And the fascinating story of the continued removal of this cold, hard fact (excuse the pun)
Here is the sort of deliberate planning
And before I go back in time let's get a handle the current media situation, which is QUANTUM CLIMATE CHANGE. That's right, welcome to the bizarre world of climate change where, somehow, everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!
Leonard Nimoy's (Spock from Star Trek) special on the upcoming Ice-Age in 1979
Shall we start looking back at all the major media publications going back over 30 years?
Let's start in 1980's, in a Rothschild rag (Reuters) article referring back to the globalist chicanery already starting in the '70s.
Now Let's go back to 1989 where Associated Press platforms for the UN:
"UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Continue reading at the link below:
(Because there was no internet it's on an archives web page)
We have heard it all before. They are always wrong but call anyone pointing out the errors "science deniers". Well, I have news for them, that is not how it works, they have it ass about face. A science denier is someone whose theory has no predictive success, but refuses to let observation and the real world factor in on his conclusion. A science denier uses models and "strong theoretical evidence"... whatever that is supposed to be.
I hope everyone is clear on the criteria? Lets continue.
And just in case you have any doubt as to the above, here is a wonderful little video of media fails retarding the yearly lies that the Arctic ice is about to melt, contrasted with the ACTUAL yearly Arctic ice sheet. Settled science you say? The only thing that is inconvenient is the thirty million dollars George Soros advanced Al Gore in 2004 to spread his inconvenient lie to the world.
Al gore: The Arctic will be Ice-Free by 2013!
And perhaps this ongoing farce is why people have lost interest in this matter which never manifests in reality, and only exists in the lies of the MSM, the warmongering, globalist owned big 6 media... Think about it.
(here's the text below)
The Washington Post is such a serious offender when it comes to to climate lies I've devoted a clip to them:
Similarly, The New York Times has invented a fake climate history to match its fake geopolitical history.
Since the hypothetical models and conclusions of alarmists keeps changing, and no warming has matched models, and cooling has set in, we can only conclude that it's not knowable if we affect the climate at all, but we are logically compelled to say that so far with certainty, there is a 100% probability that we are not the sole contributor (there was s climate before humans) and cannot be the most significant factor either, as stated by the cataclysmic feedback model, this claim is actually impossible and a logical fact so nobody can have a different opinion, they can only be wrong.
It is a myth that this is a debate, it's not, it is a fact that we cannot possibly know. Its proven if we agree on the current understanding of words, we have no accurate models, and the chance we are a significant contributor can't be ruled out but does not appear to be likely.
If we are looking to prove that, that is called an agenda. That correct definition of this process is a political goal. Science must without prejudice observe outcomes and describe an actual observation, even if it refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis must now account for the new observation, this is called progress even if the hypothesis fails. Truth wins. Establishment of a hypothesis as false is considered progress in science, science does value having falsehood considered true for ideological goes, that dynamic is valued in politics when you have made claims requiring funding, and it is your party that argues it is best positioned to determine policy.
Therefore anyone making the assertion that humans drive climate change that does not have proven models for the two criteria below, must according to logic, be the science denier.
1) You would need to be able to isolate and quantify every aspect contributing to climate (isolating and removing human contribution) within an agreed margin of accuracy.
2) You must be able to demonstrate which human activities affect climate, quantify them, and demonstrate a method of establishing our precise effect, and this method must be repeatable, and the results must meet the margin of error agreements.
It is not realistic to assert this is within our reach.
This allows us to conclude with certainty that scepticism is the only Scientific conclusion. Saying the science is settled places you, by the rules of the scientific method, as a science denier. This is not debatable unless we revise the scientific method.
Lets recap: where did this all start? play clip.
"Michael Mann is an unrepentant and belligerent Technocrat who deceived the whole world with his so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature model. His humiliation in a Canadian court should be a fatal blow to the entire climate change scam. Defying a judges direct order, Mann has refused to provide his data for public scrutiny. TN Editor"
All this fudged data is criminal. My suggestion? Go a step further and collect data from their own sources before they go back and revise facts, like this example:
It still continues:
And from GISS (often as NASA GISS)
Here in this post, I give you one simple yet effective way for anyone with an internet connection to get the raw data.
And here is a more realistic idea of what is REALLY going on to help you make sense of all of this.