The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: Has The New Ice Age Already Begun?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
All you need to know is what are the chances of summer insolation in
the northern hemisphere dropping low enough to trigger a glaciation.
The answer is that the present warm period is expected to last for
50,000 years. There is no ice age round the corner! And even when
the insolation does drop significantly it could take another 50,000 years
from that point to actually create a new ice age.

It's the complexity of the calculations which this article uses to conveniently
confuse people to direct them to the title and emphasise what the authors
actually want - to baffle people into accepting the "global warming is a hoax"
statement.

The nonsense of this article is of course that if the situation was really true,
then the world would be asking, "what must we do to prevent an ice age?"

And the answer would be to create an artificial "greenhouse" effect. How?
By increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and particularly water
vapour.

The reality is that this was and continues to be happening as a result of the
anti-global warming lobby. Why?

Because those who want to reduce the world's population are in a win-win situation.
It will happen either way if we plunge into an ice age or conversely into a global drought.
It is of course infinitely better to manage de-population in a hot climate than a cold
climate.

No one knows exactly what will happen, so it's an opportunistic excercise. As you
get more knowledgeable about the science then you can better plan strategies.
Those strategies get more complicated as time goes on involving economic, food and
health, and military/security sub-strategies. The last ten years or so has seen
anti-global warming dis-information to ensure that warming is the predominant
direction of global climate. That has been secured - emphasis, HAS!

Now we're in the stage of managing it to ensure that it achieves de-population
but not catastrophy. If it does end in catastrophy then the elites have already
planned for that, we would be naive to think otherwise, world government is already
secured in that event. The rest of the people will be left to survive as best they
can and that's probably going to be a futile effort for most.

The bottom line is - climate warming is here to stay, but the anti's have done
a good job in keeping us arguing about it.

My own view is that they (the anti's) have, currently, underestimated the
rate of climate change because they never took "positive feedback" into account
properly. So the next decade is going to see the biggest and most rapid melt ever.

The irony is that it is not the "climate warming" lobby but the anti-climate warming
lobby that are the hoaxers. They're just getting a bit concerned that they've
over-cooked their strategy a bit - lol!

Actually, it's F*!?^@g serious really. I worked this scenario out some 13 years ago
at least but eventually gave up campaigning about preventative measures because
of the anti lobby. Instead I keep re-iterating that 2020 will be the time, within a year
or two when we will know whether the strategy has indeed been over-cooked.

But this is all my opinion only, and that's exactly what the elites want - nail
it all down to "opinion" to the masses while the manipulation of the real science
is hidden away.

If you think about it deeply enough you can only come to the conclusion that
the global warming lobby have to be in the right.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Fascinating commentary there on global population control!

I agree that there is no "ice age" around the corner.

I do like geologist Professor Easterbrook's ideas though
that the warm cycle is a long term trend of multiple smaller cycles,
and that a slight cooling part of that cycle may be ahead of us right now overall,
but that changes to an even more intense warming cycle
in his graphs in ...I don't remember ...30 years?.

What I also see are extremes in the heat end of the equation on the summers globally.
Whereas winters are just cooler and wetter right now,
so we are getting more precipitation
which could be correlative to increased polar melts..

Seattle will eventually be just like San Francisco in a hundred years or less, maybe much less.

One cannot look at Mt. Kilimanjaro
and say that there is no such thing as global warming
especially with the sun is producing a good percentage of the new warm cycle
in the entire solar system possibly..
I go by the astronomy, which you would expect from my main
interests. I'm not at all convinced about any of the sun theories.

This goes back 10 years and most of the links no longer work, but
I still stick with that analysis. The telling cycles are in the last graph.
Note also the methane comment in the graph above it!

http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/ht ... tml#Berger

I found an interesting summary of the impacts in Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_ ... al_warming

I was involved in this from 1992, more or less the outset of the involvement of
the IPCC. Read through hundreds of pages of the stuff until 1998 and then
carried on outside of work involvement until around 2002, when it became purely
a personal interest. Even by that time it was clear there was a lot of manipulation
of the data going on to appease the anti lobby!

I think I made my viewpoint clear on that!

The "strategy" side of things is probably 10x more sophisticated now. My
guess is we don't know 10% of what's really going on behind the facade.

We shall see in time.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />