Note on the imagery: The graphs are from NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) ‘Sea Level Trends’ website, which, on its own, proves that ‘Climate Change’ (AGW, or man-caused) is a fraud. As far as I know, I’m the only source who quote NASA’s own numbers (NOAA is part of NASA) to expose their deceit. This will be explained below.
NOAA’s ‘Sea Level Trends’ website. Ever seen it before? No? You’ll want to come back to this one…
#
I finally got through the rest of Brief Answers to the Big Questions and in the end what jumps out at me is how often ‘Hawking’ repeats the climate change spiel, and how in many different ways he makes it clear that we are to blame, just for… being on the planet.
I’d bet that a lot of you are familiar with Report From Iron Mountain, a ‘think tank’ white paper (short book length) from the early 1960s, and which analyzes the possible repercussions of ‘world peace.’ This was at the time of JFK’s push to end the cold war and in fact to bring on a permanent peace, so it’s logical that such a study was actually commissioned. I phrase it thusly because if you go to a MS source it will tell you that the little book was a hoax. Read the thing (and I highly recommend you do) and you’ll immediately understand why the PTB would attempt to discredit it. It’s a real howler, in the Doctor Strangelovian sense. [Here is a download pdf of Report From Iron Mountain]
Although I’m quite sure it’s genuine, I’ll not burn your time arguing the point, for this reason: The true provenance
The rest are a sampling, in alphabetical order. I’ll explain later…
almost doesn’t matter, given that all that is said is based on (now) declassified government documents and think tank studies (a lot from the good old Rand Corporation), mostly from the ’50s and 60s, plus a few historical references. So what Report amounts to is a summation of information/observations/agendas that were already on the record.
The real meat of Report comes from its observation that social cohesion is ‘war based’ and if, for whatever reason, ‘peace should break out’, one of the results would be ‘social disintegration’ — this aside from the obvious economic catastrophe to the ‘war machine’ or ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ Eisenhower warned us about. Point being, peace would be a disaster for the PTB.
The Report authors go on to postulate what sorts of ‘threats’ could be used to replace outright war, in order to politically ‘stabilize’ us peasants. In the following Report passage we can clearly see the seed of the ‘climate change’ agenda…
‘Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from
outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat [Orson Wells’s ‘War of the Worlds’ radio broadcast was probably this sort of op.]; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking. [Keep in mind that the Report was from the early 1960s, before revolutionary advances in special effects, holograms in particular, likely were developed. I would also ask the reader to keep in mind my videos showing the likelihood that the Spacex launches have been fraudulent, ‘from the ground up’]
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently 
menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
[Given the timing, and reading between the lines here, we can plainly see whence the ‘climate change threat’ arose: What better ‘pollution’ could they come up with than CO2, given that – aside from the ‘carbon tax’ scam used as economic control – we exhale it with each breath, underscoring how ‘we’ are the cause of the ‘problem’]
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in 
a politically acceptable manner. [Again, Climate Change, or AGW (anthropocentric global warming via CO2), solves the ‘politically acceptable’ problem perfectly]
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probably, in our judgement, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. [If there ever was an ‘invented’ threat, climate change is it!] [end quote]
For more background on the provenance of the Climate Change Fraud, look into the Club of Rome.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome
Click the above link for the details of the ‘elite’ Club of Rome’s mid-1970s addition to the Report From Iron Mountain’s agenda.
But enough background. Let’s return to the matter of ‘Stephen Hawking’ and his Big Questions book. Listening to it, how he kept slipping in ‘climate change’ as the threat to the planet and its population, I found myself thinking about the sort of readership the book would get. Considering the USA and worldwide, I don’t know
The only one I hand picked was Montauk, my old home base.
how many advanced level physicists the Universities have put out, but I would assume a book on ‘the Big Questions’ of physics and cosmology, (supposedly) written by Stephen Hawking would be a best seller amongst this demographic.
Thing is, truly, you have to read (or listen to) the book to really understand the absurd hyperbole Hawking uses to throw a scare into the reader, the ‘sulphuric acid rain’ and Venusian temperatures we’re bringing on ourselves is just one example among many. Coming from anyone else, this would be so over the top and so absurd that it would be counter-productive — and likely to evoke a belly laugh — especially with scientists. But as I say, ‘Hawking’ has been groomed as the ultimate authority figure in matters scientific.
Addendum (written at the last minute): It occurs to me that my primary interest of late is figuring out how really smart people (physicists, say) could believe utterly transparent falsehoods. No, not the PTB or their minions, but the ‘man on the street’, who also happens to be highly educated and, theoretically, brilliantly-minded. How could I know so much more than he?
