In 1974, The New York Times reported a one degree centigrade drop in global temperatures, a 12% increase in sea ice, cooling sea surface temperatures, and said that global cooling would lead to erratic weather and food shortages.
NASA has since erased this, and completely turned the climate story upside down. Now they say the climate was stable for the past 5,000 years and global warming causes erratic weather and food shortages.
We are watching the biggest fraud in history unveil ahead of the Paris Conference.
Thank you, Steven, for your efforts. The rest of the world is awakening to the dishonesty of western science.
This chart shows the changes made to the meteorological stations over the last ten years:
http://oi57.tinypic.com/11ui0cp.jpg
I made that chart a few months ago, I think NASA has bumped it up further since then.
Actually, what they are really saying these days, when someone challenges them about it, is that warming causes cooling, and therefore when there’s dramatic cooling in some large regions, that’s because it’s been warming globally. In this way, they can start to try to knit together the two paradigms so that they were “not wrong” before, and thus the two paradigms can be united into one grand paradigm for climate.
That paradigm essentially holds that all severe weather is an example of “climate change”, which supposedly began when man began burning industrial quantities of coal and petroleum in the 19th century, and got much worse since the 1980s and 1990s, the time when many of the most rabid exponents of the new paradigm were born and were therefore able to observe the severe weather.
So the new paradigm is seen as part of a corpus of “received wisdom” that’s being passed on to those younger folks, to the effect that “If all of this severe weather today seems bad, that’s not an accident. We can remember a time when it wasn’t nearly this bad. Therefore, that proves to you that the bulk of the change is caused by something that came about within our lifetimes.”
And since they’ve all been brainwashed to believe that industry is evil, the conclusion naturally follows that the “change” is caused by something industry has done within the lifetime of the Baby Boomer. And what has industry done in that time? Strongly increased CO2 emissions, of course.
So in their sick minds, it all seems to fit together perfectly: ‘When our mentors were young, there was severe weather due to regional cooling, which was in turn due to minor amounts of global warming, which is visible on all these government graphs, even waaaayyyy back then in the 60s and 70s. But now, since we, the children of that generation, have taken the reigns, the CO2 has skyrocketed, therefore the warming has skyrocketed, therefore the localized cooling has skyrocketed, therefore the intensity and frequency of severe weather has skyrocketed.’
Thus, in their minds, they’ve got it all worked out, and it all seems to fit together perfectly! So any minor glitches in the evidence are written off, because (since the overall paradigm works so perfectly), there simply must be a reasonable explanation for the glitches, and an explanation that’s consistent with the paradigm.
And the assumption is made that these explanations will eventually come to light, when some OCD egghead delves deeper into it. But until then …
‘We have a world to save, so we’ll leave the tying up of all the loose ends to the lesser folks within our movement, and we won’t lose sleep over it. There is simply no question that the theory true; it has already been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, in myriad infallible ways, and therefore it is no longer subject to doubt. Now is the time for action, not prevarication.’
So in this way, the attitude develops, which we’ve been seeing, of ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ … both in terms of a hyper-aggressive public policy stance, and of the half-baked arguments they advance when debating the “science”.
— RT
And the saddest part is they have captured the flag of publishing control, most of it done with government grants through academia, Therefore they publish there nonsense in such volume they contribute to the deforestation of the world. But the best part in their mind is they can hire TA’s to sit on comment boards and combat real science by posing the question: is it Peer Reviewed? Ergo, Well if it is not peer reviewed then what you say can’t possibly be true and we can dismiss you out of hand. On the flip side we have published so much non science with the permission of the publishing Gods we can label it peer reviewed and above reproach.
Nonsense = “non science” ?
I like it!