Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "The global warming racket" video.

  1. For twelve thousand years, and most likely in cycles before that. Notice that they always mention a rise of "+2 deg C above normal?" That is what the other several cyclical rises have made it to over that 12,000 year time span, before the cycle reverses and we have a drop of "-2 deg C below normal." Each cycle has become progressively shorter each time it occurs as well.
    9
  2.  @redprince3158  Two things are driving it. The first is that man built cities too close to the sea as ports, and as the northern ice cap melts, the sea has steadily risen over twelve thousand years. Places like Hamburg, Venice, Amsterdam, and New Orleans, as well as many atolls and small islands are now feeling the bite, and they want to make the public pay for saving them. The second is that all the western nation's social spending has bankrupted them, and their fiat money scheme is about to crash. They want another industrial revolution (green) to try to pull us out of it, and shore up socialism. However, they put all that manufacturing in China's hands. Solution: Use the next warming cycle (now), after coming out of the "Little Ice Age," and claim that CO2 is now leading and not lagging as an excuse to cry that the sky is falling. They only project a rise higher than +2 deg C over supposedly leading CO2, but they do not know. Their claim, as made by OSS: "Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years." "The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle." The above has been disputed by several academics, who they've muzzled.
    3