11 votes

Global Warming "proof" evaporating

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.
Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.
Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.
Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.
Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.

Read more:

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evapora...

Comment viewing options

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

What goes around comes around

ChristianAnarchist's picture

I would love to find a higher

I would love to find a higher res of this for printing...

Beware the cult of "government"...

SteveMT's picture

Better is: Global Warming "proof" rapidly cooling.

Just a thought. Today is Missoula, MT:
FRIDAY'S FORECAST: High of 1, wind chills of minus 33
7 hours ago •
Good Friday morning, western Montana! A wind chill warning remains in effect throughout western Montana until 11 a.m. Saturday. The National Weather Service says gusty winds of 10-20 mph will develop tonight, creating a danger of frostbite on unprotected skin.

Wind chill values will drop to 20-30 below zero, and will be even colder at times near the mouth of Hellgate Canyon in Missoula and Badrock Canyon in the Flathead. So take care and bundle up.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/friday-s-forec...

Bump

Bump

Global Warming and Climate Change are two different things

Yet somehow they're synonymous to a lot of people.

To me, "Climate Change" is being used to manipulate the public just as the Mayans used their knowledge of lunar eclipses to manipulate their "subjects" that there is this greater force out there somewhere that must be worshipped and feared alike or you're doomed.

Does anyone talk of how other planets in our solar system are also undergoing "climate change"? Nope. Can't force carbon taxes on people if they realize it's all just a cycle of nature rather than man made causes. Can't convince people we're all going to get flooded from our emissions warming the atmosphere when the polar ice cap is 63% larger this year than it was in 2012.

Anything can look more extreme if you just keep repeating it over and over again. How many people are aware that crime rates are dramatically decreasing globally? The Media paints a completely different picture doesn't it?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

If I'm not mistaken

It's always been global warming up until about 10 years ago, then they changed it to "climate change", so that any "change" in the climate was a "bad" thing. It's a term that they can use to keep the ball I their court. If they use the term climate change in reference to man made destruction of the planet, then any change in the weather they can evoke the term climate change to prove the theories that they have no real evidence to back up.

Umm... Yep sounds about right

What do many people fear?

Change.

What do many people know very little about?

Climate/Nature.

People also fear what they do not understand, so you essentially turn "Climate Change" into "Fear Fear".

And when are people easiest to manipulate?

When they're in Fear.

It's quite clever when you think about it. But that in itself is the reason the illusion is failing: People ARE thinking about it and learning the truth along the way.

When Earth went through warming, so did other planets. Now as it goes through a period of cooling, so are other planets. As far as I know, there aren't any "people" there to pollute them.

If "The Powers That WERE" can keep the world (for the most part) ignorant about Cosmic Climate Change then you can easily exploit these NATURAL cycles that are completely predictable and measurable to push some aspect of Agenda 69 or whatever Bullsh*t they dream up. They hoped they'd spoon feed the world the information they want us to consume but that has all changed now.

The Mayans, apart from their own manipulations of their people with their "secret" knowledge of lunar cycles and eclipses, also foretold the world would experience an "evolution in consciousness" or "global consciousness" around the year 2012. Who knew they were right but didn't know it would be called "Internet" :)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Global Warming:

Global Warming:
“Once the radicals realized that the decades-old rant on global warming was losing credibility because evidence was showing that temperatures may well be falling, they shifted their propaganda language to “climate change”. Climate change has been going on for millions of years, but now it’s all the fault of man’s operating in a free market economy. And it’s become just another excuse for more government – global in scope – to deal with the “impending disaster” Ron Paul – Liberty Defined

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

What free market

economy?

Misleading and misguided goals

Most will downvote this because they won't read it any more than they read the source of these myths. People are so focused on reading a headline that agrees with what they believe and then jump to agree. This is the sad part of society - that the real science isn't being debated as much as the headlines.

The term climate change is very specific. It relates to the change in climate due to global warming. It's not a replacement for an outdated term but rather a consequence. By warming even 1 degree (miniscule by human standards), changes are set in motion that lead to a cascading of other changes.

For example, warming ice from 31.5F to 32.5F will cause a dramatic change in it's state and, depending on what is relying on it being frozen, could cause lots of change elsewhere. (Think of ice-house fishing) No ice means NO ice fishing, not less.

This climate change manifests in different forms at different locations around the globe. Think of the butterfly effect. When you change temperatures of a thermal conveyor (ocean current) you now have less mechanism to move heat from the equator to the poles. With this caused by warming certain regions, it's not obvious that it should cause the poles to be colder. Another un-obvious change is the amount of precipitation. Some areas will evaporate more water into the atmosphere while starving others of necessary moisture. The result is that climate has changed for both.

The stall or pause in heating (of a specific, singled out measure) of the planet (surface temperatures) is an easily proven principle. To show this to laymen, one only needs to consider baking a turkey in an oven. Compare the oven's warm-up time (preset amount of heat added) with the oven empty vs. placing a cold turkey inside it first. The empty oven has less mass to heat up so air temperatures and oven surface temps will rise at a faster rate. With the turkey inside (equated to factoring in the ocean's cooler mass), the oven temp will rise much differently. At first, it will rise nearly as quick but as the air becomes warmer than the turkey, that air will give up its heat to the bird. The hotter it gets, the more pronounced this becomes. This causes a pause in the warmup process until total heat added increases above the amount given up to the warming foul. Once that point is reached, both the heat source and the turkey begin to heat the air and its temp rise shoots up rapidly.

The fact that these problems are occurring and are traceable to a recent imbalance in CO2 (as compared to any known time in our latest stable climate period) is NOT affected by politics. Its happening, politics be damned.

However, the assumption that it is contrived as a way to take control via taxes (or similar accusations) is insignificant. That's not to say that it isn't being used for such nefarious goals. I'm convinced that it is (yes, a belief, not a fact), but that's an opportunity for them not a cause.

Does this change anything for us? Kind of and kind of not. Most libertarians are fighting against global control in various flavors and we need to continue fighting it. Most people want energy independence and we should continue that. Many people want cleaner energy in terms of both pollution and CO2 emissions and that's right too. Many people want cheaper energy costs without more hassle and we should definitely make that a top priority. Does this mean we must bow to the global elite and allow them to tax the world to make this all happen? Not at all.

If we support and migrate toward cleaner energy privately, we can get everything we want. Clean, independent, cheap and unlimited energy that is neither under the control of the UN, US or NAFTA, nor the energy monopolists like BP, Exxon, Shell, Gasprom, Excel, FPL or even our local utilities. We can become the masters in control of its flow and its price. We just have to stop the monopolists from impeding the development.

What chance do we have? Very high odds. While I can't speak publicly of private knowledge, I can assure people that every energy related wish they have is already technically available. The development of hundreds of solutions was completed over past years and was forced under the radar to facilitate the last fight. It's just fighting the funding battles. Now that game is quickly approaching success. Stay tuned and don't let the politics influence your facts. You should only trust science and personal intuition.

We... we... we....

You still think it's a mathematical equation that has a correct solution that "we" can find.

That's not what it is about at all. It is about a boot stomping on the neck of humanity FOR EVER. It is about CONTROL. Whatever "solution" you find, they will concoct another problem and sell THEIR solution to the public, of course, for the purpose of control.

They have one an only one agenda. To take ALL the marbles and to take TOTAL control.

Opposed to that are people who maintain individual rights and individual property (also individual rights) and protect the market mechanism.

That's the battle. Not who can "explain" climate change more accurately or in better scientific terms.

Absolutely. I virtually guarantee it

What you describe, while accurate I believe, is what a few people are trying to accomplish. It fails in the face of everyone else as well as it goes against everything that the masses are working towards.

They can 'try' to continue controlling things and using new tactics to take over our movements but they fail big in one area. That's math.

Math is the one thing that's being missed in this entire argument. Math guarantees that our odds will always increase faster than theirs. It's not even worth arguing. When you have an exponentially increasing number of movements by an exponentially increasing percentage of the population and each movement reinforces and exponentially increasing number of other movements, what's the total effect?

Consider this: We have awareness of the political corruption, elections, lobbyists, regulatory capture and revolving door. We have awareness of fiat money, stock manipulation, comex markets, derivatives, mortgage manipulation, high frequency trading and Fed board sharing among private banks. We have awareness of indoctrination in education, media, commercialism, consumerism and press releases. We have awareness of corporate corruption, compartmentalization, resource capture, competition killing and price fixing. We have examples in every industry of individual types of corruption becoming standardized and officially sanctioned. We have warring factions, the MIC, bank influence, geo-political gains and international blackmail. There are so many more, I couldn't begin to make a worthwhile list on my own.

