-15 votes

Proving Agenda 21 supports it doesn't disprove climate change

I think we all agree that the environmental movement is being taken over by globalists in an attempt to tax people globally and gain some kind of complete governance over the world. That much is a given.

However, that has nothing to do with the science behind climate change or global warming. The two are unrelated.

Global warming is the trend of the entire planet's average temperature slowly rising. This has virtually no DIRECT impact on either people or ecosystems.

Climate change is a result of global warming (even a portion of a degree) and it's the combined effect of different-than-normal climate has on both people and ecosystems. It includes variances in periodic and intensity changes in weather which could be both warmer and colder, wetter or dryer, more extreme or less, more catastrophic or more docile. This being what we really care about is why the term was changed from global warming although the former still applies.

Both of these terms are virtually scientifically uncontested among expert scientists in the relevant fields. Members of DP should take another look at this topic to understand how they and the rest of the world are being misled into a full out trap.

Below is a playlist of videos that does the best I've seen at organizing the science in one place in simple terms for all to understand. I encourage members to watch it before commenting. Once that's done, consider that big energy wants people to stay dependent on them while banks want to make money on a new bubble and governments want people more involved in 'commerce'. What better way to accomplish all three than to scare people on a valid concern and then get them hooked on only faux solutions?

Honestly, it's very simple to fix. We make our own energy and stop making CO2 while stop spending money at the same time.

Enjoy. Video 1 (10:41)


And here's the full playlist.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

is that you


LOL! "Stop making CO2!" LOL! ...

... please, you're killin' me here. Too funny!

CO2 is mandatory for plants to survive. Plants are mandatory for humans to survive. So, knock off the bullsh&t and get a clue.

The "climate change" nonsense is junk science. The global satellites that have been monitoring global temperatures for 30+ years show natural fluctuations in the environment. Every year is not the same. Every decade is not the same. But over time, the Earth is self-regulating.


Please ... stop with the junk science and globalist agenda, already. There are actually important topics to discuss.

Your headline is as confusing

Your headline is as confusing as the topic as a whole. Thanks for the link; I'm enjoying the videos. I'm one third through. I find the narrator aligned with your thrust in general, much debunking to do on both sides of a real issue that is largely manufactured or oddly hyped in its tangents. The narrator is a bit more ruthless against the "deniers", and this is evident in video #6. He is guilty of the same thing he accuses the "leaked email alarmists" of doing. He does well in muting the alarm on the controversial language in those emails, but he falls short in acknowledging what it is that Rush Limbaugh compares in believability among conspiracies. The narrator emphasizes "millions of pieces of data" presented in "thousands of scientific papers" as defense against the notion of conspiracy. The narrator fails to include Limbaugh's contextual claim that all that data in all those papers are of a common source. The Jonestown Massacre did not involve poison applied individually to cups of Kool-Aid. I also like the narrator's reoccuring reminder that CO2 is but one factor in the Greenhouse Effect. I take it one step further though, by wishing to remind him that all the gasses together are still not the entire picture. The greenery itself is largely overlooked in being a factor. Regulating the climate in a greenhouse varies wildly upon adding or removing plants [and the manner in which the plants are planted]. I hold out that man's effect on climate has less to do with our effect on atmosphere and more to do with our impact on the Earth's surface. I'm laughing now as I finally read your headline a bit more sensibly with a simple comma, "Proving Agenda 21 supports it, doesn't disprove climate change." :D

Thnx for the focused reply

My apologies for the confusing headline. I now see what you're referring to because it doesn't show the comma everywhere. Didn't notice that before. Pretty significant change for such an insignificant punctuation mark!

I agree with your assessment. He definitely isn't perfect but he is probably the best overall 'voice of reason' I've seen on the subject. I get the Jonestown analogy (will never listen to that idiot Rush again tho) and it would be relevant but I believe there are good correlations between more than just a couple temperature records. Also, I don't understand those people who lump 1000 separate temp stations into one 'source'. They're clearly independent of each other. So it may not be a perfect analogy.

Regarding his one-sidedness, my take on that is that the scientific papers that are peer-reviewed have already been critiqued. If no other researcher, reporter or otherwise expert can find an error in it, I doubt that David Rose, Rush Limbaugh or any of us here will. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but rather that it's lower odds.

I think everyone would agree that there's way too many factors affecting global temp, climate change and the interaction between the two for us to model them all with certainty. But at some point, don't we have to say this is X%, those are Y% & Z% and together, they make up 99.x% so that's good enough to get a picture of what's going on? I mean, we confidently know that natural factors cause a certain amount and that our effect on other natural factors (like deforestation and urban heat islands) cause another amount and then that anthropocentric factors cause a third amount. At that point, can't we make evaluations on our activity enough to agree that it's a problem?

The surface impacts you cite do have a role to play but all the studies I've read show it to be quite a bit less than the CO2 increase. Search for GW forcings to see this. You'll probably even find that the results from those are pretty fast acting while CO2 response is cumulative over many centuries.

In short, CO2 not only blocks IR from leaving to space but it indirectly causes increases in other factors that also enhance GW. Our planet is 33 degC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere and all by itself, CO2 accounts for 10-25% of that total temperature rise. Without this warming, the Earth would be about -16 degC. That's a pretty strong factor and we've almost doubled the CO2 concentration in a very short time. It's for this reason that such an emphasis is placed on it.

So what do you think? Can we separate the issues of GW=True? and AG21=True? apart from each other? As I see it, we've got work to do either way.

Climate change or environmental destruction?

Are we effecting the climate? I think we could have some effect but not in any way that is ever discussed. If you think of all the microwaves we transmit into our atmosphere via radar and such, I wouldn't be surprised. Or local phenomena within heavily concreted cities and such I can see how heat absorption and dissipation effects temperatures locally. On a climate scale who knows.

But we are definitely destroying our environment. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. Whether we are effecting global temperature seems to be the false argument to divert from the fact of mans true environmental destruction and pollution.

You did take science at some point in school right?

You are aware that Carbon Dioxide (CO2), is what every single plant on the planet breaths right? Do you hate our planet? Why would you stop making it?

Just so your aware, CO2 is a GOOD thing.

Contrary to popular belief, CO2 does NOT drive temperature, temperature drives CO2, anyone who has studied the planet at all would know WHERE the CO2 comes from, HOW it is released, and its effects on the planet as a whole.

Since the majority of "global warming" believers have NOT done their research ill inform you.

CO2 is stored at Deep Sea levels. As the Temperature rises, and sea water is evaporated, the pressure changes causing CO2 to come to the surface. While the planet is hotter, which is what caused the CO2 to rise, you then have the appearance of CO2 making the world hotter as it enters the air, but what it actually does it form clouds, which then reflect the suns light back into space, and cool the planet down. Ever been in an airplane? how bright are the tops of the clouds?

Global warming is no more correct, than Global cooling was, when they pushed that 20 years before.

remember this?

Global Cooling argument featured in TIME magazine 1974

SteveMT's picture

The data is wrong. The computer models were wrong.

Read the Daily Paul much?

When 'Scientists' go Wild: Global Warming just HALF of Their Claims; Blame Their Computer Models based on Erroneous Presumptions
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Mon, 09/16/2013 - 15:43

Nope. Not even close

David Rose hasn't reported a single thing accurately on this topic yet. He's taken peer-reviewed research papers and cherry picked single sentences, then reported on the exact opposite of what the paragraph's context says. Been caught at it numerous times now but none at DP trust those facts.

Gotta love the sensationalist headline too. ROFL

Go find a real source and then we'll talk.

SteveMT's picture

I guess if & when this document is released, we shall see.

Are you going to address my post below? I've been patiently waiting.

