Climate change. A fascinating subject. kaleidoscopic. Each day is different, unique, and this has been the case since the birth of planet Earth 4.543 billion years ago, give or take a year or two, a month, a week, a minute, a second. Even the last measure is important because if, for example, in a certain location one anticipates a spectacular sunrise or sunset, and wishes to capture it with photography, seconds are of momentous importance. It would be inopportune to then decide to change a lens or filter.
Today we are blest with sophisticated means to forecast the weather. Observer satellites that film the movements and the build up of cloud formations, means of anticipating and calculating atmospheric pressure, humidity rates, levels of pollution, wind force, and wind direction changes. Marvellous computer technology. Yet, despite all that, the meteorologists often get their forecasts quite wrong. For an example, in the location where I am now, as I write this, only two days ago the weather was forecast to be 100% rain today. Nevertheless, this morning we were blest with clear blue sky. At 13h this was still the case. The forecast was naturally changed to accord. The change forecast that it would rain here 40% at 15h. Later this was changed yet again to 40% rain at 19h. Now it has been changed to 30% rain at 21h this evening, and so it goes on. Climate change... Doesn’t this mean that universal laws are often unpredictable, like life itself? Certainly, and it’s just as well.
The climatic history of the Earth is incredible. There was a geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic (600 to 800 million years ago) when the Earth’s weather was exceedingly hot, which comparatively makes today’s ‘global warming’ theory, or scam, absurd. And naturally there were several exceedingly cold ice ages. Yet life obviously survived, certainly before mankind (and womankind) graced the Earth, beginning a mere 200,000 years ago. We have come a long way since then, despite gruesome periods of abstruse, social regression.
The experts may get their forecasts wrong, but we must never try to contradict the idea that mankind, womankind, (and whatever of today’s dreamed up variant humankind) is responsible for ‘climate change’. Seemingly we are being fed this pretentious assertion which defies proof as well as natural logic, in order to try to render us guilt ridden and fearful. But the radical climatic changes of planet Earth that occurred many millions of years before human-beings mysteriously arrived or somehow evolved, make the experts’ ‘man-made climate change’ assertions appear pretentious and ridiculous.
The experts have affirmed that the unusually cold spring weather in Europe, even in the south, is also due to global warming... They say that as the Arctic Circle is a few degrees warmer than it should be, it’s sending its cold air south. Why would it do that? Mind you, for some strange reason this year, this may well be true, but why did it not do the same thing in the spring of 2020 and the year before, etc? A year relative to universal time is a moment, a wink of an eye.
Why use the term ‘global warming’ when it’s evident that such a phenomenon is certainly not global? Over thirty years ago I remember when it snowed in June in Southern Europe, but no one came up with incoherent theories. In my youth I remember fog (smog) in the outskirts of London so thick that one couldn’t see more than a metre in front of oneself. If prior to the descent of smog one had been driving one’s car, someone had to walk in front of the car waving a scarf or handkerchief to enable the driver to slowly crawl home, providing the motorist’s home was reasonably near by. Otherwise the car had to be abandoned. Whilst walking outside in such conditions one wore a handkerchief over one’s nose and mouth (although this was not a governmental law). Once home the part of the white handkerchief that theoretically ‘protected’ one’s lungs, was black from the smog. Yet no one panicked. It was not unusual at that epoch in cold, humid winters when coal was used to heat houses, in low atmospheric pressure, before so called ‘smokeless coal’ had been developed.
The same scare tactics referred to above regarding ‘man-made climate change’ have certainly been used for the so called pandemic, seemingly for similar, lucrative, mercenary motives. Were fortunes made from the bubonic plague which lasted from 1346 to 1353 and which caused the death of possibly up to 200 million people in the world? If so it was nothing compared to the fortunes made from Covid-19 which is alleged to have caused the death of 3 million people in the world. The death of possibly up to 200,000,000 people in the fourteenth century was naturally far more significant than that of 3,000,000 people in relation to the world’s population count then and now. The number of alleged victims relative to the world’s population today should categorically cancel out Covid-19 as a pandemic. Yet we have been persuaded by the authorities and the complicit, constant televised reports, to dread the virus. One suspects that this is for reasons that have far less to do with how dreadful the virus really is. These ‘lucrative, mercenary motives’ must be very personal if certain authorities are even willing to ruin their national economies in the process of ‘protecting’ the population.
To return to climate change. To pretend that man is responsible for whatever comparatively insignificant climate change that’s in the throes of taking place, is also suspicious, to say the least. And to rake off billions pretexting to counter whatever claimed ‘man made climate change’, is plain fraud if nothing effective is done to reduce pollution. The latter is the only possible factor that would have some negative influence. Paying to pollute is obviously not the solution. Dismissing nuclear energy and all progress in this field without bothering to invest in order to solve the problems, is incoherent. All more so when one is prepared to ruin the countrysides with ugly, expensive to maintain, comparatively inefficient, limited energy producing wind turbines.
The seas and oceans cover 70% of planet Earth. Their energy producing potential is obviously enormous, but to my knowledge there is only one small, ingenious country in the world that has succeeded (over eleven years ago) in very effectively and ecologically tapping sea energy: Israel.
Referring once more to this subject already alluded to here and here, is not necessarily repetition due to advanced age or obsession. If anything 'advanced age' gives one the advantage of having seen and experienced climate change phenomena long before, and in forms that were then accepted as fairly commonplace, but in fact they were far more harmful than what's considered harmful today.
🌈
Text © Mirino (images NASA with thanks) May, 2021
Posts
