade or so and particularly in the last 2-3 years.
There is no doubt in my mind that it's changed in my lifetime. Whether it's like previous changes or not, I can't say, but here in Canada ice and snow are of course a big part of our recreation, especially for children. I never saw a green Christmas when I was growing up (in the 70s). Now they are every other year here. Christmas break, every year without fail, we skated on the Rideau Canal, which was open for skating almost all winter. It is now almost never open at Christmas; and instead of being open generally from late December through to the end of February, it's now open for about 2 weeks at the end of January. Many people make their own rinks in ponds, and they too often can't make them during Christmas break anymore.anonjedi2 wrote:I'm curious about this statement. What's the difference between right and wrong weather? What exactly is "wrong" about the weather in the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years? Are you saying the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years have seen unprecedented types of weather events or patterns than any other 10 years (or 2-3) in history? If so, how and in what ways? If not, are you comparing them to what you're used to in your own lifetime? And wouldn't that be too tiny of a sample set to make any sort of determination either way?edgewaters wrote:I would have to say the weather has felt decidedly wrong over the last decade or so and particularly in the last 2-3 years.
Everyday I hear people claiming that the weather/climate/temperatures/sea level/glacier melt etc are changing "faster than ever" or that we're having more extreme weather events than we used to (I'm not attributing these statements to you, edgewaters, was just asking for some clarification or for you to elaborate). But the reality is that all of these things are usually cyclical and there isn't much science to support any of the climate doom scenarios or silly computer model predictions. It's all fear, all the time.
The global warming / climate change / climate disruption etc. scam is a VERY clever one and I for one am interested in seeing and exposing climate/natural disaster fakery in the future.
For all I know (not much, admittedly) our earth's climate has always been fluctuating - and that we're just going through a warmer phase (in the Northern hemisphere, that is. Hey, have our Aussie and NZ members any recollection of milder winters during their childhoods, by any chance?). Now, let me just wonder aloud : could this have (marginally) something to do with the axial precession of the earth - as per conventional astrophysical models - i.e. the cyclic inversion of the N and S poles' maximum tilt / exposure towards the sun every 13.000 years or so? Hmm, a pretty long shot, you might say... Anyhow:edgewaters wrote: As to cause, scale, precedence, rate and so on I can't say. All I can say is that it has certainly changed; this is an empirical fact to me.
Thanks for clarifying. It's natural that you've seen some warming in your lifetime, as we are technically coming out of an ice age. Do you think this warming is bad? Other than ruining snow and ice related recreation, don't you think that some warming is actually beneficial to mankind?edgewaters wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that it's changed in my lifetime. Whether it's like previous changes or not, I can't say, but here in Canada ice and snow are of course a big part of our recreation, especially for children. I never saw a green Christmas when I was growing up (in the 70s). Now they are every other year here. Christmas break, every year without fail, we skated on the Rideau Canal, which was open for skating almost all winter. It is now almost never open at Christmas; and instead of being open generally from late December through to the end of February, it's now open for about 2 weeks at the end of January. Many people make their own rinks in ponds, and they too often can't make them during Christmas break anymore.
As to cause, scale, precedence, rate and so on I can't say. All I can say is that it has certainly changed; this is an empirical fact to me.
Then the rainy season started and apparently acid rain dropped through the gray sky 23/24, where day time infrequently a green sun could be spotted or nights a hazy brown Moon. No stars were ever seen. 
Same during the summer except rain stopped. You could hardly see across the street. 
Things or eye sight improved during autumn and finally winter arrived, sometimes with snow, and the sky became blue and the sun golden! Thanks to high pressure over Siberia or the Gulag archipelago we called it, all the local air pollution at Tokyo was blown away to Hawaii.This can be considered generally correct but even this statement isn't necessarily 100% accurate considering the earth has seen slight cooling in the last 16 years. This is an unfortunate turn of events for the Al Gores and James Hansens of the fraud which is why they eventually had to change the terminology from Global Warming to Climate Change once the models began failing miserably. It all depends on the dataset used and where in time you start. For example, most alarmists use the modern satellite era data which began in 1979. 1979 also happens to be the year of peak ice and the coldest year since the 1920s, so it's a perfect starting point for people who want to show a warming trend. Of course, we have data that goes back further than that but they don't want to use any of that data because it doesn't fit their silly agenda.simonshack wrote:For all I know (not much, admittedly) our earth's climate has always been fluctuating - and that we're just going through a warmer phase (in the Northern hemisphere, that is.
You are certainly not alone, Simon. I've studied this issues extensively, it's a bit of my "bread and butter" so to speak and it is 100% a NASA, EPA, IPCC etc. scam, designed to redistribute more wealth (upwards) and scare people into believing the earth is in danger from a trace amount of life giving and creating gas (carbon dioxide). The entire theory of Global Warming is almost as ludicrous as the moon landings, a real giant leap of logic.Anyways, it appears that the Arctic is indeed currently getting warmer - while the Antarctic is getting colder - and this trend should, according to some, just reverse itself over time. Of course, a whole bunch of other natural factors would combine to influence periodical climate fluctuations on this planet. However, I personally have separate, and admittedly non-scientific reasons to believe that the Global Warming hysteria is yet another global sham peddled by NASA, ESA, the corrupt scientific community and the complicit MSM. I will, some other time, expound on my view on this issue, FWIW - but I'm certainly not alone in holding such beliefs.
I'm not going to believe something is so because the media says it, but I'm not going to discount it solely on that basis either. It could be as they say but they are trying somehow to profit from it or shape our reaction to it, or it could be all a big hoax, I don't know. There's only so much you can concern yourself with before you lose focus though.anonjedi2 wrote:Thanks for clarifying. It's natural that you've seen some warming in your lifetime, as we are technically coming out of an ice age. Do you think this warming is bad? Other than ruining snow and ice related recreation, don't you think that some warming is actually beneficial to mankind?
Do you believe that humans are partially the cause of this type of warming you've seen in Canada in your lifetime? When you say you can't say whether or not the changes you've seen are like previous changes or not, can't you look at historical records and determine that it's natural and not unprecedented?
This is known as UHI (Urban Heat Island Effect). Ironically, all the scientists and boys at the IPCC don't even include UHI in their silly little computer models. Most of the thermometers they use are in these areas as well which obviously distorts the data and shows an upward trend over time while areas outside of the city are considerably cooler. But this is not climate, it is simply localized weather. I can say with confidence that none of this is related to human activity, we are ultimately ants and nothing more. The earth could wipe us out like the dinosaurs at any point, and there would be nothing we could do about it.edgewaters wrote: I'm not going to believe something is so because the media says it, but I'm not going to discount it solely on that basis either. It could be as they say but they are trying somehow to profit from it or shape our reaction to it, or it could be all a big hoax, I don't know. There's only so much you can concern yourself with before you lose focus though.
I think it's entirely possible it's related to human activity, although I doubt carbon emissions have much to do with it; I imagine it would have more to do with the fact we've so totally altered the landscape. I've always noticed on a hot summer day that it's quite a bit cooler when you get outside the city. Shingled rooftops and asphalt get very very hot under the sun, compared to grass.
Your personal preferences aside, ice is the enemy of mankind. Warmer temperatures generally mean less disease and more vegetation, which in turn means more food production. As a whole, warm is good, cold is bad. The boys at NASA will have you believe otherwise though.Personally I prefer it cooler so to my mind it's not a good thing that it's getting warmer, whether it's natural or otherwise. I hate summer enough already. Plus I think people go a bit funny, more emotional and less rational, as the temperature goes up. I don't like that either.
We can speak meaningfully by relying on science and calling the fraudsters out on their B.S. People like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Al Gore, Bill Mckibben, Joe Romm and the rest of the doom and gloom crowd are bombarding our society every single day with junk science, cherry picking of data and absolute ignorance of the facts. Instituations such as NASA, NOAA etc. need to be held accountable for their lies. It is a HUGE issue, arguably the biggest issue of our time. Once they convince the world that the earth is in danger and it's because of carbon dioxide (which they pretty much already have), they'll have carte blanche to bring in even more totalitarianism because this is a global issue and they'll use it to "unite" the world against this non-existent environmental threat. Therefore, isn't it our duty (not yours per se if you're not particularly interested) to fight these people the same way we do with 9/11?In the end though it's just ... not high on my list of priorities. With all this corruption and fakery among the media and authorities, to learn the truth about anything, let alone to do anything, requires breaking their power first, so to talk of anything before that is putting the cart in front of the horse. Until we get a more honest culture, even our own opinions are suspect and meaningless. So how can we even speak of this meaningfully before then?
I disagree. UHI is relegated to dense cities for the most part but let's not belabor that point because it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that these scientists do not account for UHI anywhere in any of their predictions or computer models or any of the IPCC reports. They should be adjusting their numbers downwards by as much as 7 degrees or more in dense areas because of UHI effect increasing over the last few decades. Not only do they not mention it, they actually adjust their numbers upwards!edgewaters wrote:Well, its not just local weather when you've deforested a vast percentage of the surface and covered millions of square miles with highly heat-reflective surfaces. If its local everywhere then it's not really local anymore.
But like I said ... cart before the horse. Not only is any data suspect (both that in support and in opposition - which is lying? Almost certainly both), but even if you could validate the data, there is simply no way to promote it that doesn't play into the game, until you've flipped the board off the table.
