Do the Global warming fanatics have a hidden agenda?

[buckthorn]

There is lots of money to be made by those who administer this green rubbish, they are inflicting a lot of harm on the majority of people in this country, while making themselves very rich.

 

They are the main cause of the terrible flooding in this country, they in my opinion deliberately failed to do the dredging required, causing flooded homes and farm land.

[honeybee13]

Hello buckthorn.

 

I'm not sure what 'green rubbish' you mean?

 

HB

[determindator]

Buckthorn, I wondered why you think it was deliberate by a certain group not to dredge rivers. Global warming is an emotive subject, some agree, some are sceptical some are non believers. Where ever you come from on this, there will always be climate change. We have ice ages we have hot ages. We are a spinning ball in space gravitating slowly towards the sun. Hopefully the experts in this field will know the solutions to keep the UK afloat as we're talking water. I would like to know if there will be new forestation in necessary places to staunch flow.

[king12345]

I've always said that people will make money from imposing other people being "green".

All the companies running a "green" project are sucking money from governments but in fact they do very little.

We are without doubt affecting the climate, but I'm not sure that we are the main cause of it changing.

If governments were really interested in doing something for the planet, they should start imposing a weekly ban on planes, cars and anything powered by fossil fuel.

Of course with exceptions related to emergency services and people attending daily life saving treatments.

All governments should agree on a schedule so there would be no financial advantage to any country.

Governments deciding not to abide to the "green day" should be sanctioned and cut off from the trading markets.

Unfortunately money talks, so this will never happen and green companies will get richer and richer without any results.

[citizenB]

determindator - it is a fact in my location that farmers have been ordered NOT to dredge the dykes bordering their land. This is because if they were to do so, more water would flow towards the rivers that are then likely to flood the town !

 

This is quite mad because this area flooded quite badly in 1953 with 42 deaths in Lincolnshire - 378 across the country.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/asop/places/floods/

Edited January 10, 2016 by citizenB

[buckthorn]

CitizenB you are absolutely correct in your reply to determindator that local farmers have been

told by the Environment Agency (green dogma) they are not allowed to dredge the rivers, this

has been a major cause of the floods, on their land, and properties around.

Whether you will agree with what I am about to say I don’t know? I am sure somebody!! will disagree.

 

The UN Rio conference in 2000 disguised a worldwide plan for a healthier, more equitable, more sustained planet.

How could anyone make an argument against that? in my opinion nobody.

 

However this means the infliction in slow time of a far less comfortable life for the majority of the people in this country.

The goal is to reduce the world population, according to the UN there are just to many people in the world, which is

detrimental to wild life. Wild life will take over were mankind is no longer allowed to exist. Which is why this flooding

is allowed to take place.

 

As far as global warming is concerned, think back to the winter 1962/1963 it was one of the worst winter the country has

known, I had been living in Libya for 2½ years, I came back that winter, the country was virtually under 6 foot of snow,

everything stopped in the country. What did those same so called scientists now telling us that we are doomed because

of global warming say, There will be a new ice age, the river Thames will freeze over and people will be able to have BBQ’s on it.

 

The biggest laugh was the winter of 2014, when these same scientists, went down to the Antarctic to drill into the ice, to tell us how global warming was making it thin, the ice thicken up and they got stuck, and had to be rescued.

[determindator]

I do agree we have entered a time of questioning the powers that be. People noticing their best interests are not at heart. Coming to our own conclusions.

[tobyjugg2]

There is lots of money to be made by those who administer this green rubbish, they are inflicting a lot of harm on the majority of people in this country,

 

Simple little test for you.

 

Sit in your car in a garage - doesn't have to be a VW, but should not be some green rubbish vehicle - we dont want you to think we want to harm you..

Start your car in that garage, with the doors and windows of the garage shut, but the window of your car open,

Breathe in and enjoy the atmosphere for as little as an hour.

 

(Please dont try this unless you are a climate scientist who knows what they are doing in a controlled experiment situation)

[buckthorn]

The Rio conference in 2000 made no bones about its ambition to reduce the world’s

population massively, they stated that there was just to many people in the world

to make it sustainable, building on the green belt and dredging is detrimental to wild life.

 

The plan is for humanity to be gradually removed from the land and from property

ownership of any kind, to be concentrated in densely populated cities of high-rise,

limited-size apartments.

 

These will be connected by high-speed trains that will be necessary –because private

transport is to banned and most roads will be left to crumble and decay. (that should

stop a few people sitting in the garage with their engines running, what do you recon

tobyjugg2)

 

Wildlife will take over where mankind is no longer allowed to exist.

 

By the way did you know that we give money to Malta as flood aid, Malta does not have

a flood problem, it very rarely rains let alone anything else. No wonder we have no money

to look after our own.

[Consumer dude]

Buckthorn, I wondered why you think it was deliberate by a certain group not to dredge rivers. Global warming is an emotive subject, some agree, some are sceptical some are non believers. Where ever you come from on this, there will always be climate change. We have ice ages we have hot ages. We are a spinning ball in space gravitating slowly towards the sun. Hopefully the experts in this field will know the solutions to keep the UK afloat as we're talking water. I would like to know if there will be new forestation in necessary places to staunch flow.

 

Gravitating slowly towards the sun ? Is there still time for another cag meet ?

[buckthorn]

determindator you ask why it was deliberate by a certain group not to dredge rivers.

 

There is a Hidden Agenda.

The Enviroment Agency’s green rubbish and the lavish rewards given to those who

preside over the many human disasters this policy creates remain incomprehensible

until you consult Agenda 21. All then becomes clearer.

 

Although the EA, local councils and government organisations have signed up to Agenda 21,

few people have ever heard of it, (I only found it by chance, when looking for something else)

and very few have ploughed through enough of it bureaucratic rubbish to recognise its

significance. It has been skilfully disguised, so you would not see it.

 

It is this Agenda that wants to reduce the world’s population, and give land over to nature,

instead if humanity.

 

There are those public servants (mandarins) who are happy, without question, to take part in

the gradual implementation of Agenda 21—whether knowingly, or as much in the dark as the

rest of us—are richly rewarded, and anyone inclined to say ‘Hang on, what’s happening here?

tends to lose their job.

 

See links below. their is also a contrubution from the guardian

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=0QeMVuzuLZTj8wfh3J_QAQ#q=agenda+21

 

 

The Agenda 21 Depopulation of Rural Areas Will Give ...

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/.../the-agenda-21-depopulation-of-rura...

o Cached

o Similar

26 Aug 2014 - The Agenda 21 Depopulation of Rural Areas Will Give Obama Stalin-Like Control Over Food. 26 Aug, 2014 by Dave Hodges. – The “Hunger Games” nightmare scenario presently being implemented and it is called America 2050. The plan is called America 2050 and the concept is based upon the creation of megacities.

 

agenda21news.com/2014/10/target-date-americas-depopulation-set/

o Cached

25 Oct 2014 - The Target Date for America's Depopulation Has Been Set ... will house 6 million Americans each in densely populated Agenda 21 settlements.

 

Agenda 21: a conspiracy theory puts sustainability in the ...

http://www.theguardian.com › ... › Corporate social responsibility

o Cached

24 Jun 2015 - Theorists argue that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development, is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime

[tobyjugg2]

The Rio conference in 2000 made no bones about its ambition to reduce the world’s population massively, they stated that there was just to many people in the world to make it sustainable

 

Do you really think that isn't the situation?

Even/especially if everyone used the same level of resources

or if it stayed the same with less than 1% of the population using 99% of the available resources,

or any situation with a population over at most 4 billion?

[buckthorn]

The subject was flooding and and not dredging of rivers,

stop trying to change the subject.

[tobyjugg2]

The subject was flooding and and not dredging of rivers,

stop trying to change the subject.

I was asking for clarification on part of your statement - as quoted

[determindator]

Gravitating slowly towards the sun ? Is there still time for another cag meet ?

 

If we're quick:lol:

[determindator]

I've mentioned before the stat of iro of 85 people own 75% of the world's worth. I heard on the TV this morn 62 people are as wealthy as half the world's population combined. Staggering.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

 

Isn't it a worry the steel industry isn't being protected, for the communities it serves and producing a material which is important to produce in the UK. Why would you want to lose such a skill? What is the agenda for manufacturing?

 

I believe Elon Musk of Teslar fame said with a solar programme to harness the sun's energy in the best places in the world to do it, the whole world population would benefit and bye bye to the bills we all see for the cost of energy.

[sillygirl1]

I love winding up environmentalists and the PETA mob. Very easy to get them on their own policies. I pointed out to the green mob that the planet will decay naturally and nothing we do will stop this happening.

 

I pointed out to PETA the most environmentally friendly piece of clothing was human skin and we should all go round naked. That would save the planet a small fortune!

[unclebulgaria67]

I love winding up environmentalists and the PETA mob. Very easy to get them on their own policies. I pointed out to the green mob that the planet will decay naturally and nothing we do will stop this happening.

 

I pointed out to PETA the most environmentally friendly piece of clothing was human skin and we should all go round naked. That would save the planet a small fortune!

 

You would have to cut down more trees for fire wood to keep warm.

 

Most climate change is natural and some of it we can do nothing about. We cannot control emmissions from the Sun. Actually they say that man made climate change has probably delayed an ice age.

 

The biggest issue in the years ahead will be pollution and not enough clean drinking water in some parts of the world.

[tobyjugg2]

Most climate change is natural and some of it we can do nothing about.

 

We cannot control emmissions from the Sun. Actually they say that man made climate change has probably delayed an ice age.

 

The biggest issue in the years ahead will be pollution and not enough clean drinking water in some parts of the world.

 

I might disagree with the 'most' in the first point there

I would agree with the second point there

I would largely agree that pollution is one of the major problems, but dont forget the effect that global warming is having on the sea.

 

The science regarding the statements that we should be in at least a small ice age at the moment seems incontrovertible to me at the moment, so if that is true, consider what will happen if our Sun suddenly decides to go back into a hot spell!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We can do something about how the Sun affects us, via the 'denied by some' greenhouse effect and its opposites. The science is there, but the will isn't.

But us being able to do something about it is dependent on us being ready and properly managing what we are doing. by the time evreyone knows for certain - it wiull be too late to do anything.

 

We cant control what the sun does, BUT we can control what we do which magnifies or reduces its effects.

What the Sun does can change dramatically apolitically in a day - we can't.

[renegadeimp]

Regarding amount of people on this planet.. in the early 1700's there were approx 350,000 people on this planet. Thats by all consensus and checks. ( minus various tribes). Right now theres just over 7,000,000,000

 

Its very unsustainable. Something desperately needs to change.

[determindator]

http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/GlobalWarming

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/renewable-energy

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate-change

[ericsbrother]

I'm worried that it will be so hot in this country that we will be growing grapes in York by 2186 (prof RC Selley, petroleum geologisr and climate change proponent) just like in 1186 and 286 (me in response). Difference is he gets paid to say such things (sorry, research funding provides computer model to predict) and I dont. He gets on the telly for saying his bit, I didnt.

[Conniff]

Don't let that worry you, it's very unlikely you will be here in 2186.

[tobyjugg2]

Don't let that worry you, it's very unlikely you will be here in 2186.

 

Just like there were no humans around at all the last time the temperature and weather we are on the brink of was 'normal' rather than once a century freak events

 

2016 is predicted to be the next new hottest year since records began - replacing 2015 as the current hottest year on record, which replaced 2014, which replaced 2010

and with a nice chart in for those who just want a diagram

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/01/20/earths-warmest-year-record-global-warming/79051806/

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

 

a longer view but which only goes up to 2004 - the climb continued as shown above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Pay careful attention to the 0 average temp on the scale

 

 

and The sea is has been soaking up a large amount of heat that we would otherwise be experiencing much more dramatically

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

 

 

Prediction:

If climate/temp/co2 continues at current state without increasing - 15 feet average sea rise within 25 years.

Edited January 25, 2016 by tobyjugg2
oops

[think about it]

I've always staked my claim, even as a Earth Science graduate, as a bit of a sceptic. However, show me enough peer reviewed evidence that isn't funded by a pressure lobby on either side of the oil/green debate and I'll believe anything you tell me.

 

But, that's not the point I've posted now to make. We talk about dredging/not dredging and the impact it has downstream, perhaps more interesting is our dead-set predilection for building on flood plains.

 

Simple facts: trickles, brooks, streams, rivers... They all flood when faced with carrying more water than they normally do and there is precious little, besides a Los Angeles style set of flood drains that flow uninterrupted out to sea, that we can do to prevent that impact if we insist on building on the flood plains that the rivers themselves deposited.

 

Somewhere in the grand scheme of all of this we need to make a decision, we either sculpt the land to meet our needs or we accept that sometimes nature will beat our half-hearted efforts. There's a stretch of major road about 10 miles from here which occasionally floods, effectively cutting off the region for a day or two. Now, the highways agency have chucked a million or so at it and they've put some grids and extra drainage in. Of course, over Christmas it flooded again. Interestingly, despite being the lowest point of this stretch of road, less than 100 meters away is a bridge over a river. A simple slipway could ensure that it NEVER floods again under anything less than absolutely catastrophic flooding of the sort that will see coastal areas under 30 meters of water. But, it will channel that excess water into that river very quickly and so there needs to be changes made downstream to cope with the excess flow occasionally

 

One thing is undeniable, slipways - open drains - flood walls, none of it is pretty. So, make a decision - aesthetically pleasing with slight risk or less scenic but far less likely to flood. I'm sure the residents of those picturesque cities, towns and villages ould be devastated equally by an enormous civil engineering project as they would by occasional flooding.

 

Rivers are pretty to look at, walk by, sit near and spend some time even, but for the love of god - don't buy a house next to one...