You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A cold reality: we are not ready for the upcoming ice age
Superb post, which more people should learn from.
I am ready. I was raised on an island in Alaska, and can live on the land in such conditions. I am currently in an optimal area with a largely homogenous population (critical importance, due to social upheaval ongoing and planned). While I am not investing fiat into buying land, I expect that the social upheaval forthcoming will make that moot.
Your preparations, if undertaken by more folks, will save lives. I wish you all the best in the coming tribulations.
Thanks!
Hi @freedompoint, @valued-customer, @samstonehill, @frot, @johano, @builderofcastles, @minismallholding, @everittdmickey
Let me get it straight: does it all mean that human activity and pollution and current ways of producing energy are okey? And nothing we should do about it?
That's how I understood this post and your comments guys.
It's so hard to decide who to believe when it comes to global warming. So many different agendas and each has 1000 reasons to back up their claims.
Many believe that us humans are causing temperatures to raise. Shall we continue the way we do? Without any changes?
It does sound like agenda: "global warming is bullshit, so no changes are needed".
Yours,
Piotr
Did any of the people you've tagged actually say anything to that tune? It's Intesting how people glean that this is what people are trying to hint at from what they say. From what I know of the majority of those you've tagged, they are huge advocates for the environment and doing things in way that don't harm the environment around them. So I would not take from what they have said that no change is needed. Although, in their part, no change might be needed because they already live their lives with the goal of doing things in non-damaging ways.
It doesn't matter whether the world gets hotter or colder, what matters is that the changes and preparations we make now will help, no matter who is correct. Ceasing our pollution of the land and seas is the right direction, no matter what. Ceasing our destruction of forests and natural environments is the right direction, no matter what. Why argue about what you think will happen, if your solutions are the same?
Currently, some of the things that our governments have planned for "slowing climate change" will put toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and put people further into poverty as wealth continues to be moved to a small portion of the population.
What most of these people are saying is that the climate is going to change with our without our input. So let's move forward with trying to make it a non-toxic change and give the best chance of survival.
Posted using Partiko Android
The illusion that the climate on our planet has anything to do with human activities is a myth that just won't go way - it is potentially very profitable to keep pushing it...
But humans do not control the sun, or the earth’s orbit!
There are four major temperature change cycles related to the sun that detirmine the earth’s temperature:
11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of sunspot activity
21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit
THE SUN... (and the path of the earth's orbit around it)
That's what it all comes down to!
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/global-warming/
In the grand scheme of things, our activities are nothing to the planet. While we're here, though, it would be nice if we could live on it without making everything living sick!
Posted using Partiko Android
Unfortunately Agenda 2030 uses sickness as a key tactic to reduce the global population to 500 million and going on about "global warming" is another one of their many tactics to achieve that aim...
By the sound of this solar minimum, they may as well let nature do the culling for them! Just wait a little longer.
500mil is about 7% of the population, so if they only want the wealthiest to stay, they're going to have to do their own dirty work. I can't imagine many of them wanting to do their own cleaning. ;D
Posted using Partiko Android
They are doing their own dirty work right now - chemtrails, monsanto roundup, 5G, and water fluoridation for a few examples are not accidents!
https://educate-yourself.org/cn/hodgesdepopulationagenda08aug14.shtml
Dear @frot
Why would any country want to reduce their population? This seem to be very against logic. Population need to be growing in order to keep alive current financial system and mostly retired system.
Am I wrong?
Yours
Piotr
In a word: automation. The advent of AI and robotics eliminates the political need for millions of eaters to support wealth.
Consider the goals of the .01%. They enjoy robust nature. They find their lovely estates being encroached on by hungry people that slash and burn it for agriculture, poach the neat animals for food, and jam the traffic while they are on the way to the disco for a night of debauchery and degeneracy.
The poor are lowering their standard of living.
It's also mischaracterizing the issue to consider why nations would do this. This is a globalist - transnational - policy, not based on any national interest. A given nation has greater military power if it has a larger population of cannon fodder. The politicians of a given nation thus have an incentive to grow their populations.
Not only does automation and military killbots change this equation, but globalists have no national loyalties, and thus no interest in the strength of any nation. All nations are obsolete for their purposes, and thus they are globalists, not nationalists.
Hi @valued-customer, @minismallholding (Im adding you only so you could share your view on this comment)
Automation is indeed a reason why there is less jobs, but it still doenst explain why goverments would like to reduce population as they seem to be doing opposite (migration, encouraging to make more babies etc).
I think current tax system proved, that there is very little support from taxes coming from corporations and wealth created by AI and robotics is not coming back into goverments/population.
I also believe that AI and robotocs do actually put extra political need for millions of people, who can actually vote on those who are in power. Not needing us is like agreeing that "we also do not need power".
After all we can be ruled, but AI will not be. So I cannot see future the way you do. I think value of human life for politicians will only increase.
Luckily it seem that their golden age is over and globalist need to take nationalism into consideration as a permanent factor.
Thx for amazing comment
Yours, Piotr
You've explained it way better than I could have! I knew someone would have a better answer than I.
Posted using Partiko Android
Because the zionist nwo eugenisists who own and run this world have depopulation as a top goal - reduction from 8 billion down to 1/2 a billion by 2030 - this is all a theory - but it is a very well documented one - hang on to your hat and take a trip down the rabbit hole
https://educate-yourself.org/cn/hodgesdepopulationagenda08aug14.shtml
and for more on the global warming scam see:
https://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml
That's so confusing @frot
We can see that most countries are trying to bring migrants to avoid financial system collapse in the futre and we're witnessing massive population growth. It is not possible to reduce population without turning entire world population against yourself.
That's anyway my impression.
Yours,
Piotr
Thank you for your amazing reply @frot
So much valuable informations I never knew before. Seriously I appreciate it a lot.
Yours
Piotr
Dear @minismallholding
Thank you for your kind reply.
I'm very sorry if I caused some misunderstanding. I only mentioned and greeted them all, because they were involved in this conversation and Im curious of their opinion. Hope I made it clear, that Im not attacking anyone and I only want to learn from all of you.
Thank you for sharing your view with me.
Yours
Piotr
I don't personally think you were attacking anyone. It's sparked some great feedback and I know there are those who feel that if you say the climate will change without people's input you must think its okay to continue to pollute and harm. I've often wondered why they come to that conclusion.
I wondered if something had been said that I had missed or even if you felt that it was implied. I see that this was not the case now and it was more of a leading question. Always hard to get the right tone with the written word.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you for your kind reply @minismallholding
This is very mature way of describing this issue. Personally Im trying to figure out what other people I trust think. I would like to know what is public opionion view on this problem.
Trying to learn any real informations about that topic is a bit like walking in the heavy fog.
Not really. Please keep in mind that you're way ahead with your knowledge about this topic and some questions asked by people researching (like myself) may just sound wrong. Simply because we may not even see a big picture and we're full of wrong assumptions.
Very true. It does help if you already know person behind the screen, but we just got to know each other.
Thank you for being so responsive
Yours
Piotr
Thank you for that reminder. I think we can forget when talking amongst those who already have a lot of knowledge and we're just adding new little bits of information. There is a lot of background to take in and it can be confusing to know where to start when someone is new to it. Really, if we care about the environment around us we're on the same page.
Posted using Partiko Android
Dear @minismallholding
My impression is that majority of those who have some knowledge and strong opinion about issues related to climat change get usually easily annoyed by ignorance/lack of knowledge coming from regular people.
Thank you for your mature reply. Like I mentioned before: I'm trying to learn from people like you to build my own bigger picture. After all this is very complex topic with many different agendas. It's not only left or right here.
Yours
Piotr
Strong opinions can often result in tunnel vision and impatience. I try not to get to caught up in things like that and keep an open mind. After all, most people are really rather nice, even if they do have opposing views to. I think we also each have to make our own journeys of discovery taking on what makes sense and discarding what really doesn't. It's easy to get carried away!
Many thanks for a thought provoking conversation, Piotr.
Posted using Partiko Android
Climate change happens, but if you look at the research personally (rather than just taking what the enemedia claims at face value) you will find that it is driven by the Sun, not CO2. For example, about ~55mya (million years ago) CO2 was ~6000ppm - almost 15 times the concentration we presently enjoy.
Life was thriving on Earth. Coral reefs survived handily. Temperatures did not soar.