This is why I took the time with this particular book, and would subject you to two posts on it… the PTB are dead serious in their promotion of the climate change fraud. And as transparent a fraud as it is, try to find even one ‘pundit’ — no matter his/her area of expertise — who isn’t on their bandwagon. True, many are no more than useful idiots who know how the game is played, but still, this one is coming from the very top.
Knowing the types of people who are likely to read this blog — I refer to not only state moles/shills but also those who have been taken in by the disinformation, again, obvious as it is — and who will come up with ‘graphs’ and ‘peer reviewed’ crapola up the wazoo, I wouldn’t be saying these things with this sort of surety if I couldn’t prove my point. i.e., the fraudulence of the climate change agenda.
You have noticed that the imagery I’ve spread across this text is all graphs from various harbors and coastal cities worldwide. As I say up top, this information is from NOAA/NASA, so you’d think I’d be wary of it. But I’m not, because the stations that report these figures are independent, usually local harbormasters and such. There are too many to compromise them all, so the PTB didn’t bother.
They just don’t talk about this information. (Neither does anyone else. As far as I know, I’m the only person to expose the fraud in this way, i.e., inarguably, and from their own data.)
Think about it. What is the number one ‘catastrophe’ they say we are in for with climate change?
Rising sea level. (The graphs were selected at random, with preference to the stations with historical data going back the farthest.)
Have you ever wondered why they so rarely talk specifically about how much sea level has already risen? They’ll show you glaciers calving and ice floes at sea and they will even ‘predict’ how much sea level will rise, but why not tell us the current trends? They don’t tell us because the truth of it, the actual numbers, would expose the grand deceit.
And it’s all right there on NOAA’s website.
In my sampling of 22 stations, the Maldives has the highest sea level rise. Click it and look: In 100 years, sea level will rise about 13 inches.
When ice melts the sea level response should be almost instantaneous, shouldn’t it? Throw something massive in a swimming pool and the water rises immediately, doesn’t it? Since, according to the ‘paradigm’, humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for well over 100 years, and since (they claim) the temperature has been skyrocketing for that long, shouldn’t we notice the rising sea level?
Addendum: Here is how I came across the website — the NOAA/NASA website — you see reproduced here:
To quote NOAA: ‘The relative sea level trend is -1.3 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2.04 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1965 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of -0.43 feet in 100 years. NINETY-FIVE % sure the sea level closest to Greenland will FALL in the next 100 years.
In the summer of 2006 I was back at Montauk from some adventures in Costa Rica (see my memoir, Can’t You Get Along With Anyone; A Writer’s Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer’s Paradise) and had just seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth at a theatre in Manhattan. Although by this time I had figured out that the PTB had perpetrated 9/11, I had not yet dived deeply into HTWRW, and although virtually everything Gore says in his film is a deceit, I tended to believe his over all premise.
However, the next time I went surfing at Montauk I noticed that the very same rock I had to look out for at low water (spring tides) in 1964, the year I started surfing, was awash in the same exact way now, in 2006.
If the ice has been melting for half a century, why is the Montauk shoreline the same? I went home and looked up the Montauk Sea Level Trends on the NOAA website… and the rest is ‘history’… or rather the lies of history.
The two NASA stations closest to ‘the source of the flood’, and one says in 100 years sea levels will FALL (top), the other says in 100 years sea level will rise about EIGHT INCHES. With NINETY-FIVE % certainty.
‘The Maldives are sinking!’ they tell us. Okay, let’s look at the ‘Sea Level Trends’ for the Maldives (see the above graph). I almost didn’t include it because the station has only been sending data since 1987. I picked these at random but tried to stick to stations that give us 50 to 150 years of data. I let the Maldives slide since it’s been ‘in the news’ as in grave peril. I did the math. In the last 30 years, sea level has risen (or the land has sunk) 4.13 inches. As I say, this is the most extreme of my sampling.
Addendum: The two adjacent images say it all. They are faking temperature data, as ‘Climategate’ proved. With sea level rise, they hope you don’t notice the data.
As you will see if you examine the graphs, sea level has on average been rising — we have been exiting an ice age for the past 12,000 years — but the rate has been rock steady; in other words, CO2 cannot have been a factor.
Lisbon has been reporting since 1882. A hundred and fifty years. Look at the slope of the graph. 1882 was before the real industrial revolution, i.e., CO2 skyrocketing. No effect!
And the average — counting stations who report dropping sea level — is less than half a foot (six inches) per century. Go to the site and do your own math.
Look at Lisbon. The trend says in 100 years the rise will be well under 6 inches. This is NASA speaking! No wonder they don’t tell us about this website.
I ran out of room so i piled a few at the bottom. But I think you get my point. If you know someone who believes The Fraud, please send him/her this post and ask for an explanation. (Again: I did an average of 22 random stations and found worldwide sea level rise over the next 100 years will be less than six inches. But the main point is that the graph lines are all straight as a ruler. No change in rate of rise.)
What we currently have is ‘The Smartest Man in the World’ furthering the Big Fraud. Too bad we can’t ask him for an explanation.
Allan
Tired of seeing all these straight lines? That;s what you get when the change is constant over time. Here, it means CO2 is not a factor in climate change. Hint: It’s the sun!
Wait. One more note on ‘Hawking.’ Remember the ‘time travel party’ bit at the end of my last post? Let’s look at it again:
When asked ‘If you had a party for time travelers, would anyone show up?’
‘Hawking’s’ answer: ‘In 2009 at my college I held a party for time travelers. To make sure only real time travelers would show up I didn’t send out invitations until the after the party. On the day of the party I sat hoping but no one came.’
Going on 100 years and the sea level at Hilo, Hawaii will rise about one foot. 95% certainty from NOAA. Why haven’t you heard this elsewhere?
As I pointed out in my Open Letter to Miles Mathis, English speakers from Great Britain rarely if ever use the word ‘college’ in describing seats of higher learning. It’s virtually always ‘university.’ So what? So the above implies that an American English speaker wrote the passage, not an Englishman. This is further evidence that the real Stephen Hawking has been long gone.
This one is interesting in that it’s the closest station to Greenland, which has supposedly been pouring the most water into Big Blue. Notice that its sea level is FALLING. How could this be?
Iceland. Right next to Greenland. Where is all that water going? Someone is LYING.
Enough! (Except you might read the caption to the graph below, then click it.)
India. Check the data. in 103 years, NASA expects a 3 inch rise. They are all like this.
My father has a more than 5 decades-long career as a research engineer at a Research I. University. He has a CV with a very, very long list of publications in top peer-reviewed publications in journals of bioengineering, demography, economics, information theory, systems theory, and other disciplines. He published ground breaking research in the mid-1960’s with his mentor, Larry Stark, MD, who is one of the “fathers” of bioengineering. He is presently publishing ground breaking research in medical imaging. A few years ago he reviewed the climatology models regressing atmospheric temps on estimated human generated CO2 and found they all contained a common mistake made by people who don’t know probability and statistics or regression analysis well. None of the modelers’ models, which had highly significant correlation coefficients, accounted for what is known as non-stationarity in the data before they did the regression. Non-stationary processes produce time varying means in outputted data and regression cannot be used with non-stationary data. When he performed the necessary transformation before doing the regression, the correlation coefficients dropped to insignificance. He submitted his results for publication to the IPCC journals and for the first time in his long career was completely ignored so he resubmitted, only to be ignored again. He finally contacted an editor who told him they weren’t interested in publishing his research. Human caused climate change is a complete scam. It has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever.
Excellent report and great follow up replies.
It’s remarkable how we can be duped for so long…
The self-serving egos really irk me. But the depth of
The coverups and fraud is astounding…
Great post Allan, thank you. You present a nuanced position that is tough for the average person to grasp, and you did an excellent job articulating it. Appreciate all the graphs too. You also reminded me of something I have increasingly found interesting. Which is that the terms that become “buzz words”in our society also seem to have an almost hypnotizing effect on people. The more the exact terms (such as ‘global warming’) are used or heard the stronger the hypnosis seems to be. But instead if you say the earth is getting warmer, absolute different emotional quality to the language itself. Makes me wonder if its possibly interrelated with Mandela effect. Or if the specific language is an important key in the agenda. Got any thoughts? Thanks again for this post.
Montauk:
65 yrs X 1.3mm = 86.45mm change = 0.28362861 ft change = 3.40354332 inch change in sea level. Are you sure you would notice that? That is calculated for 2019.
2006 = 42 yrs X 1.3mm/yr change = 54.6 mm = 0.1791339 feet = 2.1496068 inches change in sea level in 2006. Still sure?
Errr 55 yrs 2019-1964. sheesh. Sorry.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/who-is-tony-heller/
Sheesh, so much to learn to debunk the BS. Maybe Margaritaville is where it is at?
Not sure what you mean. I didn’t say I noticed any change at Montauk.
allan (or other commenters who have email contact…)
I am posting this in its entirety at TBP. I came to your blog via a search for information regarding Miles Mathis and Limited Hangouts.
I found your approach to blogging marvelous and hope others at TBP agree with me. Your perspective and your approach to presenting information, so far, has impressed me greatly.
And, generally, I’m pretty unimpressable.
22winmag (moniker at TBP) is our biggest MM fan. He has responded to a link to your Open Letters to Miles Mathis:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/11/02/big-questions-big-lies/#comment-1839416
Here is what “he” said: Reasoned logic at mileswmathis.com vis-a-vis an vomit-news-aggregator like whatreallyhappened.com aka Sorcha Fal… in the same sentence?
That’s proof enough pro trolls are all over the web 24/7 at blogs large and small… just like you.
THE BRITISH ARE COMING!
If you’re not in the aristocracy, I hope you have your mortgage payments ready, in gold.
00 Reply
November 2, 2019 3:35 pm
Looks like you got yourself a troll there on your site MG. Anyone supporting MM in an unquestioning fashion like that is an obvious shill or, at the minimum, a useful idiot. Best of luck to you – you may need to do some housecleaning.
Chris, just ask yourself how those lying hounds (who make these charts) can measure and/or predict 1.3mm sea level rise??…with LAND masses constantly moving, and in many cases – SINKING. With 1000’s of earthquakes every year, AND the fact that land behaves like a jelly, or liquid in a bad earthquake.
I myself have been around for a good 6 decades, and what I have found is NOTHING they say or write – or chart up, is Trustworthy.
With satellite radar, hence it is negative, as compared to the ground, from the sky.
Allan,
We have discussed (now) twice dead Hawkng quite some time ago, but on the climate change is war discussion I recommend you looking in to Dr. Patrick Moore (elsewhere but on YOU TUBE) he comes from way back and he really knows his stuff.
Very comprehensive article Allan especially with the graphs
I noticed that you mentioned Orson Welles but inadvertently spelt his name as Wells as in HG.Wells which shows how Welles possibly chose his name originally,after all it shows one of the freemasonic/satanic methods ie “Hidden in plain sight”.
With regard to Hawking its obvious that he was played by more than one actor, we call ALS Motor Neurone Disease and someone I know went down fast once it had been diagnosed .
Things do look bleak but we ain’t dead yet, the reign of the beast will only last for 42 months=three and a half years then the King will come with his army and defeat the wicked .
He is coming in the clouds and every eye will surely see him all the tribes of the earth will mourn, more so the ones who pierced him .
The same demons who were possessing the scribes and Pharisees and the Romans are now in the wicked politicians and warmongers laying our planet to waste but not for much longer, Christ is coming to punish those.
Then there will be a thousand years of peace before the final battle, so I for one take courage in these prophecies and I hope you can too Good will conquer evil a blessing to you all .
Spelt? Ha ha.
I’m afraid to ask where you got the information…
In the all of the the available images and maps of earth Greenland is depicted as a giant glacier while the landmasses to the east and west (and others at even higher latitudes else ware) are rock or forest. See the image you chose for this post. Any idea why this may be? Are they hiding something?
Greenland looks ridiculously large on Mercator projections, which has to swell up land in the higher latitudes because of the earth’s spherical shape. It’s actually about the size of a mid-sized state. It’s very misleading, but out of ignorance, not dishonesty, in this case. There’s a new projection that is more accurate without screwing up the lines of longitude/latitude. Not easy to describe. Do a search for ‘Mercator distortion’ or some such.
I get that it’s projected size is misleading, yet that does not explain why it is an ice sheet while the same latitudes in Canada, Russia, etc are not.
https://mariobuildreps.com/greenland/
one of the more in depth takes on the question that I have managing to find thus far
Helluva good question; that website is very interesting. Wow. Why didn’t I wonder why Greenland has the ice and other places don’t? They are right, there is no MS reason that makes sense!
Greenland never leaves the arctic circle, whereas other landmasses enter and exit as crustal displacements occur. Hence Siberia was once warm (over 12,000 years ago), but is now closer to the arctic circle, and so contains many mammoth carcasses (that were ‘flash-frozen’ in the Younger Dryas event).
Climate change? surely that change is inevitable as well as based upon wherever we are on the 52,000 year cycle with the galactic plane- Im sure a few scientists, cosmologists and prognosticators know where we are headed and where we were coming from-
With that being said POLLUTION is that 800lb gorilla in the room and that pollution comes in many forms and will be mankind’s downfall!
If the air is poisonous/toxic to breathe then all surface organisms will eventually get sick and perish.
If the water supply is contaminated and is poisonous to drink/use/consume then plants and animals will become sickly and eventually poisonous to consume and will go extinct.
Humans being at the top of the food chain are the top bio-accumulators as well, and will suffer the degradation faster than other lifeforms. Our rate of mutation to stay ahead of the toxic curve is not present or fast enough… We(mankind) will succumb without clean air water food and proper lighting…
GEOENGINEERING poses the greatest threat in this Toxic equation because what they are doing to curb solar gain by solar radiation management is poisoning the environment and killing us slowly, coupled with microwave, nuclear and other types of manmade radiation we and the flora and fauna are inundated with (this modern world of convenience) makes a real toxic environment to exist in and will lead to cross species extinction.
Giant Asteroid not needed to wipe out life on earth. our pollution- (by negligence or on purpose) will eliminate modern man from the roll call of life on earth. (just my two cents and what i have personally witnessed in 53 years here on this planet)
Are we capable of and will we rescue ourselves?
or will that Job be left to our creator?
and more importantly-
what is the lesson to be learned from a botched mission EA-rth?
Sadly in our present state… we have no right to seek out new life and civilizations, to boldly going where no man has gone before………….. our greatest achievement of our species is to extinct life on this planet many times over by several ways of manmade negligence and or engineering.
Darwin Award Winners we are………………………….. Emergency on Planet Earth
Aloha
Yep, you pretty much summed it up….
But… the… CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been since we learned to use burning fuels… Ahhh, why do I bother. Some people just don’t understand the amounts. Yes, our measurements are more accurate than they used to be. We have examined extremely old ice core samples. Do you believe in anything? What is it?
I don’t know what you are trying to say, but maybe read my post with an open mind. I never said the climate isn’t changing. And please make your points in ONE comment. I’ve asked you this before, haven’t I?
Sorry to add more. The pollution is indeed horrible and unsustainable. But the climate change will make that worse as we try to compensate for the less nutritious grown food by adding more fertilizer. And plastic… Rainbows and unicorns and magic omniscient beings that care about you in the sky… pffft.
One person who has been using “their own data” to expose climate alarmism is Tony Heller at https://realclimatescience.com/, including nice words re Hawking – “And 115 years later, Stephen Hawking was parroting the same nonsense.” His twitter feed is a stream of historic reports, graphs, quotes & links damning today’s media nonsense & his short videos are eye-opening & educational eg. Basic Science For Climate Scientists https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg Corruption Of The Satellite Record https://youtu.be/bOHrYY3yAGE My Gift To Climate Alarmists https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU –Tony describes this as ” my most concise expose of climate fraud.” “The video is short, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.”
Please check him out if you’re not already – a wealth of info.
Right first off, I want to say while I am pretty much convinced on most other topics that we are being lied to or deceived and recently came across Electric Universe and it explains a lot more, I am still very much on the fence with global warming / climate change. BTW, the fake Hawking item really struck a chord because it didn’t make sense he appeared to be getting younger and even less debilitated looking over the years.
On face value, you would indeed expect the sea level to be rising, but there has not be huge chunks of the Greenland ice sheet falling into the sea, although many glaciers leading down to the sea have receded quite far back up their fjords. Certainly the annual freezing and thawing of sea-ice in the Arctic ocean has been both getting thinner and smaller in extent. But I will come back to that. Anyhow the point is ice already floating will not increase the level of the water if it melts. Put an ice-cube in a glass of water and see. So any melting in the Arctic ocean ice-pack will not add to it. The big icebergs that have calved in Antarctica were from ice shelfs which were already floating. That just leaves glaciers and any additional outflow from Greenland glaciers and of course parts of Antarctic. At this point, I am not sure that this glacier melt will have contributed much. I do believe various mountain glaciers are retreating because there are lots of old photographs showing them years ago and now. There should also be some increase in sea level due to thermal expansion. Having said all that, I would still expect to see some kind of signal. They do say if Greenland melted and I presume they mean entirely it would add 5 meters or so. But it hasn’t melted yet. They say it is melting. So lets take 5m or 500cm so if 1/500 of it melts, do we see 1 cm rise? I guess so. But has that much even melted yet. I think the answer is no. It could be close though. One other point with regard to sea-level measurements is that depending on the bit of coastline, some are rising and some are sinking very slightly. One would imagine it would be split 50/50 but that doesn’t appear to be the case in the data. Unfortunately I don’t have figures for the volume of ice lost from glaciers that is claimed to have melted in say the last 100 years and it would be worth tracking down to see what the estimates are and what calculated or estimated sea level rise would be from this number.
The problem at least to me is if I agree the sea level should show a far bigger rise (and I don’t expect it yet -per above) and it doesn’t and therefore convince myself climate warming is not ocurring, I still have to reconcile this with all the significant glacier retreats around the world. I also have to reconcile it would the significant thinning and reduction extent of the polar sea-ice as per satellite records since 1979. Now I know it will be said, well we can’t trust the satellite data. If we don’t trust it, you still have to reconcile the glacier data. Does one throw that out too. I am not willing to. And I am inclined to stick with the satellite data too because it corrborates many accounts from various native peoples in the far north talking about how the icepack is arriving later, melting earlier, is thinner and more unpredictable -i.e. leads opening up etc. Actually I believe there was citation by one of the early explorers to the Arctic in the 17th century or some such time giving a figure of over 17m for the thickness of the icepack -which suggest the changes are ongoing for longer than we the media presents.
Now it is quite clear to me that there are people on both sides of the debate lying and deceiving and getting back to the quotes and agenda laid out in The Report from Iron Mountain cited above in the article, the hoax case is very much strenghtened by it. There are definitely plenty of people and scientists exaggerating the changes and using it for their grant proposals. There is too much computer modelling going on and not even real science or data collection. And as for politicians well it is great for speeches, because you can sound concerned about humanity and still do f**k-all.
To a certain extent a fair amount of the debate hinges on how believable it is that CO-2 could cause so much change but I would be inclined to say it would have to be more than just that and I would put albedo up there as a factor and maybe shifting cloud types and patterns over decade and longer timeframes. On the albedo I think if we go back about 100 years, we would probably agree there was far more forest cover and not quite as much agriculture land and this changing mix must have some impact in terms of the reflectivity and so forth and thereby heating or otherwise. What I am really saying is, the PTB might have decided to latch on the CO-2 because it does have some warming effect, but the real physical cause could be a combination of other factors.
I noticed especially when it comes to the environment if people decide a particular thing is a hoax, then they tend to dismiss all possiblity of it altogether and what I mean here is that just because the PTB may decide to use widespread pollution and climate change for their agenda and encourage it, and talk it up, does not mean pollution is NOT bad or that climate change is NOT possible. Some people then use this as an excuse to not care and be as wasteful as they want. It removes any sense of guilt. Indeed large corporations consistently have tried to downplay the toxicity of many chemicals so that they can dispose of them as they wish. Hey we still all want clear water and air don’t we. Who wants to swim in plastic and sewage? I prefer pristine water if I can find it.
And while I am at it here on the pollution thing, I believe the huge increase in a whole range of toxic chemicals in the environment [and as I am sure people will be aware of the often quoted fact that our body fat shows up over 200+ toxic chemicals], is leading to widespread hormone disruption. I used to read quite a lot of environmental related articles years ago, and in many cases they regularly mentioned how pollution was causing sex changes in various aninmal and fish populations and leading to deformities or huge imbalances in the population in each sex. It is my believe that there is massive hormone disruption in the human population but the chemical industry like the tobacco industry in it’s day successfuly lied, hid, distracted and covered up about the dangers. Hormone disruption in a developing foetus would cause a wide range of problems particularly with the unfolding sequencing of the development including brain development controlling things like which gender you are attacted to.
What does this have to do with global warming. It is to do with if we decide the PTB are going to use pollution and falling for the trap that it isn’t that bad. In fact maybe it is good for us. I would hazard chemical pollution is so bad that the PTB have had an agenda over the last 30 odd years to promote the LGBT agenda to cover up the massive chemical contamination which has lead to huge levels of hormone disruption. BTW, chemicals that are hormone disruptors are ones that tend to bond to the same cell receptors because of similar chemistry on one part of the molecular but the rest of it may not even been in the same class of compound as the hormone for which the receptor is designed.
Likewise, whatever we have done to the planet, just becuase some factions (definitely not the Koch brothers) are promoting global warming, does not mean it is not happening. The rate and real unfolding of events may also be different to what is predicted or claimed to be. As alluded to above in the main article, their agenda is things like carbon taxes, carbon credits. It is also continuing consumerism -aka the electric car instead of the petrol one. None of these are solutions. Again I have seen people reject the climate issue because of what the PTB are promoting.
One of the things I noticed the media wants us to do is to make up our minds on issues very quickly and then stick in that camp. We don’t have to flip to a Yes/No condition immediately. We should contemplate and stay as long as possible in the maybe camp. The trick with propaganda appears to be once a person holds a belief it is hard to dislodge it. Sure I have a belief about the above, but willing to consider other possibilities around it.
Lastly what makes regular physicists and the like believe the lies and deceptions of the PTB. Well we like to think and they do too, that somehow they are logical thinkers and not affected by mere emotions or the social environment since afterall they are all honourable and dealing with the truth. They are simply unaware of the social ecology they live in and that like everyone else look to authority and seek approval. They think they are not but they are. There is also the very big issue of studying something for years and then admitting you were wrong. The potential repercussions are you may feel you didn’t look so bright after all for believing the old stuff, so to save face they stick with the old belief. The stronger motivation though is that if most of the peer group believe the mainstream then it can be social suicide to go outside the group over to another camp. I mean what if you switched sides, were made to look a fool, and later you find out you were wrong anyhow. Now there is no way back because in the eyes of that peer group you have lost their respect. So they just don’t risk it. Unless the PTB via the mainstream media organs says so.
This has always been the case. As a side note, I saw a programme a few years back about the doctor who introduced the idea of cleaning surgical instruments. The death rate in his hospital was way lower. And what happened? They ostracized him and eventually he ended up in a mental home.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I only have a couple things to add to it. Re your ‘ice melt’ points, you say
‘ Unfortunately I don’t have figures for the volume of ice lost from glaciers that is claimed to have melted in say the last 100 years and it would be worth tracking down to see what the estimates are and what calculated or estimated sea level rise would be from this number.’
Really good point. Why have they not done that? B/c the data would not match the agenda, I suspect.
Why don’t you view ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ and then take each point they make and verify it. I did. They are 100% right.
Research the Medival (sp) Warm Period, when temperatures were FOUR DEGREES hinger than now. It was the most prosperous period in (long past) history. (And the polar bears did just fine/) Then it got cold and we had the Dark Ages, including the various plagues. 100s of millions died.
I don’t understand why you seem to think I am pro pollution. I am only talking about CO2 and the agenda behind the fraud. Period. Ask me about ‘pollution’ some other time, including the aerosol spraying, and I’ll tell you. Not right now.
You say
‘I noticed especially when it comes to the environment if people decide a particular thing is a hoax, then they tend to dismiss all possiblity of it altogether and what I mean here is that just because the PTB may decide to use widespread pollution and climate change for their agenda and encourage it, and talk it up, does not mean pollution is NOT bad or that climate change is NOT possible.’
I never said the climate isn’t changing. It’s always changing. We are coming out of the ice age that more or less ended about 12,000 years ago. That is why sea levels are rising. I am just talking about CO2 driven AGW. It really is total bullshit. I hope you come to realize this fully.
You mention Electric Universe. I think if you really looked into it, these doubts would go away.
You might also check out SuspiciousObservers dot net or com, I forget. You are obviously a very smart person. I think all you need is the right info, which you will then verify. Thanks again for the thoughtful little essay, although I do not quite get some of your ‘doubts.’
I should underscore a point I don’t think you got: The most salient aspect of the NOAA data is the CONSTANCY of the slight rise in sea level over the past 100 – 150 years. This fits perfectly with the long, slow exit from the ice age — after the Younger Dryas catastrophe, which is a whole other subject, and worth looking into.
I can’t see how you doubt the ‘fraud’ point — notwithstanding some of your points, like floating ice not raising the level when it melts — given that if CO2 had anything to do with it, there SHOULD HAVE BEEN an uptick in the RATE OF RISE, which there has not been.
Watch the Great Global Warming Swindle and jot down the bullet points. Then verify them. You are too smart (it appears) to be on the fence about this. You can see the documents showing they have been planning this fraud, and now they are doing it.
GW has become a ‘religious’ issue. Facts don’t mean anything to people who want to believe it. Very clever propaganda.
Climate change fanatics want us to feel wretched guilt for even being alive. This is all part of the big brother conspiracy to dismantle national sovereignty, sacrifice individual freedom and identity to something erroneously identified as the Greater Good. It’s a greed thing designed to benefit the very few: aggressively modify our behavior until we are all peons and subjects. This thing started with smoking, now vaping is under assault for no good reason, our cars (Eisenhower&Ford decided that was the only way to get around America) are now sinful, all to demonize ordinary taxpayers who foot the bills for politicians who live in an alternate universe and massive wealth accumulation by the condescending cabal who control the alternate universe.
An added note: I suspect that most of you already knew that CO2 driven ‘climate change’ (AGW) is a fraud. What I attempted to do here is to show beyond any doubt and in a way you can pass on, that it is a fraud. This is what makes the NOAA website so important. The data is inarguable.
Since it’s impossible that the ‘pundits’ don’t know about this data, you can now be sure they are lying, and not merely useful idiots. Most of them, anyway. And when they come up with their own graphs, of temperature changes, say, you can assume those data are ‘fixed.’
Thank you Allan. This post ties together so many threads in my mind that I consider it well worth putting up with all of the combative, whiny, and self-righteous posts that often just annoy the shit out of me. Kudos. Seriously, this is important. Thanks again.
Sorry if some of my exposés come across as whiny. I don’t FEEL whiny when I expose lies.
Thank you for this research Allan.
My uncle Wes used to say “Don’t eat that Aylmer, that’s horse shit.” but horse shit’s the only thing on today’s menu and most folks are lapping it up.
We are inundated with so many colossal lies now that the really big fibs have become entertainment. Friggin’ sad.
One very small point… Whilst us Brits do tend to refer to university, rather than college, there are exceptions which would be applicable in the case of Stephen Hawking. I think that Hawking spent his entire career at Oxford and then Cambridge university. Both institutions are unusual in that they consist of multiple colleges (academic communities). When you join the university you become a member of your individual college as well as the university as a whole. I believe that the colleges themselves effectively function as both your academic and social base. So, someone attending Oxford University may, for example, refer to themselves as having attended Balliol College or Lincoln College or Oriel College etc. I think that this applies to both students and academic staff, the later would also likely have offices/rooms in their college, which would be the obvious place for Hawking to host his “party”. This may explain the linguistic inconsistency you mention at the end of the blog post… though, as ever with my comments, has absolutely nothing to do with the broader subject being covered.
Good point and I did think of this also. I do think, however, that the ‘invitations’ would have gone out to everyone at the ‘university’, so…. but I should take that off.
No the invitations would not go out to everyone at the University. The University is sort of an UMBRELLA and under it is a collection of DIFFERENT colleges . In the USA the University of Florida for example is a UNIVERSITY with many COLLEGES ie the Medical College, The College of Arts and Sciences, the College of business. Each college studies different things and gives out different degrees. For example, The college of medicine only gives out one degree, a graduate degree called a Dr. of Medicine ; the college of Arts and Sciences gives out many degrees …from many disciplines Bachelors of Science, Bachelors of Arts, Masters of Science, Masters of Arts , Doctor of Philosopy (PhD)
So good to hear from you, Mary Louise! Did you get ANYTHING at all from this post?
By the way, did you read MM’s essay on the Hawking switch? The photo analyses? Can you see that Hawking was replaced?
Do you understand that ‘climate change’ is another fraud?
Why are you still reading this blog?
Hate to add to the comment, because it’s not central to the core… but here is the point. I’d hate for the occasional assertion which Allan makes about the British use of our shared language to detract in any way from the overall cogency of the essay. If Allan tells me an American doesn’t talk a certain way I’ll buy it… However, it’s fraught water once you get into the realm of domestic, antiquated or parochial, language use. Never mind when it relates to academic institutions which date from the illogical jumble of antiquity ( I think Oxford and Cambridge date back to the 1100’s or something like that). Wish I had something more insightful or of weight to add… honestly.
Yeah and Hawking? Comon…like cosmology and Astrophysics is a real thing. Total fantasy land . The Space industry is bigger than video games. movies music and entertainment by 10 times..probably a hundred and 100% fraudulent like climate change…good data on this work Al!
I reflect on most my conversations on sea level with ‘smart’ folks it occurs to me that the result is less their education or mine and more that they feel I am a kook…conspiracy theorist…etc…facts seem to be on trial. This rolls over to all the topics of HTWRW… Is it our approach? Is it the success of the dumbing down of society? Do we need to reevaluate our method of communcating? On the bright side… I’ve not been one who needed or wants a large social group…so maybe this is productive for me personally:)
You’ve hit on it here. The fear of being perceived as a kook. This is their means of fooling ‘the man on the street,’ no question, but at some point the lies become so utterly transparent… this is really the scariest aspect of lies like climate change, especially given that the truth — Electric Universe, for one — is so easily accessed.
They just want us depress, so we will not revolt. They always try to blame the normal citizen in his way of living. by this conditioning we as group never raise our eyes at the top level billionaire to find the guilty of the poor human condition…war is peace…ty Orwell
They use Fluoride in our drinking water (makes people docile), and promote FEAR constantly on the MS News.
Everything is intended to extract as much labour as possible from a co-operative and productive populace, whether war, space exploration, anthropogenic pollution (chemical, energy, nuclear waste/fallout, etc.), alien invasion, etc. And all via taxation, monopolies (liberty converted to revenue), charities, pensions, and many forms of peculation (boondoggles, etc).
What is this vast extracted labour being expended upon, and why?
I recall there was an important interview with fire chief John Lord about the phenomenally atypical behavior of the California holocaust of 2018 that you posted in one of your articles. I also had it bookmarked and was dismayed when I realized that the interviewer was a Flat Earth devotee. That interview is gone from YouTube but I found another by Shelly Lewis. The two fire captains state explicitly that they do not subscribe to flat-Earth and have no affiliation with Flat Earth Radio. I think the interview which was really good is better now that they are detached from that psyop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma26EBzJkxE