Astute Predictions From NASA’s Jay Zwally

Posted on November 5, 2015 by Tony Heller

In 2007, NASA’s Jay Zwally predicted that the screaming Arctic would be ice free by 2012.

2015-11-04-19-12-11

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? 

More recently, he predicted that his findings of Antarctic ice gain would lead deniers to conclude that Antarctica is not contributing to sea level rise.

2015-11-04-19-13-23

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Anyone with an IQ over 30 will realize that ice gain in Antarctica, means a reduction in the amount of sea water. The law of conservation of mass have been well understood for hundreds of years. But climate scientists don’t fall into that category (IQ over 30) and are very angry about climate alchemy deniers.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Astute Predictions From NASA’s Jay Zwally

  1. Gail Combs says:
    November 5, 2015 at 3:08 am

    O/T but very important!
    Senator Mike Lee calls for a ruling by the Senate BEFORE Obama signs away our sovereignty! TIME to get on the phone and call, text, fax or e-mail your senator and tell him to insist Obama signs NO TREATY without approval by the senate.

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/04/sen-mike-lee-congress-must-rule-before-obama-commits-to-unilateral-international-climate-change-plan/

    WHY is this important?
    IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the treaty itself. For example the World Trade Organization (WTO) has TEETH!! The UN wants a Climate Court with enforcement powers so the Climate agreement also has TEETH!

    Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization, WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors.

    Under WTO rules, countries or Corporations can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.

    I consider the WTO the trial run for ‘Global Governance’ since it overrides national sovereignty and allows the judges of WTO to overrule national laws.

    DOES US LAW SUPERSEDE INTERNATIONAL LAW?

    …Congress and the President act as if signed international agreements override United States national law and the Constitution The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”. The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    Source …http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

    <bHowever under International Law the President of the United States can sign binding contracts with other Nations. These contracts are considered treaties under International Law and unless their unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other nations at the time the treaty was contracted the United States is stuck with it even if it is later found Unconstitutional within the United States.

    U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law…..

    ……So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states[nations] at the time the treaty was contracted.…..
    http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/3/1/p97319_index.html?type=info

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      November 5, 2015 at 3:15 am

      One should also remind your Senators of the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution
      .

      The Senate’s 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution warned the Clinton Administration not to enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out developing nations or hurts the American economy.[1] The unanimous 95-0 resolution, passed prior to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is still U.S. policy today and should serve as the overarching guidelines for discussing any new climate treaty.…

      Byrd-Hagel and Kyoto

      Before the American delegation headed to Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to negotiate a global warming treaty, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution clearly spelled out where the Senate stood.

      Specifically, the resolution states that the U.S. and other developed nations should not enter into a treaty requiring reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and other greenhouse gasses unless it “also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance period.”

      The resolution also states that the U.S. should not enter into any treaty that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Clearly, the Senate was concerned that a global warming treaty may do the nation more economic harm than environmental good.

      The Kyoto Protocol violated both of these provisions. It gave exemptions to China, India, and other developing nations, so only developed signatories were obligated to reduce their emissions. And its provisions would have seriously damaged the American economy. An Energy Information Administration study at the time projected costs of U.S. compliance between $100 and $397 billion annually.[2]

      Nonetheless, the American delegation, led by then-Vice President Al Gore, agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. However, President Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for the required ratification, knowing full well that he could not possibly get the two-thirds support needed for a treaty that so unambiguously flouted Byrd-Hagel. Neither did President Bush, or for that matter, has President Obama.

      As Byrd-Hagel remains U.S. policy today, the Obama Administration should formulate a Copenhagen [Paris] strategy that adheres to its provisions….
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/11/senates-byrd-hagel-resolution-should-guide-global-warming-discussion-in-copenhagen
      .

      Reply
  2. Gail Combs says:
    November 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

    I am actually surprised the news of the Antarctic gaining ice made it out the door. Of course with NOAA staring at Contempt of Congress they might have tossed this bone to the ‘deniers’ so they look ‘unbiased’

    Reply
    • Jason Calley says:
      November 5, 2015 at 4:10 am

      I have wondered about the same thing. More optimistically, it might be NASA realizing that the fraud is almost over and they are repositioning their reputation.

      Reply
  3. spren says:
    November 5, 2015 at 4:11 am

    Gail, I strongly disagree that the president can bind us to a treaty without Senate ratification. He has no authority to do that and any actions taken are without merit and are void. Let any foreign body try to enforce something that isn’t binding to us. They need our trade as much or more than we need theirs.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      November 5, 2015 at 5:44 am

      spren,

      That is why I presented the two points of view. Constitutionally a treaty must be ratified but those intent on sabotaging the USA have come up with other names like Executive Agreement that allows the president to get around Congress and the Constitution. Then international law ignores our Constitution and considers an “Executive Agreement ” no different than a treaty. Neat trick, huh?

      As far as enforcement via international sanctions comes in, that is what Clinton and Al Gore were so busy working on (Reagan too) The concept is INTERDEPENDENCE. It is the reason Clinton made dam sure our strategic industries got shipped overseas thus compromising our independence and making us vulnerable.

      Back when Al Gore was VP and Clinton president, I first ran into the Interdependence concept and saw the plan on how the work was to be divided among nations to make them interdependent and not self-sufficient. Unfortunately if I saved the info it is long gone. All I have is this.

      This comes from the Ag Journal, Billings, Montana: [My Ag agent was there and came home fuming.]
      “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.

      “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.”
      http://showcase.netins.net/web/sarahb/farm/

      MORE on this concept. We don’t talk about it but it is like a cancer and has really grown in the decade since I first heard of it.
      See Dale C. Copeland, “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,” International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 (Spring 1996)

      Mankind at the Turning Point: Interdependence is Totalitarian

      International Monetary Fund: Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence

      11/30/2009 WTO Chief Pascal Lamy: Free Trade and Interdependence Help Promote Freedom, Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Democracy NOW reams Lamy)

      Pascal Lamy 18 December 2013 Global value chains, interdependence, and the future of trade

      NOV 15, 2013 Rethinking International Institutions by Lamy & Goldin
      http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/pascal-lamy-and-ian-goldinpropose-mechanisms-for-improving-global-governance-and-cooperation

      The simple fact is that with interconnectedness comes interdependence. In order to protect the global commons, world leaders must pursue shared solutions as inclusively and efficiently as possible – a process that can be accomplished only through international institutions. Failure to do so would threaten the tremendous progress that globalization has facilitated in recent decades….
      Pascal Lamy, a former director-general of the World Trade Organization, is a Global Ocean Commissioner.

      Ian Goldin, Director of the Oxford Martin School, Professor of Globalization and Development at the University of Oxford, and Vice-Chair of the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations

      Interdependence day 2015 org

      Why Interdependence?

      The old aspiration? Independence. The new reality: Interdependence.

      Every challenge we face today from climate, economic crisis, flawed democracy, racism, class conflict, discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality, technology and markets, communications, and public health is global in character. Yet the precepts, actors, and institutions of democracy we rely on to address these challenges are still locked up

      inside sovereign states pursuing the old logic of independence. But in an interdependent world of problems and opportunities without borders, we also need citizens without borders – democracy without borders. If we are to survive negative interdependence and flourish in liberty and mutual benefit, we must either globalize progressive, culturally diverse democracy or culturally democratize progressive globalization.

      The Interdependence Movement, founded by Professor Benjamin Barber, is a network of citizens without borders, including artists, educators, students, politicians, entrepreneurs, civic and religious leaders and other activists, who recognize the interdependent nature of our world and advocate for new forms of constructive civic interdependence. They aspire? to solve the multiple cross-border challenges in economics, ecology, technology, war, disease, and crime that confront us. They are doing this? by imagining, creating, and practicing new, just, rewarding, human, social, economic, cultural and governance relations, and stewardship of our common climate.

      Since 2003, people from around the world have celebrated Interdependence Day in September?. We have now forged a year-round movement to combat unilateralism, parochialism, ultra-nationalism, and isolationism wherever they are found….

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        November 5, 2015 at 5:54 am

        Tony, thanks for letting me wander so far off topic onto this political crap. Unfortunately December is barreling down on us.

        Reply
  4. cfgjd says:
    November 5, 2015 at 9:24 am

    He said “could be ice-free”, which was a true statement.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *