WHAT THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES Iman Safi February 24, 2019

WHAT THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES

There is a gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and turns them into dust. Imagine what it might do to the human body.

It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.

Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above “scientific” approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.

As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less important for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.

Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.

The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances under normal pressure. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.

Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate temperate on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations, but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.

Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is far from the truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.

Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.

Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial byproduct and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions in their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.

Nitrous oxide is naturally produced both naturally and by some industries. Two thirds of it is produced naturally.

When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.

This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and being blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, opportunists, “scientists” fearmongers and highly vocal people are all united in spewing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.

We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration by people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests, is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this so-called carbon debate.

As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | Center for Science Education (ucar.edu)

Climatologists argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. Greenhouse Gases And Water Vapor: When 'Positive Feedback' Is A Bad Thing | Science 2.0 (science20.com)

This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory is accurate, we must then expect a similar scenario to what happens in deserts.

In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions of atmospheric moisture levels of that are much higher than deserts do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations that deserts do.

The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high level of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk around big cities?

Something is certainly amiss.

Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often spew their anger, and often violently, on any counter argument yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.

No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. A Hidden, Radioactive Heat Source Seems to Be Melting East Antarctica From Below : ScienceAlert.

When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion.

When politicians and groups with vested interest take on board such lies and opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the thought police stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like a sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.

The Polar Vortex Spin. Iman Safi February 2, 2019

 The Polar Vortex Spin

“The Earth moves in several ways. First, it turns around its polar axis; one turn takes 24 hours. Then it moves along its orbit around the Sun; one full revolution takes 1 year. And third, its polar axis changes direction very slowly, just like a spinning top. This effect is called precession and one full turn lasts almost 26,000 years.” This quotation has been taken from this link:  https://www.eso.org/ 
*More information on this is found here.  https://syskool.com/movements-earth/

This is science, not nonsense.

Earth has a polar axis cycle that sees the angle between its polar axis and its rotation around the sun plane (the ecliptic plane) spinning in a conical manner, once every nearly 26000 years.

Now, it is the tilt angle with the ecliptic plane (nearly 23.5 degrees) that gives earth its seasons. But though this is a fixed angle, its orientation isn’t. In theory, at noon of the Summer Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere (21 June), the sun is exactly vertically up on the Tropic of Cancer. Likewise, this happens on the 21st of December on the Tropic of Capricorn. But as an outcome of precession, the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are not fixed marks, they are moving towards each other by nearly 15 meters annually each.

What this all means is that with or without human intervention, with or without any carbon di-oxide build up in the atmosphere, with or without unpredictable major climatic changes, even without the earth turning upside down and thus reversing the geographical poles, the seasons will “naturally” reverse between the two hemispheres every 26000 years.

This is known fact, and has been known for a very long time, centuries in fact, but for some reason, climatologists do not want to talk about it. They instead prefer to adopt unproven theories that are based on no more than fearmongering.

What adds insult to injury is that the fearmongering reports are very dishonest when they try to cover up their footsteps and failed predictions.

Ten years ago, Al Gore said we had ten years to save the planet from the imminent man-made climate change. He also spoke about the consequences of disturbances made to the Gulf Stream and the freeze that would follow. Not only none of the above has happened, but now those same climatologists are using a new cop out because they cannot explain the reason behind the current freeze in the Northern Hemisphere. They are calling it the Polar Vortex.

The Polar Vortex phenomenon is not a new thing to science either. It has also been a known fact for quite some time. It was first described in 1853 long before any human intervention could have caused it. However, neither did Al Gore warn about it nor his protagonists. They are now conveniently using it to “prove” that earth is having this phenomenon BECAUSE of man-induced global warming.

In their spin, they seem to be successfully selling the bizarre story that the Northern Hemisphere is freezing because earth is warming.

If what they are saying is true and that we are now experiencing much higher and much lower temperatures in different parts of the world, then on the scale of what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere right now, we should be seeing temperatures higher than 70 Celsius in Australia. But no one is asking why we are not. How is it that intelligent people are not making those analogies or at least questioning them?

Yes, the climate is changing as it always did. We know some of the reasons behind it. One of the biggest would be the spinning of the polar axis a mentioned above, but this aspect is never mentioned, none what-so-ever. This is like trying to keep a room warm and worrying about a tiny crack in the wall and ignoring an open window.

The human-induced climate change theory has all the hallmarks of controlled opposition. It is a brain-washing technique in which big players control the minds of well-willing people by keeping their positive energies focused on causes that look of great importance, all the while remaining totally oblivious and turning a blind eye to the real problems facing the planet and humanity in general.

And of course, we should not forget the multi-billion dollar climate change business. How can we?

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi, January 26, 2020

Young people are by virtue progressive and forward thinking. Furthermore, the warlords and some Western governments have learnt the hard way during the 1960’s and 70’s that youth power cannot be ignored. The Vietnam War came to an end not only by the resilience of the Vietnamese people, but also because of the efforts of Western peace activists who were predominantly young.

With this lesson learned, the warlords and traders of blood have reverted to deviating attention from their dirty deeds by creating a cause that is both popular and seemingly dangerous. This is how and why the anthropogenic (ie human-made) climate change scare was created. With the eyes of people, especially passionate energetic young people looking the wrong way, the plotters are able to continue with their wars, genocides, slave labour camps, weapon trades, pillaging the resources of poor nations, sex slave trade, economic inequality, and so forth and have their crimes go unnoticed.

The anthropogenic climate change theory uses fossil data to prove its validity, but fossil data indicate that historic increases in temperature resulted in higher CO2; not the other way around. The theory doesn’t have any scientific backing at all.

This is the biggest false flag and social engineering plot ever perpetrated. It is ‘controlled opposition’ at its best. It is meant to divert your attention and keep your eyes off the ball. All major Western political parties are benefiting from it. The Left is gaining mileage by presenting itself as the globally conscious and progressive political base. And even though the political Right is on the surface against it, in denouncing it without showing the real evidence, it is trying to present itself to “big business” that it will always be on its side; after all, this is where their funds come from.

Wake up.

ARTIFICIAL CLOUDS; FACTS AND MYTHS: April 7, 2022 Iman Safi

 ARTIFICIAL CLOUDS; FACTS AND MYTHS:

The first section of this post is not a matter of personal opinion. These figures are all based on basic established facts and are verifiable.

1 mm of rain per m2 = 1 Lt

1 mm per km2= 1000,000 Lt= 1000 m3

1 m3 of water is 1 Ton

During the recent flood on the East Australian Coast, the area was at least 1000 km long and 100 km wide ie 100,000 km2.

1 mm per 100,000 km2= 100,000,000 m3

1000 mm per 100,000 km2= 100,000,000,000 m3 = ie 100 billion (Bn) m3

1 m3 of water is 1 Ton. 100 Bn m3=100 Bn Tons

In other words, the amount of rain that fell over the Australian East Coast is within the range of 100 billion tons. This amount could have only from 100 billion tons of clouds.

The Calorie is a unit of heat/energy. It represents the amount of heat needed to lift the temperature of 1 gr of water by 1 degree Celsius.

Water does not need to boil in order to vapourise, but it needs energy/heat. To vapourise 1 gr of water needs 540 Calories

To vapourise 100 Billion Ton= 54,000,000,000,000,000,000 Cal

Or 5.4X10(19) Cal

Heat produced in Hiroshima = 1.5X10(13) Cal

This means that heat needed to vapourise 100 Bn Ton of water is 3.6X10(7) ie 36,000,000 more than the heat generated in Hiroshima.

Moreover, total global annual production of energy by humans =

14.8X10(19) Cal

This means that heat needed to create the clouds that produced the flooding is equivalent to 30% of the total human annual global energy production.

The above figures are based on the simplest principles of thermodynamics. I did not make them up.

I will accept scientifically based corrections to the above in case I have miscalculated. But I will not tolerate uninformed groundless criticisms; especially impolite ones coming from ‘friends’.

Humankind does not have the power to create massive clouds, full stop.

Now here is some personal opinion. With all the photos of strange cloud formations, including ones that go straight for hundreds of kms, photos of thick chem-trails and the like, there seems to be evidence that clouds can be steered into certain directions and combined. Furthermore, cloud seeding is an old and developing technology. Moreover, perhaps there are technologies that can trigger off a chain reaction that uses existing natural energy; something akin to how cyclones suck energy out of warm seas water. I don’t know. But all of the videos I saw, and the others that were sent to me by friends, all of the ‘evidence’ provided from Moree and chem-trails etc., do not explain if and how the source of energy that is able to put billions of tons of water vapour in the atmosphere is indeed artificially generated.

The load of an airplane may contain chemicals that can trigger rain from existing clouds, but all the airplanes of the whole world combined cannot carry 100 billion tons.

And if somehow technology has developed to the extent that ‘scientists’ can indeed generate energy equivalent of 36 million times of Hiroshima’s bomb in the Pacific close the Australian seaboard, its impact would have been enormous and not the kind of event that could be hidden.

The claim that floods are man-made cannot be substantiated any more than the alleged theory of man-made global warming and climate change. Ironically however, they have both become political footballs adopted by opposing politics. More ironic is the fact that political proponents of both sides ridicule each other when they are in fact making almost identical (but reciprocal) statements about climate change.

Yes, we need to know that is happening out at Moree. We need to know what the chem-trails are all about. We need honest information and transparency. What we don’t need is paranoia and more irrational conclusions and divisiveness.

No one can overstep the simple rules of thermodynamics, no one. You cannot create energy from nothing. But this seems to be the age of irrationality and talking to brick walls.

All reactions

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi, January 14, 2020

Note: This was penned just before the biggest fear campaign in living memory. "In the dark ages, they controlled you under the guise of religion by fear saying if you don’t obey them you’ll go to hell. Today, they control you by the fear that if you don’t obey them, the whole planet will go to hell, and they are pretending it is science.

It is neither this nor that. It is all about keeping you fearful, dependant and under control. Climate is the new “religion” but the word “heretics” cannot be recycled to describe nonbelievers; they are branded as “denialists”.

Same thought-policing, slightly different tactics."

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi, October 8, 2019

 

On Greta 

Greta Thunberg is attracting huge attention, accolade and criticism; even cruel and sinister criticism. Such attacks on a young girl are unacceptable by any decent human being. What is more sinister however is firstly the fact that she has been endorsed by mainstream media, and secondly the huge deflection she is creating; albeit intentional or inadvertent.

At a critical time in human history, what she is causing is indeed a deflection, and the so-called “climate debate” has been turned into a political football, a ploy for some would-be beneficiaries. After all, how can the world be captivated watching a teenager crying when the bells of war are tolling in the Arabian/Persian Gulf and tension simmering between America and China? How can the world be silent with crippling trade sanctions and embargos in place, all of which threaten peace and stability? How can we expect stability with an unfinished war in Syria, an on-going genocidal war in Yemen, a highly volatile impasse between India and Pakistan, and very uneasy stalemates in Ukraine and Venezuela? And now we are told that we can ignore all of the above, but how “dare” we not listen to Greta? Bizarre indeed.

But as Western media outlets are moving their news bulletins further away from actually reporting news, and as public opinion in the West is becoming akin to the mob mentality on “The Simpsons”, we must get used to this kind of media consumption; because “Hollywood stuff” does not have to be based on reality or concrete evidence.

The irony here is that Greta, like most other climate campaigners, is far from being a scientist. She is a kid. She is surely passionate about what she is saying, but she is a kid. And one of the ironies is that she is not warning us of the most dangerous gas in the atmosphere. After all, there is an atmospheric gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and can turn the mighty Titanic into dust; even under water. Imagine what it might do to the human body. It is very abundant, and we cannot escape it. It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.

Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above theatrical melodramatic approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases and refer to this as science, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.

