Climate Change

It seems some people think the currant rise in temperatures are normal, or part of a natural cycle as our planet has had periods of high temperatures in the past. For example in the past we have had palm trees at the poles.
And some people think the currant rise in temperature is not normal and is the result of human activity.

I think it might help if we all look at the history of climate change and how it compares with what is happening today.
I found this video which explains the history of climate change, and at the end, gives a very short explanation as to why scientist are concerned today. (The entire video is about 11 minutes long)
It explains how the climate has been affected by the Earth's core temperature, temperature of the Sun, orbital fluctuations, continental drift, mountain formation, plant activity, axial tilt, etc.

And finally why scientist think the currant situation is different from what has happened in the past.
Maybe if we all watch this we can find some facts to discuss about the currant global climate vs the history of the climate.
For example the video tells us we are currently in an ice age...so why worry about global warming???

​

 

Regardless of his claim to be a son of God or a Demi God, he presents his argument in an illogical manner, in my opinion.

So let's look at this video.

After showing some scientist for some reason, he states the Club of Rome and Agenda 2030 (UN Sustainable Development) were both formed to address issues that affect the world in a typical problem, reaction, solution model. (which, according to him, has been workable for a long time).
But then he makes a logical jump and has us assume, with no evidence pro or con, that the Club of Rome and Agenda 2030 created the problem in search of a solution! They didn't recognize a problem through an analysis of scientific data,they created a false problem!. Does he back up this conclusion with any facts? No. He just forgets about it and jumps again, this time, in time, to the present.

He now introduces "one of the most classic Soros progressives" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal, whom he tells us made the statement in 2019, with no backing by any scientist that, ‘...the world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change...'” She did make that statement, but he claims she just pulled it out of her rear end with no backing of any scientist, in fact they would say it's bizarre. And then he goes on to tell us what's wrong with the New Green Deal.

Of course he leaves out the part where Ocasio-Cortez based her statement on a United Nations climate report, published in 2018, "that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years." ~The Hill

Now, ready for the next jump? His conclusion, based on all of the above, The Green New Deal must, has to, can not avoid being implemented, in any other way except one that leads to a world dictatorship.

Time to check the score.
How many conspiracy key words has he managed to insert into his argument so far? (I'm at 3:22 in the video)

Rome. We all know about the Romans, they crucified Christ, plus Rome is the seat of the Antichrist, and Rome is situated in Italy; remember Italy used it's Leonardo computer system and military satellites to help steal the election from Donald J. Trump.
Finally, let's not forget that period in American history when the KKK only held one group to be infer to niggers, and that was the whops.
I rate this word merits 4 bells.

The U.N.
Let's just go with 1 bell as I'm not looking up all the conspiracies related to that one.

Agenda 2030
Specific conspiracy, 1 bell

George Soros
1 bell.

Progressives
1 bell.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
This one rates several bells. Let's see uppity woman, partial Puerto Rican heritage (not really part of the U.S.), intellectual, Democrat, worked for a socialist (Bernie Sanders), progressives, etc. I'll stop there and just award him 6 bells for inserting her into his argument.

Finally the Green New Deal
My ears are starting to ring, so let's just award him 1 bell for that.

Dictatorship
1 bell.

Total: 16 conspiracy bells.
Not bad for under three and a half minutes of video. Very impressive.

Now we go back to the scientist for some reason.
But I have to stop, time for lunch, I'll get back the the rest of the video later.

 

Back to the video.
So far I haven't seen any evidence presented pro or con about climate change, either prehistoric, historic, or present day.
Maybe as we go on.

Now we are back to an interview by Dr. Maxim Kozachenko, a Coastal & Marine Scientist and Geographic information systems analyst and Professor John Sweeney PhD in Meteorology and Climatology. Kozachenko is behind the camera questioning Sweeney.
I don't know why this is in here as it seems to contradict Icke, but we'll see. Let me roll a few more minutes of the video.

Ah, now we are going to hear from Professor Robert Devoy, PhD in Coastal Geography. He tells us the seas are rising at the most rapid rate in 2,000 years due to climate warming.
Then he proceeds to tell us that the opposition to accepting the reality of global warming is due to the desire to concentrate money by the industrial base without having to restructure and meet the challenges of climate warming (My paraphrasing). And most climate deniers are conservative reactionary people who don't like change and who are not open to science.
Further, most people don't understand climate science and ignore the science because they really don't care.

He interprets the science as telling him that the climate is changing in a way it has not done before, and if we look at related, but different temperature rises in the past, not due to humans; if the global temperature rises by 4 or 5 degrees Celsius, life on Earth will change.
In the past in the Permian Period due to continental drift, the temperature rose by 10 degrees and 98% of all life on Earth was wiped out.
The present warming is being caused by humans, as opposed to the Permian Period warming and even if it isn't caused by humans we need to address it.

And so on.

So the first 3 minutes of so of this video concerns baseless claims by Icke and the remaining 15 minutes are scientists explaining something about climate change and why some people don't understand science.
Another case of wasting our time by presenting the contents of a video as supporting one's opinions without even, apparently, viewing the entire video or at least addressing the concerns of the scientists in the video.

We are just to take Icke's three minute rant at his word.
.