I'm just glad that the

I'm just glad that the Science isn't settled; that the debate is NOT over; and that there is NO consensus after all.

I'll leave the mindless hand wringing over a harmless gas to people like the OP.
The rest of us should ignore this nonsense and get on with tackling REAL environmental issues.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Troll much?

What has this got to do with the OP?

Does proving Agenda 21 is real prove or not prove climate change?

Since you (and Fox and BP) know so much about all this, perhaps you can enlighten us on this question.

What are you gonna do if I

What are you gonna do if I don't? Blow me ... Up?


"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Oh Jeez, where to begin...

1) There has been no "global warming" since 1998. Even the IPCC admits this.
2) The hypothesis of "climate change" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It is impossible to scientifically test whether the theory of AGW is true or false because the climate is always changing.
3) "Warming" is based on positive feedback loops that are theorized and and then "fit" to computer models of historical proxy observations (tree rings, ice bubbles, etc). It's been shown to be completely un-predictive.

I think we can safely label the CO2 scare an unsubstantiated hysteria.

How about you stop watching MSM?

1) Really? None? That's not what the top studies show. These independent studies all match pretty well to each other, showing about .13 degC rise per decade, right up to 2011.

Your "IPCC admits this" story came from a hack reporter taking things out of context again.

2) What does the test-ability of climate change have to do with global warming? You do realize they're two completely independent events, right? You realize that GW affects climate change and that's not disputed by anyone. You also realize that "the climate is always changing" is a parochial statement that discounts thousands of scientists who very carefully model in the effects of all the known variability cycles you think got missed. And lastly, you realize that physical phenomena such as you list don't all just change in sync unless there's a single commonality between them. The odds of that happening consistently across the globe for a century are astronomical.

I think we can label your comment insignificant and unscientific. You should look for new sources of research.

AGW Has No scientific Basis

1) I repeat, no global warming since 1998. This is well-established.

Whatever the "trend" increase has been since 1979 is irrelevant. The warming stopped in 1998. The predictions were for a 4 degree increase by 2014. The predictions were wrong. Their computer models failed to predict anything, therefore, you cannot accept their hypothesis that CO^2 is driving warming. Sorry, that's how science works. CO^2 may cause warming. Thermodynamics predicts a 1 degree increase for every DOUBLING of CO^2, but not runaway warming.

2) The "testability" of climate change has EVERYTHING to do with it. In science, you must have a hypothesis that is testable with repeatable experiments and can be accepted as true with a reasonable level of confidence or not accepted. The hypothesis that CO^2 causes the climate to change cannot be tested since the climate is always changing regardless of man made CO^2.

3) A "scientist" who builds a model but refuses to present a falsifiable hypothesis to test his model is not a scientist and his model is meaningless. Any clown can build a spreadsheet model based on histroical proxy data, invent his own parameters, then extend the model into the future based on his assumptions. But that is not science. He will, however, still qualify for government funding. And that's really what AGW hysteria is all about... looting taxpayers to fund "research".

You don't pay much attention to details, do you?

1) No warming since '88? The very graph you linked shows it! It even says at the end "+0.16 Deg. C" on the right. That's right in line with the predictions of +.13 PER DECADE. (The graph is centered around 1999 at zero with .16 on the right so -.16 must be on the left. That's a .32 rise since '81.)

What's well established is the actual temperature record, most of which fox and Rush and David Rose blatantly lie about.

Even you quote a lie. "The predictions were for a 4 degree increase by 2014..." False. If that were the case, the planet would already be in massive turmoil. The predictions often have been near 4 degrees by 2100 with decade predictions of .12-.13 as I said above.

Thermo can't "predict" any increase but a full model of CO2 forcing and it's various positive and negative feedbacks suggest a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 degrees (non-closed) of forcing just from CO2 doubling.

2) You don't verify global warming by testing climate change. Learn what they each mean and how they are different. I know you wanted to display that you know how the scientific method works but again, watch those details.

3) Complaining about someone fitting one model to another says you don't know how stuff works. Temperature profiles from different sources are like a fingerprint of time. Matching one record's pattern to another (like instruments to tree rings) had better show other areas all match as well. When this works out (a match is found), now the history of the tree and any other ring data can be included in the record. This is how scientists double check each other.

On a 'per scientist' basis, there is much more bought off research on the denier side than the true science side. Besides, where is the real science on the denier side? Even the ICCC couldn't do it without buying the organization, the scientists and lots of the papers. It wasn't much of a problem for them because the Heritage Foundation just cut a check and snapped their fingers. Oh, and I think Exxon kicked in too.


1) No warming since 1998 (not 88). 15 years, no warming, despite the dire predictions of it.

There is NO reliable temperature record before 1979. 1979 was the beginning of satellite temperature recording. Most land based temperature nodes are corrupted by the expanding urban "heat island" bias. This is also well-established. Nodes that once were I the country, are now surrounded by asphalt.

CO^2 "forcing" cannot be proven by scientific testing, therefore, it cannot be accepted as fact.

"Climate Change" is meaningless. The climate has always, and will always be changing regardless of the presence of SUVs. There is nothing unique about our current temp, or the rate of change in temp. Ice core samples going back 300,000 years validate that. CO^2 cannot be shown to be the driver of temperature change. CO^2 lags temperature by 800 years (on average).

Historical temperatures are estimated based on proxy data. They are not accurate n short timespans to any meaningful degree. They are guesses where temperature is inferred based on the relationship to tree ring width or water vapor in bubbles or river sediment depths. Their margin of error in short time periods is enormous making them statistically un-useful unless looking at 1000s of years of data.

Where is the "real" science on the AGW hysteria side? The government's pockets are far, far deeper than Exxon's.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !

Thanks so very much more that. That's freakin' hilarious. Who wrote that? Your second grader? Talk about a mixed bag of whining, blaming and random one-liners. Where's the source? Where's the list of these 23 expert scientists? Where's the quoted comments from the turncoat IPCC scientists? Where's literally ANY information beyond one person writing a PDF document and putting it in (THE TOP DIRECTORY OF) some crap web site.

Really, at some point, don't you guys have to have a little self respect when you quote this stuff?

Wow, no wonder you guys can't quote science in your arguments. You trust snake-oil salesmen to tell you what to think.

Yeah Right!

Man is such little consequence to the changine climate it's laughable. Enough of the CO2 boogeyman nonsense! The climate changes by things way beyond our control and a vast number of variables.

Can we develop a tractor beam to adjust our distance from the sun to equalize it's effect on us as it changes intensity? I think not. So forget all this BS about CO2 and that man can do anything about the climate, good or bad.

The only reasons to go to other types of energy are economical and political. You may convince me of environmental damage of oil. But not a damn thing to do with global warming.

Just keep your head in the sand

and print your comment out to show to your grandkids when the SHTF AND when the economy is in complete ruin because you wanted to keep drinking Exxon and BP's koolaid. Hypocrit.

If I called you a moron

that would be too generous.

How many cooling and warming cycles throughout history do you need to see to understand this global warming nonsense is bunk. how many wrong predictions from this group of self proclaimed "scientists" do you have to see before you understand they are full of crap.

Apparently, you still need more history.

He who fails to understand history is doomed to repeat it. Must be comfortable in your dark ages, ignoramous mind.

Evidently, a lot more than you do.


Please explain how a planet that changes things slowly and steadily (the left 90%) would react with something suddenly changing like the right side. I'm sure we'd all love to know.

Oh, and please show the source of your wrong predictions because I know of no credible scientists whose predictions are wrong. You obviously didn't watch the videos yet you sure know more about science than anyone else, don't you?

When I was a kid

it was all about global cooling and we only had 10 years to live if we didn't do something.

