It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Fiction Of Climate Science

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by nik1halo

Interesting. I was too very upset that none of the TV channels available in the UK (except Russia Today, and a very brief blip on BBC during the night discussion show). But perhaps they know what they doing, blowing up the news too quickly may not make a desired effect, they need to time it right before the Copenhagen to achieve whatever they want to achieve.

There was a great documentary series about the planet (it may have even been EARTH: The power of the Planet) which said something that stuck with me:

The planet is very clever, it survived much longer time than humans can dig back. It knows how to cope with various changes in solar activity and so on. Apparently, there are number of things (plants and stones, mineral deposits) that balance out the temperature. If it's too hot, more CO2 is absorbed by these things and climate cools down, if it's too cold more of it is released and climate warms up. There are other factors that influence the climate, it's very complex, virtually all living things affect it in unusual ways, as if planet accommodates changes in fauna and flora by changing the climate. More humans on Earth, warmer climate, more food to accommodate the changes - magic

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by nik1halo

Yep, you heard it here folks, the MSM have FINALLY caught on.

ITV have gone up a notch in my eyes and earned their name of INDEPENDANT TELEVISION.

Of course it is a bit too little too late. I do not think TPTB give a hoot if we figure out we have been conned at this point. If Obama locks us into a treaty , International law will not recognize that the treaty must be ratified or our Constitution and the Surpreme Court states we can break a treaty if it harms the USA.

From the point of view of TPTB, once Obama signs away our sovereignty they are not going to let us have it back. without a major fight on our hands.

This is the point of view of the international lawyers

Provisions in treaties and other international agreements are given effect as law in domestic courts of the United States.... All treaties are the law of the land....

If the international agreement is a non-self-executing treaty, it would not supersede inconsistent state or local law in the same way a federal statute would, but the courts nevertheless would not permit a state of the union to force the United States to breach its international obligation to other countries under the agreement. The state or local law would be struck down as an interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs....

A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.

To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding. It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited....

However others disagree with this "reading" of treaties"

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17....

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

This is definitely the time to be aware of what our actual rights are as far as the Constitution is. To be aware of State nullification, State's tenth Amendment resolutions and Jury nullification.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by SmokeJaguar67

Yes, I have given up trying to convince the rabid pushers of the Global/ist Warming agenda.

I think we need to start referring to them for what they are, Globalists. They want to cede more of our freedoms away.

reply to post by crimvelvet

I am going to embed the chart you posted. I slowed it down and made it a little smaller.

S&F OP, stars for everyone, since the acolytes have not appeared yet.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:52 AM
Thanks for the reminder of how it was not so long ago....

Here's a google news archive search on Global cooling from the time range 1970-1978..


try this article for starters,

St. Petersburg Times - Jul 21, 1974

Recognize anything? Like where one of the scientists quoted is located?

Also please pan left on the archived article to view the chart that was being used to fuel the coming Ice age argument..

[edit on 12/8/2009 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

Yes, I hope we can waken enough younger people to this. I believe they are helping to push this.

Just as in cults where they brainwash by repeating the same things over and over, our younger people have had this agenda pushed at them now for 10-20 years. I believe the cut-off is around 35-38 because people of that age group and older can remember the Ice Age cometh propaganda, I know I do.

A damn Wisconsinite, well we breed em strong here but I guess we breed em dumb also.

I am going to do a search on him to see what his stance is now. If it is with the warming agenda he is a hypocrite. Have not seen that article.

I do have a thread on the Global Cooling of yesteryear. I do not remember that article. Anyway good find.

edit to add-

Alright, Dr Reid Breison pulls it out for the Wisonsinites.

A quote-

Reid Bryson: I'm not skeptical about global warming. It's occurring. The question is, what is the human hand in this? Back in 1968, I gave a talk at the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] suggesting that people could change the climate a little bit, and I was laughed off the platform. Now some of those same people say the human influence is the only thing that can change the climate. That's simply nonsense. We know that the climate has been warming at least since the early 1800s. Why was this happening before all that carbon dioxide was released during the industrial revolution? Until they answer that, they can't say why the current warming is going on. They say in the last 50 years, temperature and carbon dioxide are correlated. Okay, but how much causality does correlation show? Nothing.

Quote from this site-Pete's Place

[edit on 12/8/2009 by endisnighe]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

another piece from TIME magazine Monday, Jun. 24, 1974...

... As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round...

How did this whole deal do a 180? I am definitely not an expert on this topic, but if the scientists were soooo wrong with the 70's ice age deal, how can they claim to be sooooo right this time around?

Who's really behind this ?

edit to add article date

[edit on 12/8/2009 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

No, I'd say 20-25 is the cut off, because I'm 28 and not many people my age believe in it either, although talking to some younger friends, they buy it hook line and sinker

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by nik1halo

No, what I meant to say was that the ages I mentioned remember getting hammered with the Global Cooling scare tactics of the 70's and very early 80's. Never meant any disrespect at all.

Yes, a couple of my nieces and nephews tried to warn me of the perils of the Global Warming. All I did was print up one of the old papers and told them when I was a kid it was the cooling scare. They now look at things with distrustful eyes. Hate to do that to kids but the sooner they wake up to the truth of the world the better.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

I believe two fold. Scientists in certain fields like climatology have to sensationalize their findings to be able to get grants.

Second, their is always people that can sell snake oil for outrageous money. I believe this is snake oil with a purpose. Control. I would not be surprised if this was not hatched right at the end of the cooling scare.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:02 AM
What a great thread, not all the usual rabid shouting.

As worried as I am about the coming economic horror of cap n trade I think I am more concerned about the death of science. Why would anyone trust science about anything after this?
I fear when the people wake up (assuming they do of course) that scientists may wind up burned at the stake. Now there might be some that deserve it but humans are humans and we do tend to get carried away.
Are we perhaps headed for another 'dark ages' ?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

I am going to embed the chart you posted. I slowed it down and made it a little smaller.

Thank you very much. Computer literate I am not. Great chart isn't it?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by Chett

Yes, I believe a lot of us here are just going to quit arguing with the denying denyers.

At least I am.

Yes, a dark age is coming and I do feel bad that another science has been co-opted into their secrecy fold.

reply to post by crimvelvet

That chart is excellent, I wish I would have know of it about a week ago. It may have helped a lot of us with the acolytes.

The obvious manipulation of the numbers cannot be denied. Of course I can see the argument already, well of course adjustments were made, once better data came to light it was plugged into the graphs.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

I will tell you what is not fiction. Since 1968, I have been flying over Greenland on ferry flights, either St Louis to Saigon or Danang (going the long way via Thule and Rhein Main for support services, or more recently Alaska to Europe via Thule, when open, or Nuuk. And the ice is disappearing. We can play rock golf now out behind the hospital at Thule. It used to be covered with ice. This is about 500 miles from the North Pole and 850 miles, plus or minus ABOVE the Arctic Circle. From 45,000 feet, I can see 300 miles in every direction. In northern Greenland, that is coaast to coast.
Neither Exxon-Mobil nor Al Gore can change what I see. What I see worries me. What I read here worries me more. There is a total lack of really critical thinkimg. The poster's positions correlate perfectly with their political persuasion. Hate Obama=CC denier, etc.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

During the days when we still incorporated parks and sidewalks into communities, and many of our homes sported porches, parlors, libraries, atrium's, gardens and drawing rooms... avoid a heated argument and nasty display of temper
(one that might damage your reputation and future plans)
it was considered polite at social gatherings
to try and avoid contentious topics like politics and religion.

It was considered safer in civilized, polite society,
to keep conversations limited to harmless topics
like personal health and the weather...! lol

We've come a long way baby!

What direction? I don't know....but WE certainly have come a long way...

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:30 AM
The notion of global cooling being much more than media-hype and supported by a scientific consensus is fictional. A myth. One generally pushed by deniers.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Petersona, William M. Connolleyb, and John Fleckc

a. NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
b. British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
c. Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by melatonin]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:38 AM
Oh hello again! Welcome to Climate and the whole next phase of it... Where a book, yes a BOOK is yet again thrust as proof in our faces.... Oh but its from 1975, and 19 scientists wrote it, and there is even a paragraph or so of CIA talk. Hot, cold... Mild or warm and maybe a chance of rain.

The Weather people cannot even really get it right these days, however a book from 34 years ago just happens to not only get it 100% right after all...

Everyone is sick of hearing about climate, and all these changes. What do you expect, we have been lied, cheated and etc about issues all the time. The only truth we have is that people lie... They lie for gain. Lying is normal. This must be a lie then.

Until we all have access to our own personnel climate checking systems, that tell us 100% truth then for all I give a crud about, the only gain in climate babble is self gain... $$$.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

How did this whole deal do a 180? I am definitely not an expert on this topic, but if the scientists were soooo wrong with the 70's ice age deal, how can they claim to be sooooo right this time around?

Who's really behind this ?

Maurice Strong is point man.

In 1971 he became a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation

In 1972 he was preaching "Global Warming" and "Environmentalism" to Greenpeace et al. under the UN umbrella

In 1974 the mass media did an about face.

In 1978 the temperature did not actually start rising until 1978 six years later.

Of course with the publication by Gleissberg in 1971, describing the solar cycles and linking them to the mini-ice Ages, they knew an up swing in the temperature was due and would last twenty to thirty years. plenty of time to do their dirty work.
This is a more current paper on the same cycles, predicting a mini ice age

The Rockefellers and other foundations funded the Political Activists and the UN gathered them into the fold as UN sponsored NGOs.

"Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues," notes Peter Spiro. "Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots." The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations."

