BTW, if you do manage to find a few of the articles from the small minority of scientists who wrote articles about the possibility of the end of the interglacial, thsi is what they are going to say.

First, the article authors will all be geologists - there wasn't really a discipline of climatology at the time, the only people talking about cooling and warming were geologists and archaeologists and paleontologists.

Second, the articles will talk about the relatively recent discovery of the time scale of glacial and interglacial periods, which had really just been measured at that point by the relatively new technology of core sampling. combined with carbon dating, which establish the trie time frame of glaciations.

Third, the articles will note that we were already into the 15th millenia of interglacial, and that the last series of interglacials, for about 600k years, had lasted an average of 10k years. Therefore, we were OVERDUE for an ice age.

And, finally, they will all say...

Fourth, that while we were technically overdue, there was no sign of an ice age, and measurements showed if anything a continuing warming trend.

This was in the 70s - warming was noticeable even then, altho we had not yet really developed any global warming theory above the simplest of models, and climatology was not a seperate disciplione yet.

Thats what I predict they will say. Prove me wrong.

I leave out the peer review part, in which the majority of geologists basically said, "don't be hysterical, there is no evidence for a returning ice age'.

Because THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS. It was just a dramatic theory that got a lot of news coverage - because it's dramatic, not because scientists thought much of it as a model.

These are not political beliefs, they are facts, follow the money, read what the plans from the UN Think Tank were back in 1992. Look up the history of the Rothschilds and see if you still feel they're here to save the planet.

You have to understand that science can be BS and can be used for political purposes. The UN/Bankers have hijacked the Green movement and they are using it as a vehicle to grab power, sneaking in through the back door, making us agree to give away powers that we never would have agreed to if we hadn't been scammed.

Here's the full Club of Rome Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/C...bal-Revolution - The name The First Global Revolution gives away what it's about; putting the United Nations in control of the planet, a world government, the Globalist Bankers in complete control.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. "

See the quote above..."In searching for a new enemy to unite us"...i.e. they were searching for anything to scam us with, it didn't have to be global warming, they just needed to put themselves in charge because they're control freaks. Then it goes onto say "we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill" They decided that global warming would be a good excuse. For their world government (United Nations) to work they need taxes in place to fund it, they needed a way to scam us into accepting them, global warming is the scam to 'unite us'.

Notice at the end of this quote how they say it doesn't matter if the 'outside enemy' has been 'invented'. i.e. Global Warming has only been invented for the purpose of taxes that pay for the UN.


A couple of more telling quotes, though not from the same report.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Thanks, but I wanted to see how quickly he could deliver it. I'm a google wiz, and had already found it. And the wiki plus tons of commentary.

But since you are interested, how quickly can you track down the quotes he quotes, so we can examine their context.

I remember reading this some years ago, in the print version. I thought it all seemed fairly prosaic and common sense.

He's not wrong, global warming does mean a planetary government. He's just hysterical to fear a planetary government.

He is also not wrong in understanding that it means the end of american empire, our way of life, and the secret carbon government.

hmm, so you think 31 BILLION TONS of CO² per year has ZERO effect? keep dreaming :2 cents:

the club of rome has nothing to do with the UN. as usual you get the most basic of facts wrong. you distort them until they confirm to your worldview.

your whole worldview is made of "facts" such as these.

Not sure if you're being serious?

Look into the UN agency UNESCO, the Club of Rome receive funding from them (and others). The Club of Rome has some of the most senior UN officials as their 'Thinkers'

It effectively the UN asking the UN for advice :2 cents:

My solution? There is none. We prepare for the worst. Billions die. Maybe all.

We are not smart enough to have a solution.

This however is what will happen.

We will do nothing for another decade. Liquid fossil carbon fuels will become at forst significantly then drastically more expensive, and the planets economy will suffer. because we are burning the worst remnants of the petroleum, carbon output will increase dramatically.

By the end of the decade the weather will get noticeably worse on most parts of the planet as the climate heat engine starts to go into chaotic perturbation. Starvation, hugely increased costs, economic stresses, patchwork collapse of the economy is various areas, as our civilization starts to contract and, if we are lucky, is resilient enough to transform as it contracts.

many of us will be dumped by the economy, as unneeded workers.

Start of 2022 - people start getting pissed - the blame decade begins, but we still do nothing to slow carbon emissions, guaranteeing misery for the next 5 decades, and probably megadeath for the following 5. The blame decade will be characterised by water wars and civil wars and resource wars and religious wars.

Start of 2032 - at this point we wil start to have an idea of what the climate curve will look like - will the heatup be slow or fast, basically. Maybe we wlll start seriously talking about forming a planetary government, which is the only thing that has any chance at all of saving civilization as we know it.

But we will fail to form a planetary government. If we are lucky the multidecadal currents will speed up and we get a breather. I hope so.

2042 - Wars. Wars. Wars, the begining of the human dieback. We have burned most of the liquids and tars and the best coal - and cannot stop ourselves from starting to burn the bad coal. The planet will seperate into regions based on remaining fossil carbon reserves, with some regions doing their best with renewables, probably middle to southern europe, which is blessed by not having really significant fossil carbon holdings.

Thats about as far out as it makes sense to project it.

I'm looking forward to the blame decade. Should be one hell of a show.

I haven't got a problem with planetary government, but I wouldn't want Hitler in charge of it, the globalist banking families are well known to have funded the Nazis. Planetary government could be amazing with the right people in charge, but not these heartless SOB's

post proof they are funded by the UN.

so they have some overlapping members with the UN. does not mean they are part of the UN.

Bill8 , I guess there is no debate with you. You obviously fancy yourself as much more intelligent than everyone else.
Think what you will. It's a free country.

I wish you the best in life and hope that mega-intellect of yours is making you a good living here in the "end of times" that you are so sure is being caused by human beings changing the climate.

Again, I say that you are simply ignoring HUMAN nature. There is money on both "sides" to be made...money in the billions: fossil fuel on one side, "green" energy on the other. And scientists are not any different than other people...they want to pay the rent, they want access to all the latest technological (expensive) tools...they will say whatever they are paid to say. That is what I meant by you having "blinders" on.

You are mistaken and hysterical to model it that way, but because you are afraid to study the actual science, there is nothing to be done.

What you don't seem to include in any of your conspiracy theories is that we are already under the rule of a secret planetary government.

But, your fears are not really my business, I already know and accept that your kind will win, and you will seal our doom. We are too stupid to deal with a problem of this time scale.

All because you let the masters tell you what to believe, and are afraid to actually stidy the science for yourself.

Too bad, so sad.

So you wont even try to find any articles?

Why are you afraid to look?

I don't talk about the money to be made, thats not my concern, I aint gonna be making any of that money.

I talk about the science. You make science claims I say are false. It should be easy to prove me wrong.

It's on their official website that they receive money from UN agency UNESCO (in the FAQ)

"Who supports the Club of Rome financially?" - "the Club of Rome seeks contributions and partnership arrangements "

"Today, the Club works in partnership with organisations such as UNESCO, OECD, Globe International and a broad range of global and regional NGOs."

When I drop this line into the scribd search of that doc "In searching for a new enemy to unite us" - I get no results.

Do you have a page number? Where are you getting these quotes from?

---

So, you would prefer the oil companies be in charge of the planet, as opposed to the bankers?

Too late dude, the oil companies AND the bankers are already in charge. Nation-states do what they are told to do. The war is over, we all lost, none of us has any say.

And you are still afraid to look at the science for yourself.

Once upon a time the Nazis employed a pseudo-scientific basis for racially discriminating against the Jews. Many people believed it, after all they were told it was 'Science'.

One cannot understand what's going on by only focusing on so-called 'Science', one has to look at the politics site and who funded it; the big picture. One needs to find the agenda; the 'Science' is just a tool for bringing about the desired changes.

Climate Change is an easy way for a scientist to make big money, as the Bankers are funding it.

search shows that quote on page 134.

The oil companies and the bankers are the same thing by the way, in that the Bankers own the oil companies

I did find an article. The one in Time Magazine. But you said you didn't want a news article. You wanted scientific papers.

And unfortunately the internet didn't exist in the 1970's lol
So I'm guessing that the scientists who made that stupid prediction haven't been exactly chomping at the bit to put those papers up online anytime soon.

Again...all I'm saying is that HUMAN NATURE comes into play here. You are ignoring it.

My guess is that the scientific community would rather we all forget that they once thought humans were bringing on an ice age. That's human nature...it's an embarrassing moment for them.

Just like in the last decade....they moved away from calling it "Global Warming" to calling it "Climate Change". So now, no matter what happens they can claim they are "right".

And no, I'm not arguing against science. I just believe that money and human nature will trump science when it comes to what the general public (me and you) are being told.

That's why you might not be making the kind of money you should in this world. You have on blinders. And I don't mean any offense by that. I just mean that if you are only taking into account the reports you are reading...and NOT taking into account what history has shown with scientific studies and how they are manipulated and used...then you are not seeing the big picture.

In pro wrestling you would be known as a "mark" and you are being "worked".

"Crazy" Solar Activity isn't "Crazy" at all. Coronal Mass Ejections (CME's) The amount of CME's rise and fall over a predictable pattern every 11 years or so. Like Electromagnetic pulses, they can disturb or damage communication satellites, electrical networks and other electronics here on earth. They do not affect weather or climate.

When has weather not been occasionally weird?

In SoCal we have something called June Gloom - June is one of the coldest of the 12 months we have here... Tons of foggy days by the coast. Good to know before booking your vacation here.

Something related to HAARP?

weather is just aboiut right here in nola.

no, it isn't. :2 cents: :pimp

because weather cycles are supposed to be studied in at least 500 year intervals, not 5.. so all data is worthless until we get numbers that go that far back.

a brief look at history will show you times of bitter cold in summer months and terrible heat and drought in winter months. No meteorologist data though so we base our numbers on what? the last 100 years? Not good enough...

This is so crazy. The USA is the only place you can go in a room with relatively rational people and have them say global warming is a myth.

Take a closed environment and add CO2. It heats up. The earth is technically a closed environment even though it is a super complicated one. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We can measure this. There is more then there was. Why wouldn't we be heating up? Other there other influences? sure but we do not control those as easily. Constant distance to the sun or solar flares are beyond us and natural. The CO2 is a man-made phenomenon.

No need to have 100-500-etc years of data to see wtf. we have the air pollution / air component data for the recent decades and this is perfectly enough to see what we did to the air. glass-house gas percentage is high and its bad.

most of you don't know that its NOT about it will be higher/lower temperature at certain/all places, the main effect of this is the change of classic/constant 'streams' like the Gulf Stream: if the sensitive system of these are changing because of minor climate changes than it Will result in a major change in Earth's climate.

The other thing is that the debate is not about if there is a climate change or not. The question is if human activity in last decades matter or not. The biggest polluters like China say the climate change is independent from what we did/what we do.

Sorry if I am not using the proper phrases in the sentences above, most of these terms i only know in hungarian :P :pimp

what i dont get is that saving energy, oil, developing green energy etc. seems to be such a horrible thing to many people. it's like telling catholics to become satanists it seems to me sometimes.

global warming or not - isnt it a good thing to use our resources more efficiently and have a cleaner environment?

The laymans distrust of science and obvious lack of understanding of the scientific method and the peer review process is getting beyond a joke these days. To the point where the average anti authority type prefers to backup big business and reckless multi billion dollar oil companies rather than the average scientist working day in and out in the field who are by and large in agreement on the issue.

Science needs a PR manager as good as the ones big business and the industries relying on the polluting the environment have.

ADG more pics please! they always sum it up :thumbsup

That's what bothers me about scientists and researchers. They get a hypothesis, and then get a funding to prove that their hypothesis is correct, if they don't get some sort of tangible result, the grant money and funding dries up. So it is in their best interest, no matter how off base they are, not to prove themselves out of a job.

Some people just have preconceived notions. Picking any data out and declaring it proof of this or that.

Yesterday I read a ladies blog about how 2 yrs ago she bought chicken breast for $1 a pound and now it's $2! Her conclusion was that this inflation is Obamas fault. Hated to break it to her that my local store has chicken breasts for 89 cents a pound and wondered if she would post that the price drop was to Obamas credit.

Yesterday was record warm temps here, it reached 80 degrees and the average temp is 45 - 50. Who can say, but it seems we've been reading and seeing this pattern for the past 10 years or so. Maybe it's time to call it an apparent trend even if it proves nothing.

I find kids love this one, just for you Johnny. Not too load though, don't upset your parents.

FYI, the other planets (with no humans) are also warming, though not as fast as the earth. Unless mars has martians burning fossil fuels, the sun IS cycling and changing. That accounts for about half of the change measured on earth.

The mars data was measured and compiled by astronomers looking to learn about mars. The earth data was measured and compiled by people paid to "prove" that global warming is an emergency. One would expect their results would be biased toward what their sponsors want. If the measurements were objective, there might be a small difference between earth and mars, or there might be no difference.

Scientists can tell things such as temperature, humity, cloud cover etc, by examining old tree rings. http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/c...cc/scc_01.html

And again, Weather is not climate. Just because we have a hotter than normal summer or colder than usual winter is not an argument for or against climate change. Weather is local, climate is global. What scientists are concerned about is the global average temperature. Just a couple of degrees higher will make a big difference.

Here's the thing that I don't get. Even if Mars or other planets are warming up, is that a reason to ignore warnings about the earth's CO2 and continue to burn and pollute?

Yeah the 29 gigatons that we put in the atmosphere is of course man made. But the 750 gigatons that are produced by NATURE are not.

I have to say though...the meteorologists that I see on the news are always showing GLOBAL patterns (such as jet streams for instance) that cause the "local" weather.

Seems to me that some of this debate has people saying that everything we do locally affects the entire world, but then want to talk out the other side and say that one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Can't have it both ways.

It's much warmer this year in New York and I don't mind it for a second. If I want the snow for skiing I would much rather drive/fly to it than worry about the snow.