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 True Unconventional Truth

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by starheart

Hi Starheart! It's good to see you again.

It's been a long time since I last saw you on ATS. Your last thread ended quite akwardly...

I also have many unrelated sources (found two years ago, i'll have to search through my database to find them) that indicated the numbers and origins of the scientists that promoted GW and the numbers and origins of the scientists that tried to speak by saying that it is still only a theory:

It would be great if you could find and provide these sources to us... It's always great to take a look at the source.

62 scientists claimed that the world was facing devastating GW; they belonged all to the UN, a group that is widely known to be financed by the Rothchilds and Rockefeller (the sames that you know, try to bring NWO and One Religion on Earth; those that works not for the civilians but for their desires of control; those (especially Rockefeller) that admitted financing eugenism [the killing of the "unfit" and "feeble-minded" for the "best of humanity"]).

It's not widely known that UN has been funded by Rothschild. But it is nevertheless a strong assumption. What is clear is that UN has strong links with the swiss bankers and Herzl. And I must correct you about "killing the unfit"... Theodore Herzl said that, not Rockfeller.

while this theory could serve their purpose by showing how "humanity is destroying Earth", a "perfectly good reason" to eliminate 6.5 billions of people (should read the inscriptions of the Rosicrucien Georgia Guidestones, where is it written that humanity should never be over 500 millions, and where the "unfit" baby should be eliminated for the "best of Mother Nature)?

Precisely. GW is fitting this hidden agenda which Theodore Herzl and Albert Pike wrote for our future more than one hundred years ago.

It seems those ancient banking families, who then created marxism and directed nuclear missiles at New York's population, didn't won the nuclear war, but they won the information war. They (and their friends) are now in control of higher science sector. Werner Von Braun, the creator of the V2, got engaged after the war at NASA to assist to the construction of the space program. A Nazi! At Nasa!

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by wirehead

I also know that there's been no significant policy change regarding carbon reductions, none of these big evil scary taxes, and no major shift away from fossil fuels.

Surely worldwide efforts toward efficient hybrids or totally electric cars, solar photovoltaic cells being now available to low-income class (but lacking a bit of effeciency - the technology is not perfect yet), Quebec's totality of electricity (including an entire major world city, Montreal) being generated from water, and implantation of wind fields in worldwide valleys does not count? And yes, I don't know about you, but here in Canada we do have a new tax about carbon consumption during shipping. That means we have to pay for the emission of carbon which the guys made when they shipped the item. Sure, it's not big, it look innocent, but once the government will push global warming theory at the extreme, this will give the government the possibilty of rising this tax up without people complaining too much - the tax rise will be "confirmed" as a "necessary step" by "science". The time when government had to invent an excuse each time it rised taxes will be gone; now the raise will be "scientifically" supported. Here you see science mingling whith economics.

I have no idea what Al Gore said, and I don't care. But I do know that under Bush's presidency, whitehouse funded research into climate change was systematically distorted and obscured.

Distorted in what sense? Of course, distortion would be natural since Bush's family was involved in owning an oil industry in the South of USA. And, to be frank, Bush was crazy. He had a fit over brocolis once (some suggested it was because he had thyroidal problem so he was force-fed brocolis, which are rich in minerals, as a child, thus his dislike for them), it made it to the news.
You didn't see An Unconventional Truth? You definitively should take a look, see by yourself. Al was a key figure in promoting the theory so that people start believing in it. He was so convincing I even believed him, myself, before I start thinking about heat reflexion inacuracy, trend confliction and voluntary omission of information in his movie.
He shows glaciers melting in middle of summer and call it global warming. He puts alot of dramatic tone, he's a good actor. He say he made "terrible mistakes" as a child, that common people dig the Earth using hundred-thousand dollars machines instead of shuffles, and adds a bit of comedy by showing a clip from the Simpsons. He say he keeps doing seminars but what he forgot to say is who pay him to do all this travels around the world, and how much his jumbojet cost to buy, and still cost him each time he fills its tank with polluting gasoline.

I know that the United States refused to ratify the last major attempt at an international climate change policy agreement.

So I don't see how climate science has a stranglehold on our politics. In fact it looks to be the opposite.

You are referring to Kyoto. The reason why US didn't signed it was, the US said, because "we will find our own way to reduce CO2 emissions. " And they did. While other countries struggled in vain to fufill the irrealistic treaty, California was cleaning itself. It was one of the most polluting states. Other states followed. California was US's kingdom of cars. Now it's the kingdom of Green (and New Age religion, but that's something else). But most of the US electricity is still fueling on coal... So does Japan, in which Kyoto was signed.

I see science has to request funds, which means, it could serve as a potential weapon which has the power to back politics. Climatology is no longer unbiased. NASA tries to convince us NASA is right by feeding us NASA modified data. I see a big bias here.

Since we have agreed that CO2 will block IR emission from the Earth, are you surprised that a satellite would register less IR reaching it from the Earth following an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

That's it! So you agree that the amount of heat the satellite detects is not representative of the amount of heat on Earth's surface? That all that the satelite detects is heat at or outside the CO2 layer?

All of these regional changes in the length and severity of winter are to be expected. You're not also looking at the corresponding increased severity of summer.

A severe summer? It was snowing in Alberta this summer! Sure, if you live in a desert, summer will be severe - there is no moisture there.

I have no idea about any of this, but none of it relates to the evidence which is what I'm trying to discuss. You could spend all the money in the world to try to find evidence that the sky isn't blue, but you couldn't actually make it not be blue.

True, but to use your same analogy, You could spend all the money in the world to educate the people in calling "green" everything which is blue. It's not hard,all you have to do is teach that to kids in schools and invest funds in key media.
My point being, history is always written by the winner. And who are today's winners? Rothschild owns superbanks. I see it completely relevant that we should investigate fundings or economical strategies when it comes to determine bias of a data source.

You would have to assume that all else remains exactly the same and that every interglacial period should have exactly the same mean temperature for this to be suggestive of anything.

You're right, that's a fact: No, our current interglacial temperature is not the same as the last interglacials. It's colder than the last interglacials!

Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI, Barnola J-M, Basile I, Bender M, Chappellaz J, Davis M, Delaygue G, Delmotte M, Kotlyakov VM, Legrand M, Lipenkov VY, Lorius C, Pepin L, Ritz C, Saltzman E, Stievenard M, 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antartica, Nature 399: 429-36
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

Speaking as an astronomer, I can tell you that at least some of our climatological research is based on planetary astronomy. I see no major disagreement with the data. I don't know where you're getting these ideas.

Ah! Another astronomer. Pleased to meet you. So, you were saying you were seeing no major disagreement with the data. Well, I would like to believe that, but I can't help but see a big disagreement:

-Global Warming Theory states the Earth will undergo local warming due to anthropogenic CO2 which traps the sun's incoming Visible light by reflecting its energetic impact on Earth's surface back to Earth.

-Astronomical data about the solar system's movement in space states that the sun follows a wave-like orbit which takes it in and out the Milky Way's nebulous Rift, which is strongly believed to have reduced the amount of IR and Visible light that the Earth received from the sun and thus induced Global Ice Ages four times in the past, covering New York under gigatons of ice.
It is also stating that the Sun is currently going back in.

-Satelites around Earth is registering the amount of IR which are bounced back to space (where the satelite resides) due to Earth's CO2. In the last decade this amount dropped and this drop registered on the satelite. Of course that could mean Earth's outgoing IR got more trapped, but it can also mean the Sun is sending less light in the first place.

And, to conclude: desertification and droughts are also predicted by glaciation. As major and minor inland fluvial and river activity will stop (due to glacial growth, as in California), some lands which were previously fertile and well-watered will turn to sedimentary sterile zones (deserts). In other places, as in Canada, Europe and northern USA, temperature drops will induce atmospheric and ground water solidification to snow, hail and ice. Some desert might actually receive strange precipitation, like when it hailed in Nevada a couple of years ago.

I agree about diminishing our pollution. I agree about finding renewable electricity, and electric cars. In fact it is a priority the government should really put more energy into. What I don't agree is that CO2 is the cause for a GLOBAL warming (which means, warming the whole globe in one event). What I don't agree is when we have to pay taxes for a THEORY, for something that might happen, that probably won't... while meanwhile the government seize this "science"-backed excuse to take more money from our pockets. I feel mainstream climatology's allegiance is not to finding the truth anymore, but now it's about fabricating a "truth". A "truth" which can be used to make us accept even more restrictions. We were supposed to live in the land of Freedom... I can't help but see now a similaritude with 1940 Germany, when National Socialist Party "discovered" a "scientific truth" that Jews were to be eliminated. Those doctors would feel the skull of the people's head and decide if they were OK to pass or not. This skull thing was unproven science, just vague facts about cranial shape/brain shape relation, yet the installed powers used it, promoted it through its media, paid a Jew (Warbug) to tell people that this was the way to go, and the rest is history.
edit on 21-10-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Before anything, I want to say to you, I like your signature
. It's very true.

Thank you for the post. It was quite informative! Although I would like to point out a small detail...

it wasn't until the 1970's that records of global temperatures were being compiled.

Well... I saw some ground measurements being recorded back as far as 1800, and even one which was going back to the end of 1700. Talk about vintage... 1970 was the decade in which they sent satelites to make the measurement in space (or spy on the Russian, depending who you ask...

But other than that, I tend to agree. Prediction on this collection of data is hard. Glaciers seems the key...

Although this reaserch...

reduction of sea-ice area and thickness (Laxon et al., 2004), increasing temperature in permafrost and permafrost thawing, acceleration of movement and disintegration of polar ice caps, and outlet and tidewater glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic (Scambos et al., 2000; Zwally et al., 2002; Rau et al., 2004; Rignot et al., 2003; Thomas, 2004).

...does present an apparent contradiction with this one:

Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB, Walsh JE, Fountain AG, McKnight DM, Moorhead DL, Virginia RA, Wall DH, Clow GD, Fritsen CH, McKay CP, Parson AN, 2002, Antartic climate cooling and terrestial ecosystem response, nature 415: 517-20
From 1986 to 2000 central Antartic valleys cooled .7° C per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

this one

Joughin I, Tulaczyk S, 2002, Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice streams, West Antartica, Science 295: 476-80
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antartica ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the las 6,000 years.

and this one (they were all in the OP).

Parkinson CL, 2002, Trends in the lenght of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99, Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40
The greater part of Antartica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.

Sure, the positive measurements were made in 1999, 2000 and 2002 instead of 2000 for Scambos, 2002 for Zwally and 2004 for Rau and Thomas, but the years are very close nevertheless... I'm gonna take a look at the link now.

I noticed you're from Australia... Well, "QLD" Australia. I hear QLD is a nasty party, attempting to bypass your constitution. I hope they didn't succeeded... did they?

Okay, going to check the link now.

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by swan001

Your last thread ended quite akwardly...

Yeah... two overly scientific/psychologists decided that aliens, remote viewing and all this was a mental illness, so i abandonned the thread.

And I must correct you about "killing the unfit"... Theodore Herzl said that, not Rockfeller.

In fact, although i know that Herlz and Pike said that too, i have a sentence here by i don't know who said this:

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The later was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of WW II)

So you see, that's why i don't trust information that comes from a group related to the Rockefeller...

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:37 AM
Regarding the cooling effect of the volcanic eruption of 1815, it is a bit more complex than the one factor of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. There are three major influences that volcanic eruptions have on the climate:

1. The influence on the ozone Effect.

Volcanoes may potentially destroy part of the ozone layer, which would cause a heating of the climate; however most of the debris go into the troposphere, instead of the stratosphere, which becomes cleared out by rain. Still, it seems that their are indirect influences which have been shown to deplete the ozone to some extent after recent eruptions.

2. The influence on the greenhouse effect.

Volcanoes spew out a ton of CO2, which we know causes a warming effect.

3. The influence on the hazing effect.

The hazing effect causes a cooling trend. We know that the hazing effect from a volcanic eruption is more powerful than the greenhouse effect.

This means there is a net cooling trend.

So the point about volcanoes spewing CO2, yet there being a net cooling effect, is a moot point, when trying to debate AGW due to CO2 releases by industry.


posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by moniesisfun

Right on. Furthermore, it seems that, according to your link (just repeating it here so that ATSers can read it), sulphuric gasses are the cause for hazing. Thanks for the info!

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by starheart

Me neither. Those guys are behind History's World Wars.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in