NY Times 1989: no global warming trend

by 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.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy—but look, people make mistakes. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.

THEY’RE NOT USING A BOGUS WARMING HYPOTHESIS TO TORPEDO AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, AS PART OF A GLOBALIST MACHINATION OF CONTROL. THEY DON’T WANT TO DECIMATE THE ECONOMY AND REDUCE US TO A HELPLESS STATE OF POVERTY.

They would never do that.

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 29^th 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.

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Breitbart reporter Steve Milloy has the story (“The New King Coal: George Soros”, 8/17/2015):

“I predicted…that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.”

“U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.”

“Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as ‘stranded assets’ that were losing value as they were no longer needed…What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices…”

Instead of the ever-popular pump and dump strategy for making money, this is dump and then pump. Make coal look worthless, then buy it up. Then take the stock price up.

The Climate Change tap dance features all sorts of $$ deals, and as yet the really huge ones are lurking behind the curtain. In the meantime, we can see a few of the out-front hustles.

There is the case of Tom Steyer, hedge-fund billionaire. Alatheia Larsen of newsbusters has that story (“Green Billionaire Tom Steyer, Squeezing Climate Panic for Profit”, 7/10/15):

“Tom Steyer’s concern for the environment and almost religious devotion to promoting green energy appear to be targeting another kind of green…Alternative Energy wasn’t always Steyer’s focus. He only began attacking coal power in 2011…Meanwhile in Australia, the hedge fund that Steyer started and ran until at least 2013, Farallon Capital Management, was busy finalizing a transaction to create what is on track to become one of Australia’s largest coal mining operations. This deal increased coal production in Australia by a staggering 70 million tons…Steyer divested from Farallon in 2014 after saying that he could not reconcile it with his current personal beliefs about climate change. Also, conveniently after he had made a fortune.”

Nice work if he could get it, and he could.

Several years ago, I wrote a piece about Al Gore’s good fortune as a climate-change god.

Here is an excerpt:

In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s 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 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 makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM) (twitter search), 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 has 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 is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

—end excerpt—

The save-the-planet cash registers are ringing. And you can bet that the future configuration of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and “reparations” paid out from developed to undeveloped countries will funnel endless cash into elite hands—while cutting energy production for the planet and putting more people into a state of poverty.

We’re just seeing the tip of the $$ iceberg.

Finally, here is a quote from Princeton physicist, William Happer (Climate Depot, 1/22/15, mirrored here: “A Noted Physicist Speaks Out”):

“…the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide. Like its predecessors, this cause has generated plenty of sanctimonious slogans: ‘intergenerational justice’, ‘saving the planet’, ‘sustainability’, ‘negligible carbon footprints’. In reality, the cause has brought ugly, bird-killing windmills, which have replaced the psalmist’s ‘cattle on a thousand hills’; hapless native peoples have been expelled from their from ancestral lands, sometimes at gunpoint, so wealthy corporations and foundations could claim to be saving the planet, at no small profit to themselves; fraud in the trading of carbon credits has cheated honest taxpayers. But for this cause, as for most of its predecessors, the end justifies the means. Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming by more carbon dioxide are wrong…policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models.”

Profits for “the right people,” however, aren’t failing.

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 29^th 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“I used to think people accepted manmade warming because they robotically equated it with ‘helping the planet’, ‘saving the planet’, and ‘hating the corporations’. Then I thought, these equations are intentionally being piped into people’s minds as a form of programming. Then I thought, most people can no longer even recognize a line of reasoning about manmade warming or any other subject. Then I thought, all these things are happening at the same time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

These days, what passes for logic is the effort to associate one idea with another favored idea. Then the first idea is accepted as fact.

If the first idea were “all Martians wear tuxedos,” and people associated that with “juicy burgers are delicious,” they would conclude that Martians, without doubt, all wear tuxes.

Associating with one idea with another is also, of course, a propaganda/advertising device.

Apparently, schools no longer teach students what a scientific hypothesis is.

If they do, those students disappear and are never heard from again.

First of all, a hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

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

Let’s start with a trivial hypothesis:

“If it snows, there are clouds.”

We should be able to use that hypothesis to predict what we’ll see in the sky whenever it’s snowing. Clouds. So we record numerous instances of snow and we find that, yes, there are clouds in the sky every time. We were able to predict clouds.

Is that a useful prediction? This is a matter of opinion. Most people would say no.

Here is another example of a hypothesis.

“If a patient has fungal infection X, he will develop a fever.”

We examine 5000 people and establish that they have fungal infection X. We predict they will all have fevers. We test them, and they do have fevers.