It was done very much on purpose of course.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Richard Haass, Club of Rome Document, 1991, “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993

Compare it to Maurice Strong in 1972:
As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto's Saturday Night magazine:

It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe."

This from Radio for Peace International when Strong took over the University for Peace
in El Rodeo, Costa Rica. "The Radio station`s access gate was locked with chains and patrolled by armed guards employed by the University for Peace."

The university's administrator, Canadian Maurice Strong, came in on
a wave of influence based on the promise of Ted Turner's foundation
to give a billion dollars to the UN. His connections to the Turner
foundation, the World Bank, and to those environmental groups you hear
criticized for allowing domination by big business, are just the tip
of the iceberg.

nyone searching "Maurice Strong" on the web encounters a very
interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story
becomes "Curious and curiouser") If we can believe even 10% of the
story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of
subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig
leaf of NGO's that he uses for cover, Strong's real alliances are with
the enemies of the UN, which they are busily "reforming". His
comprehensive biography is posted on the webpage of an anti-UN

Heck even the Political Activists that get to know Strong do not like him and recognize him as a Judas goat!

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:40 AM
ah yes, politics and climate. two things needed to create a storm.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Neither Exxon-Mobil nor Al Gore can change what I see. What I see worries me. What I read here worries me more. There is a total lack of really critical thinkimg. The poster's positions correlate perfectly with their political persuasion. Hate Obama=CC denier, etc.

Good point 4nsicphd, I guess we all a bit biased. I'd like to think that my political persuasion is not directly correlated. I see what you're saying; it is warmer now than 20-30 years ago. Back then it was cooler than 20-30 years ago.

But what I don't see is the direct correlation (or any correlation) of human activity to the amount of CO2 (and don't forget methane, which is about 25 times worse as greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. the correlation is not there. I agree we have to rethink the way we do things. I am certainly not fond of smelly cars, and I like the idea of solar power, but let's not bend science to suit our desires. It is wrong to lie as a scientist and scientific method MUST NEVER be coerced to show untruthful results.

Politicians will run with anything that perpetuates their career. AGW agenda perpetuates their career. Science is fed largely by the same hand and it dares not to bite it.

The money, effort and precious time is thrown to fight bogus problems distracting people from real problems. It is important to see who are those "lovers of the planet" that push it. Chances are they don’t give a flying hoot about the planet. This war on AGW is the same as war on terror; its beauty is that it can never be won. We’re going to be taxed more and more, because previous taxes wouldn't have helped, it never ends. Make no mistake, the solution in Copenhagen will not fix the climate change, it will simply facilitate globalist agenda.

Question: if Devil came and told you that he can make all people happy, or that he can stop the war, or hunger, would you just say "go ahead, do it"? No, you'd think what's the catch. Now, what's the catch in AGW propaganda?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:09 AM
Thanks for the info crimvelvet

if this is true...

In 1974 the mass media did an about face.

then the article here, that quotes Professor H. H. Lamb , the CRU founder, in 1974 would lead one to believe that the CRU's position was in conflict with those associated with Strong..

Am I getting this right? If so, when did the CRU flip to the Strong position?


[edit on 12/8/2009 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

Neither Exxon-Mobil nor Al Gore can change what I see. What I see worries me. What I read here worries me more. There is a total lack of really critical thinkimg.

Being skeptical of AGW DOES NOT equate with saying it has not gotten warmer. It DOES NOT equate with condoning polluting that is just typical media propaganda to keep believers from listening to the other side.

The Scientific Method says ALL theories should be met with skepticism and if they can not explain one little fact then they are FALSE!

First it has gotten warmer. The whole history of earth is cycles of warming trends and cooling trends with Ice Ages dominating.

What skeptics are saying is

1) The climate is very complicated.

2) It is arrogant to state we know all there is to know and a minor gas CO2 runs the whole show.

3) It is arrogant to state Mankind's addition to the amount of gas overwhelms feed back mechanisms when we do not know all the feed backs, how they work, or until recently were not even aware of the million undersea volcanoes and vents adding minerals and gases to the sea. CO2 lags temperature and as the temp warms the seas release CO2.

4) It is arrogant to state the sun is stable and therefore has no influence based on a measly 50 years of study. Just recently the sun surprised the heck out of NASA by changing more than they have ever seen before.

5) It is arrogant to state we know everything about the earth when we have never studied a magnetic reversal, although it looks like we may get the chance very soon.

6) It is arrogant to ignore the fact the earth has gone through changes all by its self AND it is lying when scientists try to hide the fact it was warmer than today during recorded history at least twice.

Skeptics say WE DO NOT KNOW and neither do you. The frequent failure of the computer models SHOWS they do not know. They did not predict the recent fall in temperatures and they do not know WHY. The AGW crowd also predicted a high number of sunspots for cycle 25 and a start to cycle 25 in the fall of 2007

Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.

Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway.... According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in