UN : Planet To Be Destroyed In 10 Months
In 1989, the United Nations said we only have ten years to save the planet from global warming. Now they say we only have ten months.
See: apnews.com
U.N. Report: World Has Ten Months To Take Action on Climate | Time
More at realclimatescience.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Chris
| #
The nice part about such a short term goal that they have set is that in just 10 months we’ll see that once again they are full of crap and should be dismantled due to extreme ignorance and incompetence. The US needs to leave the stupid Paris Accord, again.
Reply
L S M
| #
I totally agree. The WHO, UN, World Econ forum, etc, are iall in cahoots with CCP. Everything going on in the planet that is fear mongering is a scam for profit and control…. I’ll take my chances with the unknown.
Reply
L S M
| #
I totally agree. The WHO, UN, World Econ forum, etc, are all in cahoots with CCP. Everything going on in the planet that is fear mongering is a scam for profit and control…. I’ll take my chances with the unknown.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Chris, they are saying that in 10 months it will be too late to do anything about it, not that it will come grinding to a halt. That makes me feel really good since COVID probably has made it impossible for the world to react, so in 10 months we should finally be free of their cries since it will be too late anyway, no matter what we do. I like that.
The future has a chance to develop on its own, and I am sure that the Earth is not going to become devoid of life of any type after 10 months. Hooray! 2022 will be the year of liberation, and the Gretas and Gores and the Manns of the world can crawl back into their feathered nests.
Reply
Photios
| #
Perhaps this timescale is linked to the lockdown-induced
collapse of the economy and the Great Reset.
Perhaps this signals the Great Push?
Reply
Andrew Rowlands
| #
With only ten months to wait, when nothing disastrous happens, we can shove it back in their smug faces.
Reply
Alan
| #
The past shows otherwise. There have been endless predictions of gloom and not one failed to materialise. The media never mentions them and the masses have the memory of a goldfish.
Reply
Macha
| #
Be wary of any organisation that has Global or World in its title . No way can they have every individual nation’s interests at heart. Can’t say I am a fan of how globalism is turning out. Looks more like socialism with a ruling elite do as I say not as I do.
Reply
THOMAS W ADAMS
| #
Something akin to this prediction may well come true, even within the predicted time; For it is entirely possible for the next Ice Age onset to begin in earnest within this time constraint.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
If this trend continues by the year 2200 we’ll only have ten minutes till total destruction.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tony, Andy, James,
Because of other things you have written here at PSI, I conclude you three are reasonably intelligent. Not seemingly brain-dead like the evidence of what others continually write.
So how is it that you do not acknowledge the evidence, that the natural air temperature (wherever and whenever) has never been measured to be lower than the measured natural air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and some time. absolutely proves that the measured natural air temperature cannot be 33C (56F) less than measured. Hence, there is no greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide and any other atmospheric gases with similar physical properties??? Isn’t time to totally forget about this GHE get on to consider what really might influences the air’s measured variable daily temperatures???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t dispute what you are saying here. Obviously GHE is nonsense. Less obviously the whole subject is confounded by the semantics of meteorology. From what I remember when speaking to you about this subject previously you seem to still be somewhat captured by these semantics. So, let me ask, do you agree or disagree with what I state in this video:
Proof that Meteorology is Pretending to Understand Storms
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jamies and Caron,
James, I listened to your video because it was only 6 minutes long. I heard you use the common word–Steam (which has nothing to do with meteorology) According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, which purchased by for my University English composition class in 1969, the first definition of steam which I read is: “The invisible gas, or vapor, into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point.” The water referred to is obviously assumed to be liquid water.
Since this steam is said to be invisible water gas (vapor), how do we known when the heated water has been heated to its boiling point? My answer: when we see the liquid water begin to have a chaotic motion. So people might answer: When we begin to see ‘steam’. However, cleanly these people do not know the Webster definition of steam. What they are seeing is the condensation of the invisible water gas (vapor or molecules). Just as we common see the invisible water molecules in the atmosphere to form clouds when they condense.
According to Louis Elsevir the publisher of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638) as translated to English by Crew and de Salivo (1914), a common saying of that early time was: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
Carbon: Elzevir wrote about another common saying of that early time. “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.” Frost and c ice (cirrus) clouds can be seen to form during the coldest temperatures of the polar regions during their winters.
Have a go0d day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, Jerry, if it is true that “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition,” and it is also true that the Webster’s definition is ambiguous (and therefore inaccurate) why do you bring it into the discussion?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
We find out more about what people really think from the questions they refuse to answer than we do from those they do answer.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Jerry how does your theory work in Antarctica? Both by Carrier and Trane Psychometric Charts don’t read that low! Please give me more information to verify what your saying.
Have a good day, Carbon
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Psychometric charts serve a practical purpose, but they are not grounded in concise reproducible experimental evidence:
Here is a thread where this subject was discussed:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.research/c/QOxLdbhLwQ0/m/TVKql-ReCQAJ
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carbon,
In Antarctica and even in Yellowstone they have the phenomena of “diamond dust” where ice crystals form in the atmosphere without the water first condensing out as dew or liquid water. It is “called clear sky precipitation” because no water droplets form and is a result of the air temperature not only being lower than the dew point but also lower than the 80 calories/gram needed to convert 0 C water to ) c ice.
Herb
Reply
Michel neret
| #
Wonderful page humans must be aware to where the world is heading .
Reply