We used our hypothesis to make a prediction, and we were correct. Was the prediction useful? Some people would probably say yes.

Let’s go one step further. The factual truth or falsity of a hypothesis is beside the point. Any hypothesis is acceptable, IF we can deploy it to make a useful prediction.

We could assert, for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese. From that starting point, if we could go on to make a useful prediction that we could then confirm by observation, the “green cheese” hypothesis would be acceptable.

Suppose, against all odds, conventionally speaking, we begin with this hypothesis: the space of the entire universe is filled with an aether.

And suppose we can describe this aether well enough to make a prediction about the positions of two previously unseen black holes. We then discover that, yes, these holes are exactly where we said they’d be.

The aether hypothesis would be acceptable. It’s useful.

And…the question of whether the aether actually exists? Irrelevant.

Something like this occurs in modern physics. These two hypotheses sit side by side: the basic composition of matter is particles; the basic composition is waves. Both hypotheses allow useful (and different) predictions. Therefore, both are accepted, even though they contradict each other.

Now, 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 derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Not only that, investigation also reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to the recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a question of fact, a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes creating the observed 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.

Students, starting at, say, the age of 12, should be taught basic facts about hypotheses, how they function in science, and on what basis they should be accepted or rejected.

Then we would have far less ignorance and chaotic “debate” and partisan screaming about science.

Except for the scientists themselves, of course—those who are on someone’s payroll and are expected to falsify everything they touch on behalf of that special interest.

An educated public would go a long way toward laughing those professional liars out of court.

Which is why universities (who sell themselves to those liars’ bosses) don’t teach logic or the basic structure of science.

The status of a hypothesis becomes a radically different proposition in the hands of someone who understands how a hypothesis works, when it should be accepted or rejected, and therefore how much irrelevant noise, fabrication, and political nonsense are brought to the table by people with devious motives.

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 29^th 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.

UN admits it has no clue on climate!

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.

The much-awaited SREX report is out from the IPCC.

What?

The UN’s very official key group (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that touts manmade global warming is the IPCC. It’s the scientific spear that lances the boil called “sociologically diseased global-warming skeptics.”

The IPCC’s SREX report is a tome on the subject of extreme climate changes.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

(SREX is shorthand for “Special Report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation”)

Media outlets, falling into line with the Globalist agenda of go-green decimate-industry drive-us-all-into-underground-enclaves-to-escape-the-warming-disaster, have spun this SREX report as a further warning to the people of Earth.

But at omnologos.com, they actually read the SREX, and they found a fascinating FAQ. Question 3.1 asks: Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?

And after perhaps a 1000 words of hemming and hawing about various interpretations of that question and what would be needed to answer it, in terms of actual measuring instruments, the authors—220 authors from 62 countries—concluded:

“…NONE OF THE ABOVE INSTRUMENTS HAS YET BEEN DEVELOPED SUFFICIENTLY AS TO ALLOW US TO CONFIDENTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED HERE.”

Pause.

See, this is called cognitive dissonance.

You KNOW all the experts have been telling us we’re doomed unless we go back to the forests and start eating roots and tubers.

You know this.

And yet…here are those very same experts now saying they have no clue about whether the weather is doing bad things to us.

And on top of that, the major media outlets haven’t pointed out the contradiction.

It’s a three-part piece of lunacy.

Fortunately, as a reporter who studied logic, I’ve learned to live with these contradictions for years and I’ve brought them to your attention. Of course, I throw bricks at walls and crush cars and buildings with my hands to let off a little steam. But I recover.

Here is the takeaway on this climate story:

“We, who are in charge of your destiny because we have the money and the power and the force to back it up, don’t know what hell we’re doing when it comes to global warming. But we don’t need to know. All we have to do is tell the manmade warming story and keep telling it. We have the requisite number of media androids and sold-out scum journalists to make that happen. And on that basis and that basis alone, we will tax carbon and reduce industry and destroy populations in order to save the world. And you will go along with it, mainly because you’re too stupid to see through the story. Are we clear?”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Manmade global frying with 2 eggs

Who is professor Kari Norgaard?

“This is 21st century book burning.” — Alex Jones, April 5, 2012

And, who is professor Karen Seto?

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.

www.nomorefakenews.com

YouTube has taken down an Alex Jones video in which he parodies the professor who recently said warming critics have a mental disorder and should be treated.

Well, Professor Kari Norgaard was right about one thing. Anything can be called a psychiatric disorder. Dream up a disorder, name it, and the drug companies will give you a wink and a nod, because they cook up the expensive chemical solutions.

But I digress.

YouTube apparently believes official science can’t be messed with, and also that parody is a crime. In case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing science and government policy is beginning to merge with “politically incorrect speech.” The two streams are coming together, and it isn’t an accident.

Global warming is a key issue, because it’s the premise on which destruction of economies and green everything and cap and trade are based.

As Al Gore’s TV network, run out of the back of a pickup, heads into oblivion, and as the internet flushes one traditional media business after another down the toilet, as the manmade warming hypothesis takes one hit after another, as the science is exposed, the powers-that-be are getting nervous.

They want consensus, and they don’t care how they get it.

When PR dressed up as science doesn’t work, when gaping holes in the manmade warming hypothesis are exposed again and again, when scandals inside the corrupt warming club explode, the Plan B people try to shut down is the truth.

They cite “community standards” on speech, they suddenly interpret the 1^st Amendment to mean “inoffensive comments,” they show “concern for potential victims,” they take sides.

It’s quite all right for scientists and government employees to call those who question the manmade warming hypothesis insane, or racist, or dangerous or mentally incompetent, but when the attacks run the other way, it’s impolite and offensive and insensitive. Boo-hoo.

O poor little professor who wrote a paper calling global warming critics sociologically diseased, and in need of treatment. Poor little professor needs defending, poor little professor of sociology who probably knows less climate science than a TV weather android. Poor little professor who wants to debate science by calling the other side demented.

You see, she’s a professor, and she was operating under the delusion that, from her protected perch, she could make sensational pronouncements and cut herself a nice little piece of academic pie and graduate into the land of the famous.

Well, she’s famous now, and I don’t think she likes it. A dose of her own medicine wasn’t what she had in mind. She thought she was inventing a new category of mental disorder.

Students actually put themselves into hock for decades, to come to your college and sit in your classes? Astonishing.

See, Professor Norgaard, let me take you to school for a second:

Science is supposed to work this way. Someone makes a claim based on evidence, and then other scientists use that evidence and decide whether the claim has merit. I know, that’s Pure science, and we rarely see it anymore in many areas of research. But that’s the template. That’s the way it’s supposed to operate.

If you play that game under the cover of academic pretension, based on NOTHING, it’s a giveaway. You’re just quack-quacking. And even some of your colleagues can see it. Your bosses at the college have already said your use of the word “treatment,” as in “needs treatment,” was a mistake. So they’re backing down. They’re running away and hiding. From you.

That must have been a bit of a shocker. There you were, quack-quacking, thinking your superiors would back you up, and they fled into the night. Cowards. They couldn’t take heat. See, they’re fakers, too. When the PR turns against them, they cut you loose in a second and leave you with your wings flapping in the breeze.

Welcome to the real world of academia.

By the way, I just read a letter you wrote to President Obama posted on the Whitman College website—the letter that will probably be scrubbed out in the next 30 seconds. Let me quote you:

“At this juncture, we need science more than ever. Fortunately, you have made an excellent choice in commissioning Harvard physicist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient John Holdren as your science adviser.”

Kari? Holdren didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize. At least not in this galaxy. You didn’t know that? I know some people who’d like to smoke what you’re smoking.

I really shouldn’t leave this piece without saying a word or two about another professor, not from the wilds of Oregon, but from Yale, who might be smoking with Skull and Bones types. That would be Karen Seto. The Daily UK Mail mentioned she recently told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely (together).”

My, my. Nothing elitist or arrogant to see here, move along.

This is about “urban land use” and “natural preservation” and “the warming threat” and “environmental stewardship.” All of which mean CENTRAL PLANNING for the planet.

Pack people into the cities (one item on the UN Agenda 21 list), leave the wilds to nature, with a few golf courses for the upper caste, and delegate farming to giant GMO corporations because, well, somebody has to grow food, unless the urban billions are going to be chomping Soylent Green. Or unless, to make this criminal enterprise work, some heavy depopulation must take place.

Quite a vision of the future, and it’s only right that Yale is in the vanguard.

Who’s insane?

But ha-ha, these professors are just fringe jokers and we all know there is no threat to our freedom.

Yeah? Go to Karen Seto’s CV at the Yale site and read the brain-cracking list of organizations she’s connected to. They’re all involved in this Central Planning for the Planet to Save Our Skins op. And you’ve never heard of any of them. They’re networked. And there are many more. They’re working globally, they’re working locally, and I wish I could say they’re all suffering from a sociological disease. But they aren’t. They’re little mad egos and big mad egos who are gathering together to create a future for the rest of us. A future decimation.

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 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com