Ooh, how fun! It looks like they're prepping us for the acceptance of spraying aerosols in the air, from planes, to save the planet from global warming. Then, once the general public accepts the need, they'll admit that, yes, they've been doing it for years, to save the planet.
Of course, anyone who's pointed out these streaks of white emissions that have been trailing behind planes for the past 20+ years and spreading across the skies for hours afterwards were calling them "chem-trails". Anyone who dared to believe our lying eyes were conspiracy theorists. How silly of us, we just didn't have the right terminology!
The gas-lighting that the general public has received, in the claims that these things simply don't exist (or were just the same condensation trails that have always trailed behind planes) will now turn into the gas-lighting of, "of course we've been doing everything we could to save the planet, we've never denied that!"
Please don’t fall into the nonsensical “consensus” Rupa, you are simply advancing a theory, it’s not “known”.
There are much better fits out there, including the most likely scenario that sun activity driving variations of the solar wind is affecting how many galactic rays reach our atmosphere in turn affecting the extent of cloud cover.
In summary, a “cleaner” atmosphere is naturally warmer and dryer. And a warmer and dryer climate is more susceptible to wildfires that serve to stimulate regrowth. It’s almost like it was designed that way and the hubris of man doesn’t have as much impact as we’d like to think. 🤔
Actually, the prevalence of wildfire, both numbers and area burned has been decreasing worldwide. That along with the undeniable greening of the planet in the last 50 years means more fuel so when inevitable dry years happen you get a bad fire year, exactly what happened in canada last year.
This year will be same somewhere else.
Guess what, this year it’s wet and getting wetter here, the umpteenth big system since March is drenching us again, and there is very little wildfire activity. I was up north fishing a few weeks ago and didn’t smell smoke even once.
But of course that doesn’t prevent our Prime Idiot Trudeau from defending his carbon tax by blathering about how the country is burning.
I think Wikipedia has become a political entity, left leaning. It should be neutral, of course. If there are many sides to a statement, present them all. It would serve us all, readers and writers as well.
Debating the value of pollution is about as sick as saying heartattack's are good.
As for mankind changing the climate of earth I've yet to see any proof. The pollution is the exception though, the higher the population the worse it get's.
The most destructive part of a warmer ocean's is the birth of major storms. The hotter it is the bigger they are.
Our cities are cleaner than they were decades ago. Pollution and CO2 are not the same animal. In fact, we produce CO2 when we exhale, and it's really good for plants, which produce oxygen.
Storms are not getting worse. That's just propaganda. What we have is a media paid to beat their collective chests every time there's bad weather somewhere. Which there always is, always was and always will be.
A few years back a group, of British scientists looked at whether global warming was responsible for a noticeable uptick in hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Basing their studies on Houston, they actually discovered through public records that the hurricane level had simply returned to pre-industrial levels, while cloud cover had significantly decreased after the onset of clean air regulations.
How about that "duck and cover" campaign in the 60's? I remember hiding under my school desk to protect myself from an atomic bomb..... We have followed the science for a long time.
Pollution is bad and we should reduce pollution that makes the air and water cleaner. But, CO2 is not a pollutant. It may be a greenhouse gas but it's not pollution. If it is then we need to cull the human race. Each and every one of us is a CO2 factory.
The other sticking point is the fallacy of any kind of global temperature. Where on the Earth do we stick the thermometer? There is no such thing as a global temperature. There is no such thing as measurable atmospheric temperature. It's absurd to think like this. You can measure temperature in spots but the atmosphere will be at different temperatures even within its different layers.
It's like saying the United States as a whole has a temperature. There isn't even a temperature of any given state. I live in Georgia about 35 miles northeast of Atlanta. There is normally a 5 degree difference between here and the city. Does the Atlanta metro area have a temperature? I'm from Chicago and lived in the suburbs for decades. The temperature at the lakefront is cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. A few miles away from the lake and the temperature is 5 and sometimes 10 degrees different. Does the Chicago metro area have a temperature? It's all so ludicrous.
I want to relate to you a small piece that I once happened upon in the NYT, roughly around 2005-2008 or so. In this two-paragraph tidbit it was related that scientists had struggled to find why Antarctica was cooling during a period of what was then called "global warming."
The second paragraph said the answer had been found: using computer models, it was found that all the places in Antarctica that weren't being measured actually were warming.
