• 👋Hello, please SIGN-UP FOR A FREE account and become a member of our community!
    You will then be able to start threads, post comments and send messages to other members. Thanks!
  • 💪Check Out IronMag Labs Andro Hard® - Powered by R-Andro & Epi-Andro! 💊
  • 👉Check Out Platinum Pharms🌽Corn Hole Sale!🌽

NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s orbit

Arnold

Numero Uno
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
30,899
Reaction score
25,903
Points
113
Location
Las Vegas
Get Shredded!
NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels
Friday, August 30, 2019 by: Ethan Huff

(Natural News) For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.

It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming” (or “cooling,” depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words.

But NASA has thus far failed to set the record straight, and has instead chosen to sit silently back and watch as liberals freak out about the world supposedly ending in 12 years because of too much livestock, or too many plastic straws.

In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. But, again, this information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why deranged, climate-obsessed leftists have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth’s changing climate patterns.

The below two images (by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) help to illustrate this, with the first showing earth at a nearly zero orbit, and the second showing earth at a 0.07 orbit. This orbital change is depicted by the eccentric, oval shape in the second image, which has been intentionally exaggerated for the purpose of showing the massive change in distance that occurs between the earth and the sun, depending on whether it is at perihelion or aphelion

“Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit – 0.07 – it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page,” notes the Hal Turner Radio Show. “Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion.”

For more related news about climate change and global warming from an independent, non-establishment perspective, be sure to check out ClimateScienceNews.com.

The biggest factor affecting earth’s climate is the SUN

As for earth’s obliquity, or its change in axial tilt, the below two images (Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) show the degree to which the earth can shift on both its axis and its rotational orientation. At the higher tilts, earth’s seasons become much more extreme, while at lower tilts they become much more mild. A similar situation exists for earth’s rotational axis, which depending on which hemisphere is pointed at the sun during perihelion, can greatly impact the seasonal extremes between the two hemispheres.

Based on these different variables, Milankovitch was able to come up with a comprehensive mathematical model that is able to compute surface temperatures on earth going way back in time, and the conclusion is simple: Earth’s climate has always been changing, and is in a constant state of flux due to no fault of our own as human beings.

When Milankovitch first put forward his model, it went ignored for nearly half a century. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science confirmed that Milankovitch’s theory is, in fact, accurate, and that it does correspond to various periods of climate change that have occurred throughout history.

In 1982, six years after this study was published, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences adopted Milankovitch’s theory as truth, declaring that:

“… orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth.”

If we had to sum the whole thing up in one simple phrase, it would be this: The biggest factor influencing weather and climate patterns on earth is the sun, period. Depending on the earth’s position to the sun at any given time, climate conditions are going to vary dramatically, and even create drastic abnormalities that defy everything that humans thought they knew about how the earth worked.

But rather than embrace this truth, today’s climate “scientists,” joined by leftist politicians and a complicit mainstream media, insist that not using reusable grocery bags at the supermarket and not having an electric vehicle are destroying the planet so quickly that we absolutely must implement global climate taxes as the solution.

“The climate change debate is not about science. It is an effort to impose political and economic controls on the population by the elite,” wrote one commenter at the Hal Turner Radio Show.

“And it’s another way to divide the population against itself, with some who believe in man-made global warming and some who don’t, i.e. divide and conquer.”
 

Attachments

  • a.jpg
    a.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 102
  • b.jpg
    b.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 102
  • c.jpg
    c.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 102
  • d.jpg
    d.jpg
    17.2 KB · Views: 101
It's the author's assumption to say that our factories and vehicle pollution aren't causing damage at all.

I doubt that NASA purposely avoided contesting the global warming theory in order to stir chaos. More likely, they chose to stay out of the propaganda and had faith that those who choose to read will know better. Now, a few people have discovered this information about the true cause of climate changes and act like it's some elusive information. When in reality people chose to ignore it and likely will continue to do so despite this article and many others.
 
funny thing about these articles and there are many of them, they are never from NASA. chew on that
 
NASA is completely full of shit. Biggest Black-Op slush-fund ever created. Google Werner Von Braun.

- - - Updated - - -

All the climate change/global warming/next ice-age garbage is bullshit too. Its about stealing money.
 
The owner of my company believes the earth is flat.
NASA keeps us from walking off the earth which is surrounded by glacier walls..... Fml
I work for that dude.

BIND THE WRIST, CUT THE TONGUE. CALL IT LIBERATION.
 
Fact is the climate change is cyclical. Look at a graph of the last 100 years and you'll see some crazy shit...changes that could worry you. However...look at a graph of the last 1000 or 10000 years and you'll see...oh hell - this is just cycling through again....just like it has many times before - nothing to pay attention to here people!..NOTHING NEW!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Meh, this AGW debate is just a big distraction from the deadliest danger in our lives: Dihydrogen monoxide!

WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

Now pay attention...


What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
poisonbottle.gif

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.


https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
 
Meh, this AGW debate is just a big distraction from the deadliest danger in our lives: Dihydrogen monoxide!

WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

Now pay attention...


What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
poisonbottle.gif

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.


https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
100% of our rain water now contains deadly hydroxylic acid
 
I turned on the kitchen faucet today and all that came out of it was Dihydrogen Monoxide!




Meh, this AGW debate is just a big distraction from the deadliest danger in our lives: Dihydrogen monoxide!

WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

Now pay attention...


What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
poisonbottle.gif

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.


https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
 
Last edited:
What’s the absolute worst thing that can happen if we move away from fossil fuels? We live on a clean planet.

But what if we don’t act and science is correct? What’s the worst thing that can happen then? Ask the people in the Bahamas.
 
IML Gear Cream!
I turned on the kitchen faucet today and all that came out of it was Dihydrogen Monoxide!

You might want to invest in a water purifier? lol
 
What’s the absolute worst thing that can happen if we move away from fossil fuels? We live on a clean planet.

But what if we don’t act and science is correct? What’s the worst thing that can happen then? Ask the people in the Bahamas.
Fossil fuels work and they create jobs. Maybe in a few decades solar and wind can be perfected but right now its not enough to give all people heat, transportation and power.

Without fossil fuels we would be sent back 100 years. Its a cheap and effective fuel source. Imagine if tomorrow you could no longer use oil or gasoline or power generated by oil and gas.
 
Fossil fuels work and they create jobs. Maybe in a few decades solar and wind can be perfected but right now its not enough to give all people heat, transportation and power.

Without fossil fuels we would be sent back 100 years. Its a cheap and effective fuel source. Imagine if tomorrow you could no longer use oil or gasoline or power generated by oil and gas.


The technology to move beyond fossil fuels already exists and also creates jobs. I already drive a hybrid when not using public transport (running on solar-powered batteries). VW will have fully electric cars within 10 years. In the Netherlands a large portion of electricity is produced by wind. The first major country that moves beyond fossil fuels will have the advantage in the future. Coal is 19th century. Gas is early 20th century. We rely too much on dirty technologies. I’m old enough to remember leaded fuel. I remember NYC in the 1970s. It’s time to move forward.
 
Last edited:
The technology to move beyond fossil fuels already exists and also creates jobs. I already drive a hybrid when not using public transport (running on solar-powered batteries). VW will have fully electric cars within 10 years. In the Netherlands a large portion of electricity is produced by wind. The first major country that moves beyond fossil fuels will have the advantage in the future. Coal is 19th century. Gas is early 20th century. We rely too much on dirty technologies. I’m old enough to remember leaded fuel. I remember NYC in the 1970s. It’s time to move forward.
I'm all for advancing but its just not possible yet. I don't think the average persons understands how much we use fossil fuels and petroleum products everyday so they say they are green but they are not even close.
https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf
 
We build solar panels/windmills ..... using petroleum distillate...
 
I'm all for advancing but its just not possible yet. I don't think the average persons understands how much we use fossil fuels and petroleum products everyday so they say they are green but they are not even close.
https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf

True, but that's still a choice. We could've transformed 100% of our power generation and 80% of transport to fossil-fuel free sources by now had we continued a full nuclear power build-out over the last 40 years. Or even just the last 20, had we put our minds to it. Would've solved a lot of problems including the out-sized political influence of OPEC.
 
...this article doesn't explain anything, really. And it's not from NASA.

Analogy: "Everyone dies -- it's been happening since the beginning of life! Death is normal!" Sure, but if 4 billion people died tomorrow, wouldn't you say, "hey, sure death happens, but this is...a lot too quickly." That's what human accelerated climate change is.

Runaway greenhouse effect is real -- it's what happened to Venus. Sure, if the Earth keeps heating up, it will survive...but humans might not. We're an extremely fragile species, evolutionarily speaking. We can only survive within a very, very narrow set of environmental parameters compared to most animals in the animal kingdom. We use technology to make up for those weaknesses, but human technology likely would not evolve at the same rate were the planet to become too hot, mostly because there's so much pushback.

Most amphibian species are dying out. Many arthropods just behind them -- ones that we need in the human food chain. Both sets of creatures are extremely sensitive to subtle temperature changes and pollution. We are currently living in an extinction event -- accelerated by humans (hunting species to extinction, pollution, deforestation, etc.) Not the first extinction event, sure, but it's one that could've been avoided, had humans had a much better grasp of ecology.

I'm just saying that attempting to simplify the issue doesn't make it nonexistent. At best we make the ecology of the planet better. At worst, we ignore disaster until future generations have to deal with it. Not really sure how it's such an easy thing for people to deny what's happening or say "fuck it, let another generation deal with it."



Source: My degree is a Bachelor's of Microbiology, since Astrobiology is an extremely competitive field that simply has several year waitlists at the few universities that offer it. Fantasy future job is traveling to a new planet and exploring the ecosystem to determine if it's suitable for human life. But not much of a market for that. So I settle for working in Bioterrorism response and New/Emerging Infectious Diseases. Just saying I've had plenty of study in environmental science when I'm basically a CSI when people get anthrax scares.
 
Last edited:
True, but that's still a choice. We could've transformed 100% of our power generation and 80% of transport to fossil-fuel free sources by now had we continued a full nuclear power build-out over the last 40 years. Or even just the last 20, had we put our minds to it. Would've solved a lot of problems including the out-sized political influence of OPEC.
I'm 100% for nuclear but the new green folks seem nuclear adverse.
 
I'm 100% for nuclear but the new green folks seem nuclear adverse.

The old ones were too. It's been nearly impossible to build any new plants since the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in '79. The remaining 109 reactor cores in the country continued to quietly produce 20% of our electricity without pollutants or greenhouse gases but those plants are slowly being shut down now as their expiration dates have come up. Avoiding nuclear meant consigning ourselves to many decades of coal and methane instead, due to simple economic constraints. It's one of the biggest ironies of our time that environmentalists had one of the very worst effects on the environment of any political group, and just for this one reason.

On the whole I believe conservatives are more anti-science (though they didn't used to be) than liberals but there are certainly exceptions like the one above, along with other leanings that are anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO, pro-healing crystals.

Here's a nice summary of some main issues where scientists' views differ with the general public. I'm on the side of science on pretty much every one.

https://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/
 
Get Shredded!
I’ve got a PhD in environmental philosophy, and I understand that people think it’s difficult to transition from fossil fuels. But the transition needs to quicken. We need fossil fuels for the short term, but the transition does need to happen. Now.
 
Some of this shit boggles my mind on how people dispute the science. #trump2020 :jerkit:
 
Back
Top