As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less essential for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.

Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised of oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.

The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.

Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate the temperature on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations (like on the moon) but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.

Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is a political statement and far from scientific truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.

Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.

Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial by-product and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions from their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.

Nitrous oxide is produced in nature and by some industries. Two thirds of it however is produced naturally. Main sources of nitrous oxide emissions | What's Your Impact (whatsyourimpact.org)

When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.

This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, movie stars, opportunists, “scientists”, fear mongers and highly vocal people are all united in vocalizing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.

But have they heard about photosynthesis? Do they know that it is the basic step in food production? Do they know that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere photosynthesis would stop?

We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration come from people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests. This is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this debate.

As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | Center for Science Education (ucar.edu)

Some climatologists who are protagonists of global warming argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. https://www.science20.com/news_account/greenhouse_gases_and_water_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing?fbclid=IwAR3Xp2WJCCRd9cYasM07B6hjtRLgMMNZkWurt7to01IseFOlbD-VjYbS3BE

This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory has any merit, we must then expect similar scenarios around the globe to what happens in deserts.

In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions that have high atmospheric moisture levels, unlike deserts, do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations.

The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high levels of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk over big cities?

Something is certainly amiss.

Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often lash out their anger, and often violently, in response to any counter argument, yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.

But even if the theory about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming is accurate, naturally produced carbon dioxide from volcanoes exceed that produced by human activity by tenfold. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3WFesLrvi8k8U9QFWesBHG35rZGuJ5wFH0Sr0k5dvf_QjCJbPc6VuQLfE

No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3S3QPZWBWJyJ1MQzfi-jmtHCTodp42wiJuL-koiMRMmZvaYtIZF3z4YJw

Among other things, global warming protagonists ignore the fact that hurricanes dissipate energy and act as virtual global cooling natural phenomena. The amount of heat dissipated by a single hurricane “is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet!” NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina” How much energy in a hurricane? - How much energy in a hurricane, a volcano, and an earthquake? | HowStuffWorks By expending this energy and changing it into “work”, hurricanes leave behind a cooling effect, but climatologists working for media outlets do not seem keen to talk about it. They only seem to want to blame “global warming” for generating the hurricane.

When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion. When politicians and groups with vested interests take on board such opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the “thought police” stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.

The term “global warming denialist” or just “denialist” is now akin to a term we know from history; “heretic”.

In the age of the Renaissance, scientists were persecuted and prosecuted in the West for daring to proclaim scientific facts because they were seen to be challenging the rules and authority of the Church.

Fast forward a few centuries, labelling moved from focusing on witches, to Communists, Jews, gays, people of colour, ethnic minorities and Muslims. The latest new demonising label seems to be that of the “denialist”. It is quickly becoming the crime of the age.

When big brother wants to control free thinking, including scientific thinking, the “thought police” always manage to conjure up derogatory catchy terms that are aimed at insulting those who disagree with them. This is one of the basic manipulative tricks of creating controlled opposition. They want people to follow their theories unquestionably, and if one asks to see the science, one is branded, insulted, and labelled.

But why do they do this some may ask? It is all about diverting and deflecting attention away from their crimes that are causing the real problems and dangers facing humanity.

Baby boomers in the West grew up in an era when young people toppled governments and changed the course of history by partaking in peace movements seeking to end wars and achieving peace. People, especially youth, want to feel that they are trying to make the world a better place. If today’s youth find out who is standing in the way of progress and justice, then the beneficiaries of inequity will be dethroned, and this is why the youth are given a diversion, a decoy. If there is indeed such a thing as a “false flag”, then during this era, the human-induced global warming would have to be the biggest of them all.

I am moved by Greta’s passion, but I unashamedly say that her tears do not move me in the direction they are intended to. What does, is seeing children under real and imminent danger. It is the tears of war-stricken children, victims of sanctions and injustice, victims of hunger and the shameless global silence that I really care about. These are the children who have been chased and bombed and ravaged. Some of them have lost their homes, their schools and hospitals. Others have lost their parents, their siblings, body parts and livelihoods. It is a young child who has lost everything and everyone, and tearlessly gazes at the lens of a reporter wordlessly asking “why me” that moves me. “How dare” anyone deflect the attention away from them? More on Greta There is no doubt that the whole world, especially the West, needs huge reforms and even a reset. But what is the alternative that Greta is suggesting? Is the NWO Fascism the alternative that humanity needs? Greta Thunberg: It's time to transform the West's oppressive and racist capitalist system (telegraph.co.uk)

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi , January 6, 2020

 The 2019-2020 Australian fires are a natural disaster of great proportion, but I wouldn’t say unprecedented. The 2009 fires were smaller in magnitude, but led to more loss of life. That said, we don’t know what will the final life loss tally be for a while, and as we brace and snuggle, we pray for the least final count.

What is pertinent here is the fact that the underlying reasons behind the fires are numerous and almost countless. Simply put, and without going into details, the human factors, if any, are highly likely to be the cumulative outcome of the inconvenient marriage of neglect (blamed on conservatives) and political correctness (blamed on the Left).

Instead of investing in hi-tech firefighting gear, our governments opted to spend billions on wars on countries that don’t threaten us, and only to please our international allies so we can count on them if and when invaded by Indonesia or China. How short-sighted they have been turning the blind eye to the imminent threat; and both major political parties have been equally responsible.

Even if investigators prove that the fires have all been the outcome of human activity, then more than likely no political group within Australia will be vindicated. In fact, they may end up equally responsible.

Until proven otherwise, politically-speaking, all sides of the political divide should be potentially perceived with equal accountability, but in the middle of the disaster, it is the Left narrative that has the media listening to. They are having a field day.

Turning the disaster into a political football for political gain is cheap and immoral.

In my humble view, it’s time to put this whole debate, at least within Australia, about climate and human activity away from politics. We need a Royal Commission. We have an international opportunity to lead the world into putting science ahead of politics on this matter.

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi. January 18, 2020

Small posts on climate and related issues by Iman Safi

January 18, 2020

I feel deeply disappointed when some friends, even family members, jump onto my Facebook page and hurl personal abuse simply because they believe in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming story, and I don’t. This is is most ironic given that I can provide the science behind my argument, and they cannot.

Fortunately, most comments I receive are polite, and I often enjoy having civil discussions, but recently a “friend” unfriended me after lashing out in the most inappropriate manner.

The reason I feel saddened is because I see beautiful, intelligent, well-meaning and devoted human beings whom I love dearly turn into malleable brainwashed tools who morph into aggressive and irrational thought control freaks. When I previously said that climate is the new religion, that was not an exaggeration.

I am neither an ecologist nor a climatologist, but I am a scientist in a very related area, a soil scientist with a MSc degree and forty years' experience in land management and sustainability, and I am able to understand most, if not all, of the science behind the climate debate. Environmental conservation is my passion and part-and-parcel of what I do for a living, and I have been a practicing real greenie for decades. I have single handedly planted more trees perhaps more than all of my critics combined, and I’d be among the first in line in defence of forests, wildlife, soil conservation, biodiversity and sustainability. As a matter of fact, I come from an urban background, but my interest in soil science stemmed from my concern about global population growth versus diminishing food supplies as well as environmental degradation.

With that said, I can confidently say that until I see evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that the anthropogenic global warming story does not have a leg to stand on. If and when I see this evidence, I will accept it and fully endorse it, but not before. So, if you want me to believe in what you believe, you won’t be able to convince me by lashing at me personally or by sarcasm. Be civil and prove your worth by providing the evidence.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who believes in something and who doesn’t. What matters is the truth. Advocates of the anthropogenic global warming story try to add credibility to their argument by listing names of prominent people, including movie stars, who believe in it instead of giving priority to science. Furthermore, they tend to make assumptions and take for granted that others agree with them. How many times for example have we heard that the recent Australian fires have undoubtedly been caused by anthropogenic global warming. Where is the evidence I ask? How can any professional reach such a conclusion without looking at the findings of a proper investigation?

But don’t hear the argument against the story from me. Hear it from Dr. Patrick Moore. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation because it “lost its moral compass”. He is an ecologist and a climatologist with decades of experience. He neither comes from Hollywood nor is he a former politician.

Despite the controversy that surrounds him and the accusations he faces of being a corporate shill, in the video attached he is presenting a scientifically sound anthropogenic global warming story.

His argument on CO2 and the fossil records shows that the correlation between historic global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration proves that the former affects the latter, not the other way around. In other videos, he exposes lies perpetrated by Greenpeace and David Attenborough. This makes me wonder whether or not the controversy that surrounds him is a fabricated witch-hunt.

Either way, in this video link he is presenting facts, and if this subject means so much to you that you are prepared to fight with friends and family over it, then watch this 21 min video. See for yourself that there is a valid antithesis that debunks what the protagonists of the anthropogenic global warming story want you to believe.

Patrick Moore | The Sensible Environmentalist - YouTube https://youtu.be/UFHX526NPbE

25 Sept 2015

Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, discusses how we need to look at science and environmentalism together and not just view the sensationalism activism groups show the media. After leaving Greenpeace, Moore has gone on to become what he calls a sensible environmentalist and explains how Greenpeace and other like-minded organizations have moved away from using science as a basis for their projects.

An interesting article on heat below Antartica. 
 https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mysterious-geothermal-heat-source-is-melting-antarctica-from-below?fbclid=IwAR2qAw9s93GQ8nq54-d3Abmz0zrv-Fw6331stUb_Xm6WisSzYT3Zx6-kxgA


IPCC Admits Many of its Gloomy Climate Forecasts Are of “Low Likelihood” – The Daily Sceptic

Refugees are Humans. By Iman Safi 29 July 2013

 Refugees are Humans.

https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/refugees-are-humans/

by Iman Safi / July 29th, 2013

The issue of refugees continues to plague the world with a reality that it prefers to ignore. But the world will either have to face it or opt to continue ignoring it at the risk of having to deal with graver consequences sooner or later.

The number of registered refugees has risen significantly over the last few years, and the nations that are would-be recipients of refugees are confronted with policies they need to have in place, with growing concerns amongst their voters regarding numbers of refugees hitting their home turf. Whilst many of the would-be refugee recipient countries are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention, the out-dated criteria and definitions of that 1951 Convention do not deal with the current problems.

The Australian government has recently signed a deal with the government of Papua New Guinea (PNG). According to this arrangement, simply put, all refugees on boats journeying to Australia will never be allowed to settle in Australia.

With the current number of world refugees standing at 41 million, such a measure may deter refugees from seeking refuge in Australia. But what will happen when the world refugee figures is increased to 100 million, 500 million? Is this far-fetched? Not really.

It is easy for the Australian Greens and other humanitarians, as well as some NGO’s, to criticise governments or major political parties. In fact, the position of the Australian Greens about the PNG deal had the hallmarks of political gain rather than proper criticism. A cynic can clearly see that the PNG deal gave the Greens a field day, but at the end of the day, they not only failed to address what makes refugees refugees – they offered no alternative policies.

The Greens appear to want to be humanitarian and benevolent. If they had it their way, one should ask them, how many of the world’s 41 million refugees do they think Australia should take? If they open up the doors for the boats, and this seems to be their only vague policy, how will they deal with the consequences of the precedent they will be setting for the refugees – and their smugglers?

The current PNG option has not yet been tested, and it may or may not work. If it does, it may work for as long as the number of boats is manageable. But PNG may not turn out to be a bad enough alternative to deter refugees anyway. This will all depend on what refugees are running away from and what they view as preferable alternatives.

Thus far, each of the receiving countries has been trying to single-handedly deal with the problem in a manner that serves their own short-term interests and appease their own voters. What they are totally ignoring are three main points:

1. Addressing the reasons that create refugees

2. Adopting a global approach to solving the problem

3. Having policies that will be able to deal with much higher numbers.

At the present time, the fact that wealthy nations, most of whom are would be refugee recipients, are contributing greatly to creating global inequity. They are conducting needless wars, exploiting resources, imposing sanctions, using the underdeveloped world as a venue for slave labour and more, thus hugely contributing to creating the refugee “problem.”

These conditions have created many refugees from countries such as Palestine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, to name very few.

This basic aspect is currently totally ignored by the culprits, who, instead of addressing it and accepting their responsibility and role, adopt very shy refugee intake policies. With this prevailing attitude, it would not be unrealistic to assume that for every refugee they take in, they turn away ten, and maybe create one hundred.

What is also often overlooked is that by far, the highest numbers of refugees settle in neighbouring countries that are not in a position to take refugees. Jordan, a country of limited resources and very little water to supply the needs of its 6.5 million citizens, had to accept one million Iraqi refugees and most of them are still unable to return home 10 years on.

Jordan, a decade later, was again inundated by another wave of refugees, another million, this time from Syria. This figure is not officially confirmed, but the figures available show it to be about accurate. This amounts to one third of the country’s own population. This is equivalent to Australia being inundated by 7 million refugees, or the USA inundated by 100 million refugees.

A global approach needs to be based on understanding the underlying facts behind the problem. Thus, nations that have been bigger contributors to the problem should bear the bigger responsibility in resolving it by way of accepting more refugees, that they have, in reality, created.

The way the world is currently, makes it unlikely to expect that the above is foreseeable. But as problems generally get worse when not addressed at the right time and in the right manner, the refugee problem could escalate to an extent that in the absence of a realistic global moratorium, individual nations, may move further and further to the right and their constituencies become more radicalized.

In Australia, the Australian Labour Party (ALP) and the Liberals are already competing in their draconian approaches. The ALP changed course in light of over 20,000 refugees arriving annually “illegally” by boats. The Greens are not offering any real policies other than criticizing the major parties.

Being an island nation, Australia is in a fortunate position that under any situation, provided that its surveillance is up to scratch, it will be able to detect refugees, spotting them long before they arrive. Other would-be refugee recipient nations often have no such facilities.

Spotting them is one thing, dealing with them is another. In the absence of a proper global approach, what will nations like Australia do if or when the numbers rise ten folds or more?

If the rich world (aka the “Free World”) continues to exploit poorer nations, to ravage their homelands with needless wars, exploit their resources, pollute their land and water, build factories that are best described as slave labour camps, it cannot continue to wipe its hands of, and pretend to be a part of the solution when, in fact, it is the main cause, instigator and major contributor to the problem.

If this neo-colonialist “contribution” can be stopped, the world can then turn to face dealing with “real refugees”, environmental refugees, drought, earthquake and other natural disasters refugees. Aid organizations can then be better able to focus on nation-building programs rather than refugee-camp building programs. Thus, the intake of refugee migrants can then be dealt with realistically and effectively.

Depending on how quickly the problem escalates, how high the refugee numbers grow and how many manage to dodge border security measures of the receiving nations, depending on how to the right world policies shift and what moves the sentiments of voters at the time, slogans such as “stop the boats” may be rewritten to say “bomb the boats”, and they may become the clincher to put a PM in Australia’s Lodge or even a President in USA’s White House.

If the world continues to sweep this tragedy underneath the carpet and continues to create more refugees, we may one day witness air-force planes and drones programmed to bomb boats of specific shapes sizes and colours.

We may see naval ships bombing refugee boats at sea without prior warning, and trade ships banned from picking up victims at the pain of getting bombed themselves.

Is this scenario too far-fetched? It is for now, but if countries like Australia start receiving 1000 boats a day (and the USA receive ten-fold), then desperate calls will attract desperate measures – this applying to both the refugees and the nations they are seeking refuge in.

The situation of refugees could become so dire, they will be prepared to take ever higher risks – risks that those who have not lived through the terror of war will never, ever, understand.

STERN REMINDER OF POTENTIAL NEW TRIALS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY