I am afraid, I will make myself really unpopular with everyone here. I just saw this so I couldn't let it go. Keep in mind, I agree that the Climate is changing, but not in the way people think. I also believe that regionally produced food needs to be supported. Being self-sustaining for food and critical supplies is an important issue.
The issue that I have is that humans are being blamed for this, with the idea that humans can fix this. In Canada a large percentage of our income is taxed and they added a 15% Carbon Tax on top of that. Obstensively this is to reduce our carbon footprint by making car driving more expensive. What they fail to report is that Canada has forest fires annually. A fire from 500 years ago is particularly significant. We have trees in Canada that require fires for reproduction. Certain Pine cones will not open unless they are exposed to flame.
Why do I mention forest fires? One major fire produces the same amount of CO2 (and other particulates) as all of the cars currently being driven in Canada. Major fires don't produce the same amount as the cars in one year. A fire doesn't produce the same CO2 as two years of Canadian car driving. Canadian drivers would need to stop driving for 100 years to make up for one of the large fires that occur every year.
Before going to further, perhaps I should ask if you paid to see the exhibits at this museum. Would you pay the amount if it was the "Museum of Nothing Unusual?" People are being paid to promote the idea, that humans are responsible for climate change.
One of the biggest impacts of climate change is the warming of the Earth's surface, which is causing sea levels to rise and glaciers to melt. This is a major concern, as it can lead to more frequent and severe storms, droughts, and other natural disasters.
This is entirely true. Climate Change does cause the sea level to rise. Ask the descendents of the underwater city of Dwarka which is 40 meters below the surface. The following video comes from people who report the sea level rise from sites all around the world. A rise of 2.2 millimeters per year indicates that sea level rise is plateauing.
The worst case sea level rise that I have ever seen recorded was in the Baltic with a rise of 4 cm. Upon closer inspection of the data, they neglected that the land below and surrounding the Baltic area had risen by 9 cm. This was an artifact of Glacial rebound, not of increase water in the area.
It isn't surprising that the climate models used to promote a human cause are inaccurate. The science is not in. This article that was only published a few days ago Application of Solar Activity Time Series in Machine Learning Predictive Modeling of Precipitation-Induced Floods demonstrated that prediction looking at the variables pointing at the sun as the main determinant were more accurate.
"It was found that the most important factors for flood forecasting are proton density with a time lag of 9, differential proton flux in the range of 310–580 keV, and ion temperature. Research in this paper has shown that the decision tree model is more accurate and adequate in predicting the appearance of precipitation-induced floods up to 9 days ahead with an accuracy of 91%."
If I asked you the question about what if you could step out the door, into the 1700s what would the temperature be. That would place it squarely in the Little Ice Age, so temperatures were much colder that today. What if I posed the same question but placing into the Medieval Warm Period. The temperatures were significantly warmer than today. What evidence do I have for that? In Lost Viking ‘highway’ revealed by melting ice you will find reports of physical evidence supporting the hypothesis that it used to be warmer than now.
Imagine you find a ice patch covering a road that is in the far north, and it in melting is revealing something that has been buried for 1000 years. Doesn't that suggest that the temperatures are only now reaching the same as they were 1000 years ago?
In 1979, an article was written - Tree-Line Dynamics in Ungava Peninsula, Northern Quebec. This paper and many written subsequently have proven that a fire stripped a forest in Northern Quebec (Canada). The tree-line was never able to re-establish itself so is hundreds of kilometers further south than it used to be because it still is colder than during the Medieval Warm period.