Furthermore, CO2 is critical to life on Earth, the basis of the entire photosynthetic food chain. Below about ~190ppm plants begin to starve for it, just as animals would starve for O2 below a given threshold. During the LGM (Late Glacial Maximum) Earth basically bounced off this threshold. CO2 was about the lowest it's ever been during the entire history of Earth. We need MORE, not less, CO2, to drive agriculture by feeding plants. CO2 is basically fertilizer.
You can confirm this by inquiring of Marijuana growers, who commonly used dry ice (frozen CO2) in grow rooms to increase growth rates of their crops.
The globalists are using AGW (Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming) to drive a global tax on carbon, and taxes require government to administer, thus necessitating a global government.
AGW is a scam.
We're actually facing a catastrophic global climate disaster, but of the opposite nature of the AGW claims. Look at a graph of sea level over the last 250kya, and you will see that Earth has undergone periodic ice ages which lower sea level dramatically. Spikes in sea level indicate warm periods when the most ice was melted. We're currently at the tip of such a spike, showing that temperatures are about to plummet and massive ice sheets will begin forming, lowering sea level.
National Geographic published the chart that redpilled me on this topic. Further - and extensive - research has confirmed. WUWT.com is a site where climate science is debated by scientists. If you want to know more, have a read at it.
Thanks!
Edit: I also would point out that not all polluting chemicals are equally harmless or harmful. Endocrine disrupting pollution and additives to foods and packaging has driven testosterone down by over 50% during my lifetime. Read about Lake Apopka, where alligators suffered dramatic decrease in male births, and the penis size of males has been reduced by over 50% due to such pollution.
Consider how this might be affecting society, and concatenated with social pressure to impact social health. There are many pollutants and development practices that intolerably harm people, wildlife, and the environment.
It's just that CO2 isn't one of them.
Dear @valued-customer
This is quite common narrative lately.
To introduce those taxes goverments need to convince people that AGW is real. And this seem not to be happening. People don't want to pay even more taxes. Simple as that.
It reminds me of something.
I went lately to visit Venice in Italy. OVer 10 years ago I was told that this place will disapear under water soon. 10 years later I see no difference and neither local peopulation does (from what I was told).
I found it interesting at that time, when I didn't know shit about AGW agenda.
Yours
Piotr
Based on what I have learned over the last month I would say that humans have a lot less to do with climate change than we are told. A big step towards understanding this was the realisation that the climate of Earth is controlled by the activity of the sun.
I agree the global warming subject has become so convoluted with contradictory evidence it is impossible to know with certainty what is going on, unless you are the scientist doing the research. So all we can really do is look at our lives and ask what we personally can do to make a difference. The more independent we can become, the less need there is for continual unnecessary waste of energy.
Thank you for this excellent comment @samstonehill
Appreciate.
Piotr
I'm not saying no changes are needed, I'm saying that man has no effect whatsoever on the earth's temperature - even eugenics attempts in the name of "global warming" like chemtrails will make no long term difference - within 10,000 years this planet will be a block of ice again - back to it's default setting.
What changes are needed? - just shoot jacob rotchild and al gore, and buy warmer jackets (I'm only half joking, jackets may not be enough...)
Thank you for your kind reply @frot
Is that really serious info? I'm not very familiar with this topic and it's just hard to believe that humans really have no impact at all on climat change. And all that pollution is just fine.
Cheers
Piotr
I think the point is that ice ages are regular and unavoidable, no matter how much humans throw the equilibrium out of balance. Like I said, it's more about our connection with the sun than anything else.
Thank you for sharing your view with me @samstonehill
Appreciate, Piotr
Afraid so yes - hopefully not in our lifetimes but on the way for sure
It's great to hear you are ready! Growing up in Alaska would do it.
And I think you are right about the social upheaval mostly eliminating the need to buy land. I personally have had little to no experience living in the way I described so figured it would be best to buy some land asap and start learning. The idea of living this way is quite exciting to me and I look forward to getting started.
You aren't wrong about acquiring land to learn from. Be aware that landowners will be easily locatable, and private property is susceptible to eminent domain, or other catastrophic actions.
Have a look at what is happening presently in South Africa to landowners based on race alone, and do some thinking about the various mechanisms that might be applicable to your own situation if SHTF.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone from owning land, merely encouraging folks to have plans in place for all exigencies, and attacks on landowners are amongst common developments when SHTF. Using your education from having private property prior to SHTF will empower you to react with agility regardless of such exigencies that arise.
You're on the right track.