(In 2002 the Ozone hole was thought to be the reason for Antarctica's cooling, which would correspond well with this article - that aerosols cool the atmosphere. By 2009 satellite data "showed conclusively" that all of Antarctica was indeed warming, and the idea that it had ever been cooling was "debunked."
I think these people just know a whole lot less about it than they say they do.
Ludicrous is right - It’s the left right to gaslight us into believing any crap that appears on MSM or digital media(social media). It’s like the story of farting cows have you heard that bullshit!
I recall that when I was a kid, we were going into a new ice age... We are arrogant in thinking we really know and that the science is settled, it is never settled there is always a twist...
I say this with love--this is about the silliest piece I've ever read. What it does more than anything is show just how little is known about the made-up catastrophes of "climate change." The absurdity of declaring a year, "the hottest on record" has been going on for a lot of years--and you can look back and see that some previous years were hotter than the one currently thought to be. And the piece literally ends with the most horrific statement to come out of Covid: "The general consensus in the scientific community..." Seeing that line should make us run from the article's thesis altogether.
Yip head for the hills,these bastards at the moment in power, are coming for us again. COVID was their first attempt and we know how that turned out. We have got to put an end to the Democrats once and for all in November, just do it get rid of them!
This shows the connection between pollution and climate policy is not a simple binary. No we shouldn't pollute to "cool", just like we should be very skeptical of geo-engineering attempts.
What is a potential large source of aerosols in the atmosphere? Volcanoes. We know some of the effects. Read about 1816 - the year without a summer. Caused by Mount Tambora in 1815. Then go back to about 536.
Consider the Tonga volcano in Jan. 2022. The largest explosion in the 21st century. It did something different, instead of creating aerosols, it sent water into the stratosphere. Just when we think we have it all figured out; we don't.
Foolish climate cultists. You’d think peoples’ faith in the models would have been shaken after how grievously wrong they were with Covid
The planet has been cooling and warming (think ice ages) since it came into existence. The effects of human activities plays a minuscule role.
Ooh, how fun! It looks like they're prepping us for the acceptance of spraying aerosols in the air, from planes, to save the planet from global warming. Then, once the general public accepts the need, they'll admit that, yes, they've been doing it for years, to save the planet.
Of course, anyone who's pointed out these streaks of white emissions that have been trailing behind planes for the past 20+ years and spreading across the skies for hours afterwards were calling them "chem-trails". Anyone who dared to believe our lying eyes were conspiracy theorists. How silly of us, we just didn't have the right terminology!
The gas-lighting that the general public has received, in the claims that these things simply don't exist (or were just the same condensation trails that have always trailed behind planes) will now turn into the gas-lighting of, "of course we've been doing everything we could to save the planet, we've never denied that!"
I do not care what this article says, just please stop the "Save the Planet" headlines. Either utterly meaningless or worse, plain stupid.
Please don’t fall into the nonsensical “consensus” Rupa, you are simply advancing a theory, it’s not “known”.
There are much better fits out there, including the most likely scenario that sun activity driving variations of the solar wind is affecting how many galactic rays reach our atmosphere in turn affecting the extent of cloud cover.
In summary, a “cleaner” atmosphere is naturally warmer and dryer. And a warmer and dryer climate is more susceptible to wildfires that serve to stimulate regrowth. It’s almost like it was designed that way and the hubris of man doesn’t have as much impact as we’d like to think. 🤔
Actually, the prevalence of wildfire, both numbers and area burned has been decreasing worldwide. That along with the undeniable greening of the planet in the last 50 years means more fuel so when inevitable dry years happen you get a bad fire year, exactly what happened in canada last year.
This year will be same somewhere else.
Guess what, this year it’s wet and getting wetter here, the umpteenth big system since March is drenching us again, and there is very little wildfire activity. I was up north fishing a few weeks ago and didn’t smell smoke even once.
But of course that doesn’t prevent our Prime Idiot Trudeau from defending his carbon tax by blathering about how the country is burning.
No it isn’t.
Wow, Free Press readers are pretty rightwing!
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Can either of you point to the comments you think are a problem and explain why?
While I agree, much of the time they are quite intelligent with good points.
This article's comments are one of the exceptions.
Can either of you point to the comments you think are a problem and explain why?
I think Wikipedia has become a political entity, left leaning. It should be neutral, of course. If there are many sides to a statement, present them all. It would serve us all, readers and writers as well.
Lynn Silton
Debating the value of pollution is about as sick as saying heartattack's are good.
As for mankind changing the climate of earth I've yet to see any proof. The pollution is the exception though, the higher the population the worse it get's.
The most destructive part of a warmer ocean's is the birth of major storms. The hotter it is the bigger they are.
All the data shows no increase in hurricane numbers, size or strength.
Same with tornados
So you’ll be fine
Our cities are cleaner than they were decades ago. Pollution and CO2 are not the same animal. In fact, we produce CO2 when we exhale, and it's really good for plants, which produce oxygen.
Storms are not getting worse. That's just propaganda. What we have is a media paid to beat their collective chests every time there's bad weather somewhere. Which there always is, always was and always will be.
It also causes an uptick in wayward apostrophes.
A few years back a group, of British scientists looked at whether global warming was responsible for a noticeable uptick in hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Basing their studies on Houston, they actually discovered through public records that the hurricane level had simply returned to pre-industrial levels, while cloud cover had significantly decreased after the onset of clean air regulations.
There has been no uptick in hurricanes
It’s a sinusoid based on ocean cycles and there is no pattern of increase or decrease.
How about that "duck and cover" campaign in the 60's? I remember hiding under my school desk to protect myself from an atomic bomb..... We have followed the science for a long time.
I just can't even with this post.
Good grief.
Pollution is bad and we should reduce pollution that makes the air and water cleaner. But, CO2 is not a pollutant. It may be a greenhouse gas but it's not pollution. If it is then we need to cull the human race. Each and every one of us is a CO2 factory.
The other sticking point is the fallacy of any kind of global temperature. Where on the Earth do we stick the thermometer? There is no such thing as a global temperature. There is no such thing as measurable atmospheric temperature. It's absurd to think like this. You can measure temperature in spots but the atmosphere will be at different temperatures even within its different layers.
It's like saying the United States as a whole has a temperature. There isn't even a temperature of any given state. I live in Georgia about 35 miles northeast of Atlanta. There is normally a 5 degree difference between here and the city. Does the Atlanta metro area have a temperature? I'm from Chicago and lived in the suburbs for decades. The temperature at the lakefront is cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. A few miles away from the lake and the temperature is 5 and sometimes 10 degrees different. Does the Chicago metro area have a temperature? It's all so ludicrous.
I want to relate to you a small piece that I once happened upon in the NYT, roughly around 2005-2008 or so. In this two-paragraph tidbit it was related that scientists had struggled to find why Antarctica was cooling during a period of what was then called "global warming."
The second paragraph said the answer had been found: using computer models, it was found that all the places in Antarctica that weren't being measured actually were warming.
(In 2002 the Ozone hole was thought to be the reason for Antarctica's cooling, which would correspond well with this article - that aerosols cool the atmosphere. By 2009 satellite data "showed conclusively" that all of Antarctica was indeed warming, and the idea that it had ever been cooling was "debunked."
I think these people just know a whole lot less about it than they say they do.
Ludicrous is right - It’s the left right to gaslight us into believing any crap that appears on MSM or digital media(social media). It’s like the story of farting cows have you heard that bullshit!
I recall that when I was a kid, we were going into a new ice age... We are arrogant in thinking we really know and that the science is settled, it is never settled there is always a twist...
I say this with love--this is about the silliest piece I've ever read. What it does more than anything is show just how little is known about the made-up catastrophes of "climate change." The absurdity of declaring a year, "the hottest on record" has been going on for a lot of years--and you can look back and see that some previous years were hotter than the one currently thought to be. And the piece literally ends with the most horrific statement to come out of Covid: "The general consensus in the scientific community..." Seeing that line should make us run from the article's thesis altogether.
Yip head for the hills,these bastards at the moment in power, are coming for us again. COVID was their first attempt and we know how that turned out. We have got to put an end to the Democrats once and for all in November, just do it get rid of them!
This shows the connection between pollution and climate policy is not a simple binary. No we shouldn't pollute to "cool", just like we should be very skeptical of geo-engineering attempts.
What is a potential large source of aerosols in the atmosphere? Volcanoes. We know some of the effects. Read about 1816 - the year without a summer. Caused by Mount Tambora in 1815. Then go back to about 536.
Consider the Tonga volcano in Jan. 2022. The largest explosion in the 21st century. It did something different, instead of creating aerosols, it sent water into the stratosphere. Just when we think we have it all figured out; we don't.