In each and every case above, there are groups who have exposed the corruption. Some have increased that awareness while others have implemented action plans to end it. Some plans have legs while others don't get much traction, however, with each action, more awareness is gained. If the awareness is genuine, it is usually exponential.

With increased action or awareness, both tend to support other related movements. This co-operation between movements is also exponential.

But the thing with exponential is that it builds future growth on past. Think of it like compounding interest. If you make payments on a loan that are less than the interest charge, you will never pay off the loan. However, if you keep making payments at that fixed number, you will find yourself getting farther behind every month. This is the game the elites are playing. They have limited tools (monetary power, regulations, bribery) but they're up against interest rates that are increasing exponentially (the interaction of those movements above). They simply can't exponentially increase what they pay (their tools) to get ahead so they will always lose.

Now consider how many movements are actually immune to their tools. Gardens, hydroponics, aquaponics, permaculture and vertical gardens are all things that they simply can't stop. To do so would require rules that they'll never get passed at today's level of awareness. People would revolt long before allowing it. The same goes for renewable energy. Outlawing solar will never be tolerated by the masses because there's only one justification for it. That being to control the world. That's a hand they can't tip. Same goes for education, communication, alternative media, gun issues, currency issues... in each case, they've hit their limit on what they can regulate without exposing themselves as the wolves they truly are.

Sure, its a slow process that often looks futile but we've still got math on our side.

I understand that even though the CO2 levels are high

There is very little we can do to change the direction, we can't just shut down all fossil energy sources, at least not immediately. Is there a way to manage the increase in CO2 by assisting in the growth of plant life? Green plants take CO2 out of the environment and it increases the rapid grown of plants. As the planet warms more fresh water is released form the frozen areas only to cause flooding and run off into the oceans. Could this fresh water runoff be directed to areas where agricultural production would sequester the CO2?

Several thousand years ago the Romans managed to direct freshwater through a series of viaducts and under ground pipes. It seems every year we get tens of thousands of acres of forests that burn, how much CO2 does that generate? Could proper water and forest management help?

You're definitely on the right track

First off, we definitely can change the direction of CO2 levels but it's still as much as 2 years away.

Second, yes, increasing plant growth would very much help. In fact, I know of 5,000 acres each of freshly planted hemp and trees of a certain species that both do just that, with their products not just being for burning.

Third, conventional 'wisdom' isn't always wise. Cattle herded in a small area generate tons of methane (which quickly becomes CO2). The media has been correct about that. But cattle in an open pasture, chasing only the best grass tops before moving on, actually sequester much more CO2 than the former cows generate. Plus, they revive dead pastures into good environments for living.

We need forest fires as a part of the process. They burn off the lightweight biomass but capture a majority of it back into the soil. It's nature's way of saying, "Hey, you starved the ground too long. Now it's my turn and I'm taking those nutrients back."

As these examples show, thousands of other examples are everywhere if we would just look for them. For example, centralizing solar thermal plants in the desert means we get 15-18% more energy for free. But, scaling the same plant down for a home yields 50-80% more because the home can make use of the desert-wasted heat. Symbiocity(sp?) is the key.

The idea is to get the fresh water to areas that are dry.

We know where the flood areas are, we know where the source of the waters is, it would seem logical, if possible, to redirect the flood waters for agricultural use. Not just the arable fields, but much like the ancients did in China, Japan, and south America to have a permaculture system to hold and retain fresh water for plant growth. It's such a financial waste to spend billions on building, then rebuilding flood damaged areas, only to have the tainted water make its way to the oceans. Then do it again in 5-10 years.

I saw this on a small scale in Bermuda, since the island has no fresh water it's collected in huge cisterns. All the buildings have eve troughs that collect the water, it's then routed through lime stone to underground pipes and gos to a collection system for later use.

Yes, we could go through lots of effort

to put a band aid on the problem or we could fix the problem the way nature would have. To do this would mean less money than we spend now, overall, but dams and other band aids would cost more than we currently spend. Check out this TED talk that shows how desertification can be reversed and how that process actually brings back the water to places most would think need irrigation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world...

As I understand it, he is describing rotational grazing

This was an interesting TED talk. I have had some experience with what he was addressing. In the mid 1980's I bought farm land, it had been plowed and planted for years and was eroded, a hard clay soil. I leased it to an adjoining organic dairy farmer who didn't plow and plant, but grazed the fields (he was organic before organic was cool). He rotationally grazed it, the land was fenced off like a checker board. The dairy cattle would intensely graze one square at a time, then moved to another square to allow the land to recover. He said if he just grazed the whole thing the cattle would eventually eat off the desirable plants and leave the weeds, thistles etc behind. Initially he planted a wide variety of grasses, alfalfas, clovers, some of the plants would grow deep roots, some would be more tolerant of drought, others will grow better if cut regularly, and others will grow well in the wet areas. The result is the soil builds up and the organic compost acts like a sponge and holds water. This was an old school way of farming before mechanized equipment, looks like it's been rediscovered.
Here is the link to their farm http://grassfieldscheese.com/

It's starting to get used more often

but it has a long way to go. As you can imagine, it goes in the face of some traditional methods.

One clarification on what you wrote. You stated that "The dairy cattle would intensely graze one square at a time..." I'm not sure if that's his word (intensely) or your assumption but you may be a little off on how it works. The trick is more to quickly do it, not intensely. The reason is that if the cattle move on early enough, they only eat the top, best parts of the grass. The main stalks of the grass are then trampled down into the ground. This kills and forces them to be essentially buried before they turn to dry rot in the air. Dry rot turns the plant to methane/CO2 which leaves the site but underground, they return it to the soil nutrient mix. This is the single most important qualifier as to whether your process yields good results or results leading back to desertification. So, its an important word, huh?

I've been referred to your friend's site a few times. They seem to have pretty good results (although I don't know regarding above) but they're prices remain out of my current budget. Still, I have referred them on. I wonder if you were one that has sent me there before?

I guess the point in all this is that there are so many 'solutions' to given problems all around us that its just frustrating that people casually jump on the first or easiest or most profitable ones. This, IMHO, is exactly why we're in the mess in the first place.

I have posted their site on the DP before

"they only eat the top, best parts of the grass", I don't know exactly when they move the cattle, it's part of their pasture management process and it's critical to making the system work. If they graze too intensely they damage the pasture by killing off the plant material and damaging the top soil. If they are allowed to graze the entire pasture without being forced to move, it will also damage the pasture by an "adverse selection", the cattle will eat the best plants and you wind over time up with weeds and thistles with little nutritional value. I do know after a number of years the hard eroded clay became healthy top soil that retained water and the fields actually stayed green all year.

The rotational grazing process mimics the natural grazing that has been going on for eons, like the buffalo herds in the Midwest.

my request

You state not being able to speak publicly of private knowledge. Then I request that you speak anonymously of this private knowledge that you are assuring us with. Otherwise, I will take your advice of trusting my intuition and ignoring your reply post. Surly you can offer up three hard facts, out of "hundreds" you possess, regarding this technically available energy knowledge that's been forced under the radar.

You do realize

that publicly asking a specific person to anonymously release private information is the same as asking that person to break NDAs, right? Just so we're clear that this is to back up a forum comment, lol.

All I can offer you at this time is the already public information of some of them before they changed paths and went more private. Have a look at:

www.indiegogo.com/mirrorsolar

http://www.fullcircleenergy.net

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/the-living-sm...

Other general areas that may/may not be ready to pop include all types of hemp products, turnkey home aquaponics, online news/info/archive, jet stream altitude wind, mesh internet, efficient car and jet powerplants, massive ocean solar/water desal, breakthrough in online home/un schooling...

As much as I'd love to offer further proof, it's just not going to happen. I can make a promise that it's getting close to going public and that each is using technology not yet released anywhere in the public. Oh, and they all had to adhere to the following set of 10 standards: (#9 has been dealt with otherwise)

01 They must provide a solution to people and society without imposing compromise.
02 They must be attractive economically from the customer point of view and from the proprietor point of view, even in today's market.
03 They must be uncontested and viable in technology.
04 They must be available right now.
05 They must apply to a majority of people.
06 They must have an appeal beyond the original solution and out to the materialistic world so they can stand strong in 'today's market' atmosphere.
07 That appeal must be strong enough that they will grow organically without reliance on an advertising campaign or any puppet strings that come from their funding or support.
08 Most of all, however, each solution step must be something that a few hundred or possibly thousand people can join together to accomplish, placing that 'product' forever in the black to avoid the pitfalls of debt.
09 They must support a need or group of needs of the people without relying on the global, corporatism, banking structures.
10 They must be able to be started on the smallest scale they apply to and duplicated to increase market and they should not rely on growing one central factory or business.

That's as good as you're gonna get.

Global warming is just a way to suppress us

and get more taxes. It's a fraud perpetrated by tyrants to get us under their control using fear, much like Bush did with 911 and the whole color coded terror threat level.

Try subjugate rather than suppress

Economic power accumulation was critical to the plan of reducing populations to NWO target levels. See the Georgia guide stones for target populations.

Toxicity reduction only calls for a cessation of industrial and manufacturing processes which can be done fairly quickly to reduce the spread of toxins. This costs corporations billions in profits and changes that could be used in subjugation instead.

What this perspective does is make a NWO timetable for our subjugation possible. How long at this rate before irreparable damage and species loss compromises the planet in a significant way? I say ten more years judging by the artic seas off Alaska.

Consider the NWO expects half of us to be gone by then.

Will we argue about global warming or get serious about restoration of constitutional government?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Sorry but

I don't get your toxicity correlation. Are you saying that they're claiming global warming while secretly depopulating by toxicity? Are you saying that they're going to control the globe via toxicity regulations? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me yet.

Is toxicity a problem? Yes, I believe it is but it is caused by the same processes as global warming so why do you fight one and not the other? Are you saying that GW is not a problem and is just made up? We can go down that road if you want but be assured, the science is strong and well supported.

I have an analogy and a question for you. If a small town in Wyoming has a growing problem of cows wandering through town (weird but it works) and the mayor wants to change lots of stuff in the town to deal with it... Stuff that the people don't want... Is it possible or probable that the cows were a made up problem or just that he was behind it? And if so, what's the solution? Does the town allow the cow problem to continue and just blame the mayor, while trying to change him? Or, does the town simply track down the source of the cows and stop them from getting into town?

This is the situation we're in with GW/climate change. We have the tools to fix it and we know its a problem and we also know that eliminating this problem will stop the global regulation that everyone fears. So why fight over what to do?

Self reliance is the solution to everything. It stops pollution of both types. It brings wealth back to the people, taking it from the banks. That removes monetary power over our government. It alleviates the desire and thus the need for social programs. It eliminates corporate and regulatory control over our necessities like food and water and other industries.

Why are libertarians so blind or opposed to this line of thinking?

The fraud perpetuating global toxicity

was media and science posers warning us of global warming, making a decades long controversy dominating global considerations, toxicity is the real problem.

That is what the warming controversy was created to cover. There are species all over the planet that will either have to mutate or go extinct now that toxicity has risen dramatically in the distraction of global warming.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Dont forget the giant patch

Dont forget the giant patch of plastic that is swirling around just below the surface in the pacific ocean. The big problem is that plastic photodegrades into smaller and smaller pieces that animals eat and is now all but impossible to clean up.

Its amazing how many beautiful trees had to be cut down.

And how much plastic had to be created to perpetually contaminate out ecosystems.

All becuase Hemp was made illegal by some currupt assholes in Washington DC...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

And is ocean acidification a toxicity

or a CO2 result? What about krill that penguins eat? If their only home has melted away, killing them off and that killing off the penguins, is that toxicity or another problem? How about the recent flood/famine cycle in India from the Himalayas?

Me thinks you simplify too much just to maintain that a conspiracy created global warming. Why is it so hard to accept that the problem has just been co-opted after the fact?

Toxicity works much faster to destroy species

and is not limited to thermally sensitive areas.

Toxicity calls for an immediate manufacturing control, global warming relies on the masses consumption taking years to start or stop.

Consumer manufacturing considerations would have stopped specific highly toxic practices drastically effecting global industry in a matter of a few years.

Global warming is real, and the effects you describe are real too. The WTO choice for media focus was warming because the populations have to decide to change the way they live rather than manufacturers discontinuing products and practices dropping rates of toxic pollution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?