Now it's global warming and we will all die in 10 years if we don't do something.

Same assholes, same game, just different angle of attack

In the dark ages it was spooky boogy men, ie devil and demons, with religion as your salvation.

same shit, insert boogy man, same game, insert means of salvation, same result, insert latest victim of slavery,indebtedness, and poverty who enrich a few.

Wake the f**k up, you're being played.

Humans are wierd

we label natural occurring things as 'bad' or 'evil'. demonizing CO2 is the same as demonizing a plant IMO.

Does anybody know

around what date nature stopped evolving in changing the planet and man replaced nature in performing that function? If the position is taken that it is now hybrid with the two, surely there must be a somewhat date when this replacement/hybrid relationship started to take place??

Right about the time the

Right about the time the scheme was concocted in some sick deranged mind..

I Believe in Climate Change

Generally speaking, I've noticed it's colder in January than in July. I often consult my thermometer and wind indicators to determine whether to take a coat or some other climate-change moderator with me.

I remember that when I was 1 year old, the biggest rainstorm I had ever experienced happened.

When I was six, we had the first snow flurry I had ever seen in my life in San Jose, California. I've seen a lot more snow since then.

I'll never forget the news anchor on TV in Los Angeles, standing beside the Sepulveda Flood Basin, reporting with absolute amazement and surprise that it was full of water.

I think we'll be talking about the weather for a long, long, time.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Thanks for the chuckle.

And how spot on that was.

I've seen nothing but article after article back peddling on "claims" of glacial melt et al, being finally attributed to "anecdotal accounts" rather than scientific measurements.

I'm beginning to think the mass of the population really is just above the IQ of a house plant.

While I agree with your conclusion ...

Well, part of it, anyway:

Honestly, it's very simple to fix. We make our own energy and stop making CO2 while stop spending money at the same time.

How you get there is debatable.
There have always been climate changes, and at times extreme fluctuations of it. Climate has never been a tempered force of nature, as evidenced and recorded in ancient ice packs and plants - Tree rings, specifically.
To say, "Oh, look how our weather is not 'normal' anymore." is ignorant of what normal is. Weather has patterns and cycles. Some, like the Greenland ice pack, have cycles that span 150 years or more, then do it all over again.

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

Source, NASA.gov - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

That said, I agree our dependence on burning fossil fuels is making our planet a nasty place to live. The by-products of combustion are, literally, killing the ecosphere. CO2 is nothing compared to the toxic compounds we are putting into our atmosphere and water when we burn hydrocarbons to power our industries, vehicles and electricity production. I say we, but it is 'they' who have insured that we have little choice in how we can economically power our homes and cars.
Think about it ... How far has the computational ability and power of the computer come in the last 20 years? Leaps and bounds, right?
How about medicine? Just 30 years ago a pacemaker only lasted 5 years and had to be replaced, with another operation. Now, it can be recharged without so much as a prick of the skin. MRI's can scan and map the entire body, incrementally layer by layer.
So, why, in over 100 years, there has not been any significant and pervasive change in automobile propulsion? Still the same combustion engine, at most about 25% efficient in BTU to work ratio and still pouring pollutants out of a tail pipe.
This is not progress, it's stagnation.

You may say, "But we have electric cars and hybrids now!"
Hybrids still use combustibles.
And yeah, Electric cars ... that cost as much as a mid size sedan ... and can only go 25 to 100 miles and take all day to recharge. To be fair, there is the Tesla Model X, at about $30,000.00 base price. But to achieve the 200 mile distance on a singe charge you have to upgrade the battery for another 15 grand. And, most of the country's roadways do not have charging stations even now. In the 21st century we should be free of fossil fuel dependency.
My point is if you want change that will actually have an impact, big oil must be eliminated or, at least marginalized as the primary source to power our existence. Any other solution is still leaving them in control.
Just sayin'.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan