Global Warming A Myth Say 80 Graphs From 58 Peer-Reviewed Papers

Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs


“[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased.”  — Büntgen et al., 2017

EarthSource: Notrickszone.com
Kenneth Richard
May 29, 2017


Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
 .
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
 .
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years.  Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time.  And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
 .
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.


Büntgen et al., 2017

“Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400, and again after ~1850. … Little agreement is found with climate model simulations that consistently overestimate recent summer warming and underestimate pre-industrial temperature changes. … [W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased. …




Abrantes et al., 2017

The transition from warm to colder climatic conditions occurs around 1300 CE associated with the Wolf solar minimum. The coldest SSTs are detected between 1350 and 1850 CE, on Iberia during the well-known Little Ice Age (LIA) (Bradley and Jones, 1993), with the most intense cooling episodes related with other solar minima events, and major volcanic forcing and separated by intervals of relative warmth (e.g. (Crowley and Unterman, 2013; Solanki et al., 2004; Steinhilber et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2016; Usoskin et al., 2011). During the 20th century, the southern records show unusually large decadal scale SST oscillations in the context of the last 2 millennia, in particular after the mid 1970’s, within the Great Solar Maximum (1940 – 2000 (Usoskin et al., 2011)) and the “greater salinity anomaly” event in the northern Atlantic (Dickson et al., 1988), or yet the higher global temperatures of the last 1.4 ky detected by (Ahmed et al., 2013).”


Werner et al., 2017


Deng et al., 2017

The results indicate that the climate of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, AD 900–1300) was similar to that of the Current Warm Period (CWP, AD 1850–present) … As for the Little Ice Age (LIA, AD 1550–1850), the results from this study, together with previous data from the Makassar Strait, indicate a cold and wet period compared with the CWP and the MCA in the western Pacific. The cold LIA period agrees with the timing of the Maunder sunspot minimum and is therefore associated with low solar activity.”


Chapanov et al., 2017

“A good agreement exists between the decadal cycles of LOD [length of day], MSL [mean sea level], climate and solar indices whose periods are between 12-13, 14-16, 16-18 and 28-33 years.”


Williams et al., 2017

“Reconstructed SSTs significantly warmed 1.1°C … from 1660s to 1800 (rate of change: 0.008°C/year), followed by a significant cooling of 0.8°C …  until 1840 (rate of change: 0.02°C/year), then a significant warming of 0.8°C from 1860 until the end of reconstruction in 2007 (rate of change: 0.005°C/year).” [The amplitude of sea surface temperature warming and cooling was higher and more rapid from the 1660s to 1800 than from 1860-2007.]
‘In fact, the SST reconstruction significantly co-varied with a reconstruction of solar irradiance [Lean, 2000] on the 11-year periodicity only from ~1745 to 1825. In addition, the reconstructed SSTs were cool during the period of lower than usual solar irradiance called the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) but then warmed and cooled during the Dalton minimum (1795–1830), a second period of reduced solar irradiance. … The Dalton solar minimum and increased volcanic activity in the early 1800s could explain the decreasing SSTs from 1800 to 1850.”


Stenni et al., 2017

“A recent effort to characterize Antarctic and sub-Antarctic climate variability during the last 200 years also concluded that most of the trends observed since satellite climate monitoring began in 1979 CE cannot yet be distinguished from natural (unforced) climate variability (Jones et al., 2016), and are of the opposite sign [cooling, not warming] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval. … (1) Temperatures over the Antarctic continent show an overall cooling trend during the period from 0 to 1900CE, which appears strongest in West Antarctica, and (2) no continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century.”


Li et al., 2017


Demezhko et al., 2017

“GST [ground surface temperature] and SHF [surface heat flux] histories differ substantially in shape and chronology. Heat flux changes ahead temperature changes by 500–1000 years.”


Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017


Li et al., 2017

“The main driving forces behind the Holocene climatic changes in the LYR [Lower Yangtze Region, East China] area are likely summer solar insolation associated with tropical or subtropical macro-scale climatic circulations such as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), Western Pacific Subtropical High (WPSH), and El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”


Mayewski et al., 2017


Rydval et al., 2017

“[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s“



Reynolds et al., 2017


Rosenthal et al., 2017

“Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters [0-700 m] were 1.5-2°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9°C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. … The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation [surface solar radiation] into relatively large changes in OHC.”


