Climate Change and Species Die-offs -what's up with that? What are we missing?

Very interesting. Despite the title, this isn't actually about Greta, it is just a man making a casual observations suggesting that we take a closer look at and consideration of additional things that may be contributing to climate change and species die-offs.

Questions raised:
Why do Climate Activists only blame C02 and humans, yet never mention Big Agra or Monsanto or proven research about the impact of chemical toxins like atrazene changing sex of fish and neonicotinoids killing bees in the environment? (Follow the money...and where does it really go?)
Who funds the organizations that sponsor these activists?
What narrative is being drilled into our minds?
Why is there a massive wildlife and insect die-off?
Why is the media complicit in these omissions?

Something strange about Greta Thunberg at the United Nations

•Sep 24, 2019

The Outer Light

65.9K subscribers

https://youtu.be/hoiXoJkq774


Recently there has a been a lot of news about Greta Thunberg speaking at the United Nations in regards to Climate Change. What is interesting is the people that surround Greta Thunberg one of which works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of course this could just be coincidence. 🤗

 https://twitter.com/Suzi3D/status/117...

Suzie Dawson

@Suzi3D

TONIGHT at 8pm Eastern: Opening the 5 Eyes; Exposing The Spies
Deep dive into how Western intelligence agencies control all aspects of modern society and yes I'm bringing receipts! Join me for this unique presentation in support of my #1vs5i campaign:

https://www.pscp.tv/1vs5i/1RDxlNdwYZEGL




Help support my channel: ❇️


www.subscribestar.com/TheOuterLight 👁


https://www.Patreon.com/TheOuterDark



~~~~~~

"THE SLOW EXODUS of planets leaving Capricorn continues this week, with dwarf planet Ceres entering Aquarius on Thursday. As you may recall, Ceres was part of the conglomerate that met for the Saturn-Pluto alignment. As Earth Mother goddess, Ceres brought issues related to the environment and agriculture to the meeting, dramatically revealing the ways in which climate change is affecting weather patterns and the ecology of our planet.

.
As Ceres traverses Aquarius from now through the third week in April, we are supported in thinking in new ways about environmental problems. And, since Ceres is involved in the care and feeding of people and animals, individuals with creative solutions may apply them specifically to ways in which we might feed all who live on the Earth, so that none need go hungry. Ceres will go retrograde later in the year, and will briefly revisit Aquarius from the last week of September through the first week of November."


-Pam Younghans
http://www.northpointastrology.com/northpoint-journal.html
https://foreverunlimited.wordpress.com/2020/01/27/northpoint-astrology-journal-your-weekly-guide-to-planetary-influences-january-27-to-february-2-2020-by-pam-younghans/



~~~

I do not deny climate change.  It's real.  However, before anyone gets angry at the title and dismisses this as "climate change denial" please read it to better understand that the causes include BOTH human impact and increased solar activity in recent decades.  Science always updates our knowledge based on new studies, as new facts coming to light. If we are to resolve the issue, we first must understand the cause, which is not just one thing, but several. We cannot deny new science!  ~PB

A iceberg floats in the sea near Qeqertarsuaq, Disko Island, Greenland, on July 21, 2011.
(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Viewpoints

How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

Nir Shaviv

11 Comments September 24, 2019 Updated: September 25, 2019

Share

   

Commentary


Political and corporate leaders gathered for the climate week in New York City have urged significant action to fight global warming. But, given the high costs of the suggested solutions, could it be that the suggested cure is worse than the disease?


As a liberal who grew up in a solar house, I have always been energy-conscious and inclined toward activist solutions to environmental issues. I was therefore extremely surprised when my research as an astrophysicist led me to the conclusion that climate change is more complicated than we are led to believe. The disease is much more benign, and a simple palliative solution lies in front of our eyes.


To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning. We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.


However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2—none. Mind you, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degrees C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.


In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.


Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.


In 2008, I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans, in sync with the 11-year solar cycle, is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected simply from changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so-called radiative forcing on the climate.

Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling).


In the decade following the publication of the above, not only was the paper uncontested, more data, this time from satellites, confirmed the large variations associated with solar activity. In light of this hard data, it should be evident by now that a large part of the warming isn’t human, and that future warming from any given emission scenario will be much smaller.


Alas, because the climate community developed a blind spot to any evidence that should raise a red flag, such as the aforementioned examples or the much smaller tropospheric warming over the past two decades than models predicted, the rest of the public sees a very distorted view of climate change—a shaky scientific picture that is full of inconsistencies became one of certain calamity.


With this public mindset, phenomena such as that of child activist Greta Thunberg are no surprise. Most bothersome, however, is that this mindset has compromised the ability to convey the science to the public.


One example from the past month is my interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.


Evidence for warming doesn’t tell us what caused the warming, and any time someone has to appeal to the so-called 97 percent consensus, he or she is doing so because his or her scientific arguments aren’t strong enough. Science isn’t a democracy.
 

Whether the Western world will overcome this ongoing hysteria in the near future, it’s clear that on a time scale of a decade or two, it would be a thing of the past. Not only will there be growing inconsistencies between model and data, a much-stronger force will change the rules of the game.


Once China realizes it can’t rely on coal anymore, it will start investing heavily in nuclear power to supply its remarkably increasing energy needs, at which point, the West won’t fall behind. We will then have cheap and clean energy-producing carbon-neutral fuel, and even cheap fertilizers that will make the recently troubling slash-and-burn agriculture redundant.


The West would then realize that global warming never was and never will be a serious problem. In the meantime, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would even increase agriculture yields, as it has been found to do in arid regions in particular. It is plant food after all.



Professor Nir Shaviv @nshaviv is the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us