Li et al., 2017

“We suggest that solar activity may play a key role in driving the climatic fluctuations in NC [North China] during the last 22 centuries, with its quasi ∼100, 50, 23, or 22-year periodicity clearly identified in our climatic reconstructions. … It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation


Goursaud et al., 2017


Guillet et al., 2017


Wilson et al., 2017


Tegzes et al., 2017

Our sortable-silt time series show prominent multi-decadal to multi-centennial variability, but no clear long-term trend over the past 4200 years. … [O]ur findings indicate that variations in the strength of the main branch of the Atlantic Inflow may not necessarily translate into proportional changes in northward oceanic heat transport in the eastern Nordic Seas.”



Tejedor et al., 2017


Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017


Cai and Liu et al., 2017

“2003– 2009 was the warmest period in the reconstruction. 1970– 2000 was colder than the last stage of the Little Ice Age (LIA).”


Köse et al., 2017

“The reconstruction is punctuated by a temperature increase during the 20th century; yet extreme cold and warm events during the 19th century seem to eclipse conditions during the 20th century. We found significant correlations between our March–April spring temperature reconstruction and existing gridded spring temperature reconstructions for Europe over Turkey and southeastern Europe. … During the last 200 years, our reconstruction suggests that the coldest year was 1898 and the warmest year was 1873. The reconstructed extreme events also coincided with accounts from historical records. …  Further, the warming trends seen in our record agrees with data presented by Turkes and Sumer (2004), of which they attributed [20th century warming] to increased urbanization in Turkey.”


Flannery et al., 2017

The early part of the reconstruction (1733–1850) coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age, and exhibits 3 of the 4 coolest decadal excursions in the record. However, the mean SST estimate from that interval during the LIA is not significantly different from the late 20th Century SST mean. The most prominent cooling event in the 20th Century is a decade centered around 1965. This corresponds to a basin-wide cooling in the North Atlantic and cool phase of the AMO.”


Steiger et al., 2017

“Through several idealized and real proxy experiments we assess the spatial and temporal extent to which isotope records can reconstruct surface temperature, 500 hPa geopotential height, and precipitation. We find local reconstruction skill to be most robust across the reconstructions, particularly for temperature and geopotential height, as well as limited non-local skill in the tropics.  These results are in agreement with long-held views that isotopes in ice cores have clear value as local climate proxies, particularly for temperature and atmospheric circulation.”




Chang et al., 2017

“The chironomid-based record from Heihai Lake shows a summer temperature fluctuation within 2.4°C in the last c. 5000 years from the south-east margin of the QTP [Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau]. … The summer temperature changes in this region respond primarily to the variation in the Asian Summer Monsoon. The variability of solar activity is likely an important driver of summer temperatures, either directly or by modifying the strength and intensity of the Indian Ocean Summer Monsoon. … We observed a relatively long-lasting summer cooling episode (c. 0.8°C lower than the 5000-year average) between c. 270 cal. BP and AD c. 1956. … The record shows cooling episodes occurred at c. 3100, 2600, 2100 and 1600 cal. BP.  This is likely related to the period defined as the Northern Hemisphere Little Ice Age (LIA; c. AD 1350–1850, equivalent to 600–100 cal. BP). These possibly relate to the 500-year quasi-periodic solar cycle. Cooling stages between c. 270 and 100 cal. BP were also recorded and these are possibly linked to the LIA suggesting a hemisphere-wide forcing mechanism for this event.”

 


Krossa et al., 2017


Albot, 2017

Growing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that the climatic signals of Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age events can be detected around the world (Mayewski et al., 2004; Bertler et al., 2011). … [T]he causes for these events are still debated between changes in solar output, increased volcanic activity, shifts in zonal wind distribution, and changes in the meridional overturning circulation (Crowley, 2000; Hunt, 2006).”


Zhang et al., 2017

“[S]ummer temperature variability at the QTP [Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau] responds rapidly to solar irradiance changes in the late Holocene”




Kotthoff et al., 2017


Li et al., 2017

“Overall, the strong linkage between solar variability and summer SSTs is not only of regional significance, but is also consistent over the entire North Atlantic region.”


Jones et al., 2017


Vachula et al., 2017


Fischel et al., 2017


Li et al., 2017


Anderson et al., 2017


Woodson et al., 2017

The last ca. 1000 years recorded the warmest SST averaging 28.5°C. We record, for the first time in this region, a cool interval, ca. 1000 years in duration, centered on 5000 cal years BP concomitant with a wet period recorded in Borneo. The record also reflects a warm interval from ca. 1000 to 500 cal years BP that may represent the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Variations in the East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and solar activity are considered as potential drivers of SST trends. However, hydrology changes related to the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, ~ shifts of the Western Pacific Warm Pool and migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone are more likely to have impacted our SST temporal trend. …  The SA [solar activity] trends (Steinhilber et al., 2012) are in general agreement with the regional cooling of SST (Linsley et al., 2010) and the SA [solar activity] oscillations are roughly coincident with the major excursions in our SST data.”


Koutsodendris et al., 2017

“Representing one of the strongest global climate instabilities during the Holocene, the Little Ice Age (LIA) is marked by a multicentennial-long cooling (14-19th centuries AD) that preceded the recent ‘global warming’ of the 20th century. The cooling has been predominantly attributed to reduced solar activity and was particularly pronounced during the 1645-1715 AD and 1790-1830 AD solar minima, which are known as Maunder and Dalton Minima, respectively.”


Browne et al., 2017


Perșoiu et al., 2017


Kawahata et al., 2017

“The SST [sea surface temperature] shows a broad maximum (~17.3 °C) in the mid-Holocene (5-7 cal kyr BP), which corresponds to the Jomon transgression. … The SST maximum continued for only a century and then the SST [sea surface temperatures] dropped by 3.5 °C [15.1 to 11.6 °C] within two centuries. Several peaks fluctuate by 2°C over a few centuries.”


Saini et al., 2017


Dechnik et al., 2017


Wu et al., 2017


Sun et al., 2017

“Our findings are generally consistent with other records from the ISM [Indian Summer Monsoon]  region, and suggest that the monsoon intensity is primarily controlled by solar irradiance on a centennial time scale. This external forcing may have been amplified by cooling events in the North Atlantic and by ENSO activity in the eastern tropical Pacific, which shifted the ITCZ further southwards.”


Wu et al., 2017

“The existence of depressed MAAT [mean annual temperatures] (1.3°C lower than the 3200-year average) between 1480 CE and 1860 CE (470–90 cal. yr BP) may reflect the manifestation of the ‘Little Ice Age’ (LIA) in southern Costa Rica. Evidence of low-latitude cooling and drought during the ‘LIA’ has been documented at several sites in the circum-Caribbean and from the tropical Andes, where ice cores suggest marked cooling between 1400 CE and 1900 CE.  Lake and marine records recovered from study sites in the southern hemisphere also indicate the occurrence of ‘LIA’ cooling. High atmospheric aerosol concentrations, resulting from several large volcanic eruptions and sea-ice/ocean feedbacks, have been implicated as the drivers responsible for the ‘LIA’.”


Park, 2017

Late Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia was likely driven by ENSO variation.   Our tree pollen index of warmness (TPIW) shows important late Holocene cold events associated with low sunspot periods such as Oort, Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder Minimum. Comparisons among standard Z-scores of filtered TPIW, ΔTSI, and other paleoclimate records from central and northeastern China, off the coast of northern Japan, southern Philippines, and Peru all demonstrate significant relationships [between solar activity and climate]. This suggests that solar activity drove Holocene variations in both East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”


Markle et al., 2017


Dong et al., 2017


Nazarova et al., 2017

“The application of transfer functions resulted in reconstructed T July fluctuations of approximately 3 °C over the last 2800 years. Low temperatures (11.0-12.0 °C) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 1700 and 1500 cal yr BP (corresponding to the Kofun cold stage) and between ca 1200 and 150 cal yr BP (partly corresponding to the Little Ice Age [LIA]). Warm periods (modern T[emperatures] July or higher) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 2700 and 1800 cal yr BP, 1500 and 1300 cal yr BP and after 150 cal yr BP.”


Samartin et al., 2017


Thienemann et al., 2017

“[P]roxy-inferred annual MATs[annual mean air temperatures] show the lowest value at 11,510 yr BP (7.6°C). Subsequently, temperatures rise to 10.7°C at 9540 yr BP followed by an overall decline of about 2.5°C until present (8.3°C).”


Li et al., 2017

“Contrary to the often-documented warming trend over the past few centuries, but consistent with temperature record from the northern Tibetan Plateau, our data show a gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE. This result suggests a gradual cooling trend in some high altitude regions over this interval, which could provide a new explanation for the observed decreasing Asian summer monsoon. In addition, our data indicate an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, indicating that the climate system in high altitude regions would become more unstable under current global warming.”

Krawczyk et al., 2017



Pendea et al., 2017  (Russia)

The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) was a relatively warm period that is commonly associated with the orbitally forced Holocene maximum summer insolation (e.g., Berger, 1978; Bartlein et al., 2011). Its timing varies widely from region to region but is generally detected in paleorecords between 11 and 5 cal ka BP (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2004; Bartlein et al., 2011; Renssen et al., 2012).  … In Kamchatka, the timing of the HTM varies. Dirksen et al. (2013) find warmer-than-present conditions between 9000 and 5000 cal yr BP in central Kamchatka and between 7000 and 5800 cal yr BP at coastal sites.”

Stivrins et al., 2017  (Latvia)

“Conclusion: Using a multi-proxy approach, we studied the dynamics of thermokarst characteristics in western Latvia, where thermokarst occurred exceptionally late at the Holocene Thermal Maximum. …  [A] thermokarst active phase … began 8500 cal. yr BP and lasted at least until 7400 cal. yr BP. Given that thermokarst arise when the mean summer air temperature gradually increased ca. 2°C beyond the modern day temperature, we can argue that before that point, the local geomorphological conditions at the study site must have been exceptional to secure ice-block from the surficial landscape transformation and environmental processes.”

Bañuls-Cardona et al., 2017  (Spain)

“During the Middle Holocene we detect important climatic events. From 7000 to 6800 [years before present] (MIR 23 and MIR22), we register climatic characteristics that could be related to the end of the African Humid Period, namely an increase in temperatures and a progressive reduction in arboreal cover as a result of a decrease in precipitation. The temperatures exceeded current levels by 1°C, especially in MIR23, where the most highly represented taxon is a thermo-Mediterranean species, M. (T.) duodecimcostatus.”

Reid, 2017 (Global)

The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”

Åkesson et al., 2017 (Norway)

“Reconstructions for southern Norway based on pollen and chironomids suggest that summer temperatures were up to 2 °C higher than present in the period between 8000 and 4000 BP, when solar insolation was higher (Nesje and Dahl, 1991; Bjune et al., 2005; Velle et al., 2005a).”

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.ulRAHkyd.dpuf

Advertisements

NOAA got caught faking global warming temperature data… so where is the apology for spreading fake science?

climatechange
Source: NaturalNews.com
Robert Jonathan
February 17, 2017

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet to apologize for publishing some fake climate science that apparently ushered in the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The agency claims it is looking into the scandal.

In a bombshell scoop in the Daily Mail, an NOAA whistleblower alleged that the agency rushed out a paper containing manipulated data to influence or convince the COP21 conference that no pause or slowdown in global warming had occurred in the last decade or two.

The politicized NOAA “pausebuster” report that discredited a generally accepted notion of a slowdown or hiatus apparently convinced pandering and science-illiterate world leaders like Barack Obama and then-U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and others to sign off on the climate change agreement, with the ordinary taxpayer picking up the tab.

Despite all the hype, COP21 imposes no mandates on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that each country must reduce, although countries agreed to limit average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected…But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail…irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised,” the Daily Mail explained about the cooked calculations.

Describing the NOAA as the chief advocate for man-made climate change, Health Ranger Mike Adams, the founder of Natural News, asserted earlier this month that the agency fabricates temperature data as a standard practice to justify its doomsday forecasts. Adams has separately detailed that the oft-repeated claim that 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is settled science  — as if science is ever settled — is a bunch of hot air. (RELATED: Read more about the climate change movement at ClimateScienceNews.com.)

In a follow-up story, the Daily Mail noted that “flawed as it was, the Pausebuster paper unquestionably helped persuade world leaders to sign an agreement that imposes massive emissions cuts on developed countries.”

The NOAA claims that it will review the Bates allegations, the Washington Times indicated, whatever that means. In the meantime, left-wing websites and climate change industry cultists have predictably circled the wagons around the NOAA. (RELATED: Read more about fake science predictions at FakeScience.news.)

U.S. Rep Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, says that the NOAA has to date stonewalled requests for background information on the pausebuster paper.

Cameron’s signature on the pact will cost U.K. taxpayers about $400 billion in emissions-reductions commitments by the year 2030 along with additional climate aid to developing countries, the Daily Mail added. It’s likely that Obama put U.S. consumers on the hook for a similar outlay.

President Trump has yet to make a final decision about bailing on the Paris accord. If Trump wants to get out, the Congressional Research Service has come up with three different exit strategies, The Daily Caller noted. One is to withdraw as of November 2019 (as provided for in the text of the agreement), do an end-run by getting rid of Obama’s overall Climate Action Plan, or ditching the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty, although this may require Congressional approval.

Parenthetically, in his new movie, grandstanding globalist Al Gore, a.k.a. the climate con man, is also engaged in some reverse-engineering by justifying his apocalyptic weather whopper about the danger of flooding in lower Manhattan by referencing Hurricane Sandy rather than melting ice caps.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

DailyMail.co.uk

DailyMail.co.uk

WashingtonTimes.com

DailyCaller.com

Scientists March To Support Global-Warming Censorship: The New Ridiculous

fakenews

NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 29, 2017

USA Today has the story (1/26): “American scientists worried about climate change and skeptical of President Donald Trump are planning a protest march in Washington, D.C.”

“March organizers, on the event’s website, said it serves as ‘a starting point to take a stand for science in politics’.”

“…The group’s mission statement is set to come out on Monday.”

“‘There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives’, the statement said. ‘The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action…’”

Well, all right, that’s that. No alternatives.

Debate would be subversive.

Official science is the only science.

But oops; all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government and media portals.

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

The science is only settled in government/media circles, where leaders have climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to “reduce warming.”

One of the major warming hustlers is, of course, Al Gore. Every movement needs such men.

Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):

In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM and Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.

The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

2012: A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists said no (see here and here). Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.

Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”

Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”

This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.

Slavery imposed through energy.

To learn more about this big con and swindle, I encourage you to read the book “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation”, by Patrick Wood.

In closing, I’ll leave you with this:

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read: “US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.” (An earlier article of mine on it here.)

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

New York Times 1989: No Global Warming Trend

athink
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 29, 2016

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read: “US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”

“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:

“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”

That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.

Actually, later in the Times article, “Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.

But don’t worry…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_________________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

 

Is The Global-Warming Hustle Finally Falling Apart?

TruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 5, 2016

“When you see a problem defined as ‘a threat to all humans’, you can be sure Globalists are using that fake or real problem to impose control on all humans.” (The Underground. Jon Rappoport)

With the election of Donald Trump, climate change and global warming have come back into the spotlight. In a different way.

“The science is settled” isn’t good enough now.

Neither is the Globalist plan to cut energy production in every country in the world, in order to “rescue us from frying.”

LA Times: “Donald Trump will be about the only head of state who does not believe in climate science or the responsibility of his government to act,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club…”

But all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government portals.

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

The science is only settled in government circles where leaders have climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to “reduce warming.”

One of the major warming hustlers is, of course, Al Gore.

Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):

In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled — via loans, grants and tax relief — somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the Federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have Federal friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 — before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.

The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s.

Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Al Gore is one of their front men.

He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their delivery kid.

And for his work, he is paid $100 million — a drop in the bucket.

A final note about the “science” of global warming—

A hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

Confirmation means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.

Take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.

Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?

So far, the answer is no.

That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.

However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary of a warming trend derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Scientists will also claim their investigation reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to a recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes of any actual climate changes.

Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.

In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.

So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Over 30,000 scientists say ‘Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming’ is a complete hoax and science lie

Global warming
Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
August 31, 2016

The highly-politicized climate change debate rages on as we approach the crucial 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite an ever-growing body of evidence revealing the fact that “catastrophic man-made global warming” is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.

And the November election may prove to be a victory for the hoaxers, according to experts who happen to be among those who dare to challenge the spurious climate change narrative.

One of these experts is Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who is now warning that the election could prove to be a “tipping point” in favor of people like Al Gore, who continue to amass vast fortunes based on the global warming scam.

In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”

Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

From the National Review:

“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax

But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.

Read More: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TruthWiki.org

ClimateDepot.com

NationalReview.com

NationalReview.com

WSJ.com

PetitionProject.org

Scientists Claim Man Is Polluting So Much That a New Epoch Must Be Invented: The Anthropocene

scientist1
Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 30, 2016

Anthropocene: Planet Earth has entered new man-made epoch, experts say … dubbed the Anthropocene because of the extent of humanity’s impact on the planet.  An international working group set up to consider the question voted by 34 to zero, with one abstention, that the Anthropocene was real in a geological sense.  –UK Independent

Good Lord, the earth is about to have a new geological time frame foisted on it. Thanks to our longtime feedback contributor alaska3636 for alerting us to this latest, comprehensive insanity. In a recent thread, he wrote the following:

Did you see this great, big portmanteau meme … The Anthropocene Epoch … How many memes does it attempt to fit?

“Humanity’s impact on the Earth is now so profound that a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – needs to be declared, according to an official expert group who presented the recommendation to the International Geological Congress in Cape Town on Monday.  The new epoch should begin about 1950, the experts said, and was likely to be defined by the radioactive elements dispersed across the planet by nuclear bomb tests, although an array of other signals, including plastic pollution, soot from power stations, concrete, and even the bones left by the global proliferation of the domestic chicken were now under consideration.”

Of course, there is also global warming.  But, wait! A weird meta-explanation of meme-distribution?  “The 35 scientists on the WGA – who voted 30 to three in favor of formally designating the Anthropocene, with two abstentions – will now spend the next two to three years determining which signals are the strongest and sharpest.”

Once the data has been assembled, it will be formally submitted to the stratigraphic authorities and the Anthropocene could be officially adopted within a few years.”  The Guardian: Making the world safe for technocratic globalism.

Alaska’s excerpts are from the Guardian (here). In fact, this is a major meme that has just exploded in the UK media (and soon the US?). Each UK daily had their own take and tone. The Guardian reported on this planned, new epoch more poetically than the Independent, as follows:

On Christmas Eve 1968, the Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders took a photograph of the view outside the window as his spaceship orbited the moon. The now iconic Earthrise image shows our half-moon blue planet under a decoration of clouds rising from the blackness of space over the lunar surface.  The picture encapsulated Earth’s precariousness in the cosmos and, for many, contained a message of humility and stewardship for our home.

Now geologists have decided … changes have been so profound, so global and so permanent that our catalogue of the Earth’s history needs to change accordingly. Since the last ice age, around 11,000 years ago, human civilisation has flourished in the climatically benign Holocene. Now they believe that epoch has come to an end and we have entered a new human-influenced age, the Anthropocene.

As you can see from the introductory excerpt, the Independent article (here) gets to the point more quickly. But both articles treat the “new epoch” as immensely significant event.

The UK Daily Mail (here) is perhaps the most clinical, seeking to define the “new” epoch as follows:

WHAT IS THE ANTHROPOCENE?  This is from from anthropo, for ‘man,’ and cene, for ‘new’. Experts remain divided on when mankind caused a lasting impact on the Earth’s geology but seem to have settled on a time near 1950. The atomic bomb is a popular marker.

Alaska is absolutely correct about this being a portmanteau meme. We borrowed the term portmanteau from Lewis Carroll who used it to describe the intermingling of two or more words: Fog and smoke to make smog, for instance.

An elite portmanteau meme – as we use it – is one that intermingles two or more forms of propaganda in a single presentation. The elite over-population meme could be considered a portmanteau meme because its examination inevitably embraces various kinds of scarcity memes including an impending lack of food, water, etc.

Several basic characteristics identify elite memes. They usually deal with basic survival issues of some sort and postulate that human existence is threatened by enormous difficulties . The inevitable conclusion is always the same: Government – the bigger, the better – must step in to alleviate the impending disaster.

This  “Anthropocene” meme is even more obnoxious than usual. For instance, it is presented within a scientific context that is intended to provide credibility to a broad spectrum of propaganda. Pollution, environmental degradation, global warming, etc.,these are all elements intended to receive an endorsement from this larger meme.

The Independent:

The warming temperature, higher sea levels, ash from fossil fuels, plastic waste, a dramatic increase in erosion, the spread of animal species around the world and radioactive particles left around the world from nuclear bomb tests would all contribute to permanent changes in the Earth’s rocks, the scientists said.

Do you notice the inclusion of “nuclear bomb tests?” We’ve been running a series of articles (here) showing how the Pentagon and related facilities have surely faked various nuclear blasts and generally utilized phony stories about “nuclear weapons” as a way to keep people terrified for three-quarters of a century.

It should be obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at the evidence that the Pentagon and other countries released films of nuclear bomb tests that either never happened or took  place in ways that were not nearly as dramatic as the films purporting to document them (here).

Yes, nuclear weapons may exist in some form or other, but they are surely a classic example of fear-based propaganda. And as with so many other such elite memes, only government has the authority and power to save us. As we’ve pointed out previously, your average sociopathic political grifter can be arranging a sordid embezzlement in the morning and addressing an attentive group of fellow politicos in the afternoon on ways that he intends to save humanity from total destruction with the latest “nuclear treaty.”

Anyway, this is one humdinger of a meme. It’s the proverbial gift that keeps on giving. The only major memes that likely cannot be crammed into this bouquet of bullshit are the economic ones such as central banking. But when it comes to scarcity memes, this “new epoch” nonsense is fairly all encompassing … and thus more obnoxious than usual.

The reality in our view is that man has “done” nothing to earth of any consequence. Take a drive through Russia, Canada, Alaska, Australia, Brazil or even the Western US. You can go days, perhaps, without seeing a single person. Overpopulation is nonsense. You could reportedly fit the world’s entire population in New Zealand (here).

And of course we heard for years about “peak oil” and the looming catastrophe of energy scarcity. These days we’re virtually drowning in oil. Meanwhile, they’re shutting down wind farms and solar plants because they are too expensive to operate and the energy is too intermittent (here).

Predictably, this meme uses “experts” to apply “science.” But, increasingly, we discover in this Internet era that “science” is whatever elites deem it to be. And the “experts” that deliver such science,  often with expensive and impressive-sounding degrees, are actually flim-flam artists of a sort. If someone tells you he’s an expert, our advice would be to run the other way. (See here and here.)

Here’s some additional information from the Daily Mail on the meme’s formal evolution:

“Our working model is that the optimal boundary is the mid-20th century,” said Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester.  “If adopted – and we’re a long way from that – the Holocene would finish and the Anthropocene would formally be held to have begun.”

… If the Anthropocene is voted into existence, scientists will have to pick a ‘golden spike’ to mark the transition. The spike nails down a date, but also pinpoints a primary ‘signal’ at a specific location. The working group was divided on what that essential signal might be, but traces of nuclear bomb explosions emerged as a favourite.

Conclusion: Of course it has! This epochal lie is therefore to be anchored by another lie: the pervasive and oft-tested savagery of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yes, there may such weapons, but the Pentagon controlled narrative is as full of untruths as this upcoming multi-meme production will be. We’re sick of it and it hasn’t even really begun.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com