Climate Change or AGW has become a Cult

My Recent Posts


I've decided to expand a reply I composed in an article titled, Global Warming Has To Be Proven, Not Disproven, which has disappeared.



Let me state at the outset, less than 15 yrs ago, I believed humanity was causing the planet to warm and that if we didn't do something to change our CO2 emissions we would destroy this blue ball we're all stuck on. I considered myself a Progressive Liberal and I was a member of the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. I was very active in politics and helped GOTV to get Hillary elected as our Senator from New York. I protested the criminal conviction of Troy Davis and his subsequent execution. We exterminated an innocent man. I despised anything Republican, especially Antonin Scalia, the now dead Supreme Court Justice.


That was until I had 2 and ½ years, unwillingly unemployed through no fault of my own, to research all the deniers claims. How can we combat those climate deniers if we don't know what it is they are saying or believing? You must know thy enemy to defeat them. Yes, I was conditioned to believe they were my enemy.


My path to the darkside began with Anthony Watts website, Watt's Up With That. I spent months reading all the documents and articles he had complied. I went to the actual sources he linked and read their “studies” and their “scientific conclusions”.


I was aghast at what I found. Those “scientists” weren't presenting scientific evidence, they were giving us their personal political opinions wrapped up in emotional arguments and ad hominems against anyone who dared point out their logical fallacies. If the “data” didn't fit their preconceived notions, they ignored it, deleted or outright changed it to fit their cultist belief system.


My personal belief system came crashing down. Piece by piece all the things I thought I knew to be true turned out to be lies, fraud and propaganda.


“Progressive Liberal” was code for, “I know what's best and I will employ the police powers of the almighty state to force you to live as I've decreed!”


I've come a long way baby from those false ideals and authoritarian statist doctrine that cannot be described as nothing less than a cult. I read the book, The True Believer and I realized I could never go back:



Mass movements demand a "total surrender of a distinct self" Every important part of the true believer's persona and life must ultimately come from her identification with the larger community; even when alone, the true believer must never feel isolated and unwatched. Hoffer identifies this communal sensibility as the reappearance of a "primitive state of being" common among pre-modern cultures


Mass movements aggressively promote the use of doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world". The doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances”


Fast forward a decade plus and I find myself here, no longer an active member of The Democratic Underground or Daily Kos. Listening to the likes of Dave Rubin , Jordan Petersen , Matt Christiansen , Styxhexenhammer666 and Deb Della Piana.


Just recently I came across Tony Heller's YouTube page, I was intrigued. I watched four of his videos and in less than an 1 ½ hours he destroys the claims of AGW. He uses their data and published news articles and walks you through the labyrinth of fraud, deception and indoctrination they have woven.


Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?

Fraud in The National Climate Assessment -1

Fraud in The National Climate Assessment -2

Fraud in The National Climate Assessment -3


I'll end with this: Find the truth for yourself.



** Authors note: I will not accept personal insults against anyone posting on this website or within this article. You can attack the data and the argument(s) but nothing more. You can respectfully argue against the message but not the messenger.


I challenge you to prove Tony Heller's complete data and analysis wrong. Be clear the data comes from NOAA, NASA, the IPCC and published news articles.


If you don't take the time and watch his presentations, don't waste my time posting here.


Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:04pm
Excellent article, and I did go to the first video. I recalled reading newspaper articles (I was about 12 years old back then) of the dire predictions of the next ice age. As a AGW believer, I often wonder about that blip in my history with climate change.
Just as there are vested interests in promoting the concept of AGW (such as scientific careers), there are also vested interests in promoting the status quo (such as $$$$ from petroleum industry). Where is the actual truth?
We could lay the blame on an uncaring or emotional public. But the truth is that many of us do not have the capacity or time to analyze all these scientific reports to find the "right" answer, then somehow muster the political force to bend the will of those who aspire for public office.
I would rather have a system of governance that is capable of finding the truth--as best it can--and not come to any politicized decisions to satisfy the whims of a non-scientific electorate. Western democracy cannot come to this state, and that is why we need another system.
Leroy Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:15pm
Great article, Gerrilea.  I doubt you will convince anyone who takes it on faith.  It has become a religion.
Gerrilea Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:18pm
Dave V-- Thank you for taking the time.  As for the motives or goals of those involved, both "for" and "against". We could fill an encyclopedia that "proved" our various beliefs.
But I will offer a cynical guess: The goal seems clear, a unifying control system for the entire planet under the auspices of AGW. Think about it for just a minute.  With 7+ billion of us and barely 5,000 people whom control all nations and their populations.  They are woefully outnumbered, and they know it. They need mass indoctrination to keep the riff-raff in check.
But what are the actual facts and data?  Let me decide the conclusion and plan of action, if warranted.  Without facts, all we're left with is opinion and governmental/world policies created on said.
Bill H. Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:19pm
I also believe there is a "cult" who will continue to deny that humans are at least responsible for a good portion of climate change no matter what evidence is presented to them. Same one's who believe most of Trump's lies and deception tactics.
Tamara Wilhite Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:27pm
For the trillion environmentalists want to spend trying to stop warming that may not be happening or is due to solar cycles, we could solve hunger, malnutrition, poor water quality (that still kills 5-8% of children per year), and homelessness for a large part of the human world.
In short, we can solve real problems or we can chase a mythical garden of Eden environmentalists think they can create if they destroy industrial civilization.

Global priorities bigger than climate change
Gerrilea Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:30pm
Bill H--- We've been conditioned like Pavlov's Dogs, to emotionally react and ignore reason, data and facts.
I do not believe we are powerful enough to impact this planet's climate in ways that nature won't reduce to rubble and continue on.
This does not mean I don't want clean air, water or non-GMO foods. We are very destructive, individually and collectively, as a species.  I'd love to see solar panels on everyone's homes, let's get geothermal plants up and running to generate electricity and level it out with wind turbines.  We do create some really toxic waste.  Let's reduce that and make the planet safer for all species.
Unfortunately, it seems I'm an ideologue after all.
Gerrilea Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:33pm
Tamara W--- Thank you for the video link, I'm listening to him right now.
Yes, there are things we can actually do instead of wasting decades (and billions of dollars) arguing over AGW.
Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:34pm
I think we are moving towards a world government whether we like it or not. We need a mechanism to solve international disputes.
Just ask fishermen from West Africa who have lost fishing grounds because European and Asians fish in African waters with no impunity. If we say there is no need for a world government, then we should say that these fishermen don't matter. There is a lot of injustice in the world done on an international level that only a world government can resolve.
If this world government is to be elected similarly as western democracy, then I totally understand the fear. But if we develop a system where elected officials can be trusted and their decisions respected, then the acceptance of a world government is more likely.
Dino Manalis Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:45pm
 All deleterious forms of carbon should be reduced with less pollution, but we shouldn't go bonkers over it.
TexasLynn Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:02pm
Really good post, Gerrilea.  But I agree with Leroy, on WB you are likely just preaching to the choir.  For many, you have essentially attacked their god.
In my opinion, for many, many decades the global elites have been searching for a means to solidify their control of humanity on a global level.  Climate change is just the latest attempt (and the most successful to date).  It is nothing but the latest Trojan horse hiding in it's interior socialism and globalism.  Before that they tried the population bomb, and the coming depletion of all fossil fuels... both of which were supposed to have come to pass by now.
Personally, I think those who subscribe to Climate Change fall into one or more of the following categories.
1) "Scientist" using it as a cash cow
2) Politicians and elites using it as a vehicle to achieve political means
3) Religious true believers in a Earth deity
Dave V >> I think we are moving towards a world government whether we like it or not.
Only if the tyrants win.  We must be ever vigilant to stop them.
Dave V >> We need a mechanism to solve international disputes.
Those "mechanisms" are called treaties. 
Yes, there is a lot of injustice in the world... saying not supporting world government is equivalent to not caring is a non-sequitur.
Instituting an evil in response to an evil is likely to result in greater evil.  Nothing compares to the misery and slavery a world government would breed (by its nature).  We saw too much of t in the last century, we should avoid it in this one.
Just looking at those who want it (those behind the likes of climate change) tells us all we need to know about what is in store if they succeed.  I will literally fight world government (globalism) to my dying breath.
Gerrilea Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:17pm
TexasLynn--- Thank you and you and Leroy are probably correct.  Let's argue and debate the facts, not each other or those presenting the evidence.
As for this:
I will literally fight world government (globalism) to my dying breath.
I couldn't agree with you more. 
There is one caveat.  If, say we were to expand our nation and it's constitutional republic to include new "States". Canada would be the first on the list, they'd become the 51st State, then we go for Australia (I like the beaches), then we go for the gusto and annex all of Africa.  I think there are 54 "nations", let's make them into States, under our constitutional republic. 
I know, I know, there's an issue with Russia and China and the "EU', but they'd eventually fold into our New American Order.  Isn't that why we're spending so much on our military these days?
Okay, so barring the events listed above, I'm fighting to the death any plans on the United States becoming part of a NWO.
Mustafa Kemal Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:30pm
"I'm fighting to the death any plans on the United States becoming part of a NWO."
I am fully on board: 
The US first attempt at creating a NWO was with the League of Nations which was such good idea we didnt ratify our own League, lol. Although it didnt create a NWO politically, it did bring the center of finance from London to Wall Street.  It also had much to do with why WWII happened.
Morever, the reason the League failed is quite funny. A bunch of imperialist nations trying to figure out how to divy up the spoils under the facade of "self-determination". That and which banksters get which deals to not only settle  war debts  and reparations out to the 1980s, but to build Nazi germany. 
Leroy Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:35pm
You're too late on Africa.  China purchased Africa for $143 billion. 
Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 3:02pm
My part of Canada was part of the Manifest Destiny. The triangle from Vancouver to Edmonton to Winnipeg was claimed by USA at one time. So there's historical reason to annex that part.
FacePalm directed me to a video called "The Money Masters." If the video is fairly truthful, we already have a world government. I don't see you fighting these international bankers.
TexasLynn Added Jan 8, 2019 - 3:24pm
Gerrilea >> There is one caveat.
One caveat to your caveat... :)... that the nation to be admitted be ready; as in accepting of our founding principles.  But now that I think about it, if we go by that standard I can think of a few states that need to be suspended until they come to their senses. :)
World government should occur when all humanity is of one mind on our nature, and responsibilities, and unalienable rights, and type of government/representation... and a host of other important issues; but not one day sooner than we ALL reach that pinnacle of human civilization. 
THAT day is (not hundreds) but thousands of years in the future.  Personally, I think it's a fantasy (like the ideals of socialism), but I could be wrong... check back with me in about two thousand years.
Mustafa >> Morever, the reason the League failed is quite funny.
I take it you mean funny (sad), not funny (ha ha). :)
The United Nations has similarly outlived its usefulness by a few decades.  It's well past time we put that conglomerate of misfits and 2-bit dictators out to pasture.
Leroy >> You're too late on Africa.  China purchased Africa for $143 billion.
%^$@! Was that on ebay!  I always wanted to own Africa... I would have sniped that. :)
Dave V >> I don't see you fighting these international bankers.
One globalist enemy at a time.  We're working on the socialist climate change guys first.  Many wars have been lost by creating multiple fronts, surely you would not have us make such a mistake.
Right now… to the international bankers, we’re saying “nice doggy”… until we finish clubbing the current rabid, irrational dog into submission. :)
Ward Tipton Added Jan 8, 2019 - 3:46pm
Seems kind of relevant here ... from a video I was watching and did not link unfortunately ... will dig it back out when I have a few minutes.
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.
Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.
Please help us spread the TRUTH. Subscribe to our channel and share this video.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 8, 2019 - 6:08pm
I think that only really stupid people still believe in AGW. I think we should focus attention on the changing nature of our laws (gradual toward Talmudism, ex the income tax) and what we can do to get the law back.
opher goodwin Added Jan 8, 2019 - 7:11pm
Gerri - perhaps denying is the cult?
Bill H. Added Jan 8, 2019 - 8:06pm
Doug - So the Scientists are "really stupid people"?
Doug Plumb Added Jan 8, 2019 - 8:09pm
Bill H. No. Scientists lie, especially when there is money involved, just like doctors, lawyers and ordinary people.
Katharine Otto Added Jan 8, 2019 - 9:34pm
To pick up on your original premise, that cults expect blind acceptance, I see that on both sides of the issue, yet to me the "climate change" agenda which focuses on CO2 and methane is too simplistic.  First, water vapor constitutes 95% of "greenhouse gases."
The dire but vague predictions, should the temperature (where?) rise more than two degrees (Fahrenheit or Celsius?) sound like the ravings of a fire-and-brimstone preacher, whose religion is institutional "science."
To me, the "greenhouse gases" are benign, compared to the amount of environmental toxins being dumped into the air, water, and soil.  "Climate change" is a red herring, to distract us from the real dangers of gyres of plastics in the oceans, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, and unsanitary living conditions through most of the world.
Also, no one seems to address the "how" of reducing dependence on fossil fuels.  They say solar and wind, but they neglect to consider that our commercial, global society depends heavily on air and ocean transport, war, plastic, and other major fossil-fuel-dependent systems.  I don't see that anyone has invented a jet that flies on solar power.
Katharine Otto Added Jan 8, 2019 - 9:39pm
By the way, good article.  Put me on the list of those who will resist world government.  Not to fight, but to refuse to participate.
Also, it could be said the central bankers run the world now, because we gullible human beings believe debt is money and debt until the sun burns out is valid because computers say so.
Bill H. Added Jan 8, 2019 - 9:44pm
Doug - So your saying it's not possible for Big Oil to lie, especially when there is money involved, just like doctors, lawyers and ordinary people?
FacePalm Added Jan 8, 2019 - 11:33pm
First, great article, well-backed by links and video.
Second, thanks for sharing your journey through the darkness of leftist ideology by insisting that Truth be your guide.  May your journey inspire others to do likewise.
All of this debate, however, may simply be a manifestation of a quite old strategy, sometimes called the "Banker's Manifesto,"(or so it was called when Sen. Lindbergh introduced it into the Congressional Record a hundred years ago).
The relevant part reads "keep them divided and arguing over matters of no concern to us except as teachers to the common herd."
What i've heard lately makes the entire debate moot.
Allegedly, the Stratospheric Aerosol Injection program, or SAI, is employing 100 or more aircraft to spray multiple tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere over the next ten years(4,000 flights per year), allegedly to "dim the sun" and reduce "global warming," apparently based on studies of what happened to the earth's mean temperature after a large volcanic explosion.
However, here's what they're not disclosing.  Sulfur dioxide, when it combines with water vapor, becomes smog - which not only leaches O2 from the atmosphere, but comes down to earth and water (fresh and salt) as acid rain - sulfuric acid, as it happens.
This will kill off most of the O2 producing plants on the planet(land and water), and kill off all oxygen breathing mammals - including us - which makes Texas Lynn's statement about fighting the globalists to his "last breath" quite ironic, as if their plan succeeds, that's exactly what he - and all of us - will do.  Die, gasping for breath. Maybe some of us will have incorporated enough of the technology of Stan Meyers to make self-contained breathing apparatus(es?) to help us to live, but with no food to eat and no drinkable water, why bother?
JC Teecher Added Jan 9, 2019 - 12:18am
If you were to get enough liberals to sign on to the Ocrazzy-o kotexx's taxation of 70% of the wealth of the top 10%, so it could be spent on stopping climate change, by elimination of the US of A oil industry, and some how it did eliminate say......50% of the US of A's carbon would not make one hill of beans difference in the 50 to 80 years it would take to get to alternative fuels and energy.
Why?  Because India and China will never change from their growing dependence on fossil fuel, and the green house emissions will double anyways in 30 years.
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 1:40am
Thanks everyone for the input and fun conversation.  Had to work and just got home a little while ago.
Leroy & Mustafa you both hit the nail on the head.  True Believers cannot see facts or truth, they know all they need to know, even if it kills them. In their mind, they're being the hero/martyr of their own storyline.
Yes the banksters control it all.  Dave V mentioned The Money Masters, I watched that years and years ago.   I think G.Edward Griffin's, The Creature From Jekyll Island gives you a condensed version of "our" Federal Reserve.
The war was fought and lost long before any of us were born. The thing is most don't release we're an occupied nation.
Tip of the hat to FacePalm for bringing many of us up to speed on the Fed and the Geoengineering they're planning.  Years ago, NASA launched a series of rockets to "map" the upper atmosphere. 
They used trimethyl aluminum.
I swore back then they were trying to create the worst parts of The Book Of Revelations.  Guys, The Bible is not a "Guide Book" on how to destroy the earth and all life on it!
Kathrine O-- Thank you and you're correct, my suggestions for "green alternatives" could not replace oil but could help each of us become energy independent, pollute less and live without the control systems that have been built up around us.
Our use of plastic needs to be honestly addressed.  I read recently about biodegradable straws that were made of potato starch.  I'll never use those laundry detergent "pods", sure they breakdown but then our water treatment systems cannot remove the microscope plastic balls they become and then we dump them into the environment.
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 2:27am
TexasLynn--- Good Lord, your replies had me laughing tonight at work and I wished I could respond.  I just "upgraded" my flip-phone to a Galaxy 7.  I'm still learning "how to".  :)
There was a fire-sale on Africa and I missed out again!  And I'm pretty sure I know which "States" need to be put into the "time-out box".
Doug P--- That's why I shared my story, I'm really not stupid  (my IQ was measured at 137 and I'm a member of Mensa).  I've been willingly misled and conditioned to accept authority without question.  It was easy to stand in contempt of those who couldn't accept "the truth".  I KNEW what the truth was, how dare you question me or it!!!
Ugh.  We seriously are mislead so easily, especially the higher your IQ goes and that usually goes hand-in-hand with your level of education.  You're made to believe you are "the truth"!
I don't blame anyone for their beliefs, unless they've never challenged their veracity.
I did and look where I ended up!  (as I gasp slowly).
Mogg T & Opher G--- Had either of you taken the time and watched the videos I linked. You'd have a healthy dose of skepticism. There are no absolute facts in AGW.
It's pure speculation and opinion wrapped up in authoritarian dogma. Arguments from authority hold no sway with me, not any longer.
Tamara White's video link tells it all.  Something I've been trying to push for a few years.  "Okay, so you say the planet is warming, great...Now, WHAT are you going to do about it?"
Quote from her link:
"If everyone followed the Kyoto Protocols, it would cost $150 Billion a year continuously and would only postpone Global Warming for about 6 yrs in the year 2100. 
The UN estimates that we could spend $75 Billion a year AND solve ALL major basic problems in the world. Clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health and education to every single person on the planet."
This fits exactly into what Ward Tipton pointed out.  It isn't about saving the planet. It's people control.  35+ yrs of "the sky is falling" YET not one policy initiative that has saved lives.
FacePalm Added Jan 9, 2019 - 4:06am
Curiously, the link to the Wallops Island experiment says this at the bottom of the page:
"The products of the reaction when TMA is exposed to air or water are aluminum oxide, carbon dioxide and water vapor. Aluminum oxides are used to combat heartburn and to purify drinking water. Also, all three products occur naturally in the atmosphere. The TMA poses no threat to the public during preparation on the ground or during the release in space."
However, the data sheet you linked to lists a rather large number of negative effects on human beings, like lung damage, burning (corrosive to) the skin, serious eye damage, and "spontaneously flammable" when exposed to air.  One of these descriptions is a lie.  i'm leaning toward the NASA spokesperson, as they've been caught lying on innumerable occasions.  And "aluminum occurs naturally in the atmosphere"?  Since when?
The experiment was run in 2012 - but the geoengineering has been going on since at LEAST Y2K, probably earlier, as the experimentation with weather control via the "phased antennae arrays" ability to heat 100sq. mi. areas of the atmosphere and move those spots so as to change the jet stream, and affect the areas downstream.  China and Russia - probably other countries, as well - have also experimented with these techs, despite international treaties "banning" them, and still are to this day.
So at the risk of being boringly repetitious, no "climate model" which ignores the deliberate injection of foreign substances into the atmosphere can in any way be considered complete or accurate, but a lie of omission.  In fact, that's clear evidence of DELIBERATE attempts to induce man-made climate change, right there!
Neil Lock Added Jan 9, 2019 - 4:29am
Gerrilea: Find the truth for yourself.
Absolutely right. There are two ways of forming your opinion on a factual matter: (1) Find out the facts, and assemble them into the best picture you can. Or (2) take someone else's narrative, and run with it. You and I, along with several others here, do (1). Those that do (2) are both a drain on us and a danger to us.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 9, 2019 - 5:21am
"The experiment was run in 2012 - but the geoengineering has been going on since at LEAST Y2K, probably earlier, as the experimentation with weather control via the "phased antennae arrays" ability to heat 100sq. mi. areas of the atmosphere and move those spots so as to change the jet stream, and affect the areas downstream.  China and Russia - probably other countries, as well - have also experimented with these techs, despite international treaties "banning" them, and still are to this day."
Have you seen the work done in Vietnam during the war to extend and worsen the typhoon seasons?
FacePalm Added Jan 9, 2019 - 5:29am
Yes, i believe i have, Ward - but that was child's play compared to what was developed, later.
Ever hear of "Pell grants"?
"Now that we can control the weather, create earthquakes and tidal waves, and use it as a weapon of war, we do not need a treaty."
- Senator Claiborne Pell, Senate Intelligence Committee member, commenting on a USA/USSR treaty signed in 1978
(somebody spoke out of school, there, didn't they?)
Ward Tipton Added Jan 9, 2019 - 5:34am
Which is why I had to laugh about your reference to plane wrecks ... that is soooo seventies LOL And only for public statements. 
FacePalm Added Jan 9, 2019 - 7:05am
Which is why I had to laugh about your reference to plane wrecks 
Must've been cross-thread pollination; never mentioned plane crashes on THIS thread...
But yeah, i'm aware that intel agencies have electronic devices now that can induce hemorrhages and/or burst aneurysms at a distance - but now i'm hearing that with the rollout of 5G tech, the incidences of brain cancer will skyrocket, and various ELF waves can also be broadcast to affect general moods, and that "suicides" are also likely to increase as a result - untraceable and certainly unprovable, the best kinds of homicide of all.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 9, 2019 - 8:07am
I think it was 75 when the heart attack gun was introduced to Congress? The people I knew who used such toys had three different kinds of frozen darts ... and it made about as much noise as the click from a ball point pen. 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 9, 2019 - 10:05am
re "Doug - So your saying it's not possible for Big Oil to lie, especially when there is money involved, just like doctors, lawyers and ordinary people?"
Everybody lies, the question is, who has something to gain by lying. Professors get to keep their jobs by not exposing truth. They are afraid to speak against AGW. The scientists that have spoken against it are often retired. They do not work for the oil companies. You should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle - see what scientists actually say, rather than their UN directed public relations people who talk about consensus. When you hear the word consensus, think of the Delphi method.
Bill H. Added Jan 9, 2019 - 11:35am
If I was a CEO of an Oil Company and it was found that the product I produce and sell was causing long-term negative issues for the planet, I would certainly make some efforts to convince people otherwise. I would also do my best to stifle any competition to my product by the usual method of spreading false rumors or minimizing the benefits of the competition. I would also join with other leaders of the industry to funnel as much money as possible to politicians who would be willing to assist my efforts.
Ironically, Exxon was secretly aware of the fact, which are all available on this site.
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 12:29pm
FacePalm--- The MSDS are mandatory under Federal Law, the pdf link is what OSHA and industry have agreed is the legitimate description of target="_blank">trimethyl aluminum and it's dangers to humans and the environment.
NASA's public opinions are irrelevant but I did read their description on it and was astounded they were actually and verifiably lying.
Bill H--- Interesting theory.  We do have evidence that counters said.
Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political & Economic Change
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of  target="_blank" rel="noopener">economic and environmental policy.“
– target="_blank" rel="noopener">Timothy target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
And then we have Maurice Strong, the grandfather of the UN's IPCC was an Oil Man under Rockefeller.
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – target="_blank" rel="noopener">Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
And then we have CO2, and how that plays its part.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author target="_blank" rel="noopener">Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
What becomes clear, the Global Warming Theory becomes a tool of oppression and control.
Bill H. Added Jan 9, 2019 - 12:45pm
Your first link is an exact example of what I discussed. The site owner claims to be a "one-man operation", but most would be aware otherwise.
What would this "one man operation" gain by his efforts?
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 1:39pm
Bill H--- I'm not sure if I understand your question or point.
It's the data and information that they presented that I was interested in.
The quotes and links lead directly to those whom created the Global Warming Hysteria and are the same ones whom will directly benefit from it.
And doesn't your position distract us from the point?  Those pushing the AGW Agenda, have a goal that has nothing to do with saving the planet or making our lives better.
They don't care if Global Warming is real or not, they are using it to redefine and redesign our societies so that they can control us.
Jim Stoner Added Jan 9, 2019 - 1:42pm
Gerrilea,  I'll accept your recommendations as such: 
 I'd love to see solar panels on everyone's homes, let's get geothermal plants up and running to generate electricity and level it out with wind turbines.  We do create some really toxic waste.  Let's reduce that and make the planet safer for all species.
If we do these things, no need for world government (at least, for this purpose) or endless arguing about whether the global temperature is rising due to human behaviors. 
    Here   is a recent article by one of the "cult" leaders; very readable.   I'm not a subscriber but picked up the magazine in the gym (a good way to share information with others, by the way).   He has taken a more reasonable view toward the CO2 level in the atmosphere:  rather than drawing a line in the sand with some arbitrary number beyond which we cannot go (and save humanity), he suggests more of a notch-by-notch defense of our environment, and more thought about the adaptations that will become necessary, especially in our coastal areas.   
Personally, though, I think there will be no easy solution once Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable (due to salt water contamination of water supplies):  there will be hundreds of millions of refugees.  It will dwarf the effects of the Syrian Civil War, and look how that has disrupted half the world. 
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 2:13pm
Jim S--- As the evidence I've presented establishes, the theory behind AGW and it's alleged link to CO2 levels is fraud.
There is no climate crisis.
If we stopped all CO2 emissions right now, it would only put off global warming by 6 yrs, in the year 2100.  Making a difference right now in the lives of billions of humans is within our abilities and at a mere cost of $75 billion a year.  Tamara White's link established those numbers from the UN itself.
We know the planet is warming and has been for at least 10,000 yrs.  Those whom live on coastal regions must move, no matter what the cause is.
I will not pay for them to move, however. 
And this doesn't change my position on having cleaner, less toxic products, homes, water, air or food.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 9, 2019 - 2:30pm
"And this doesn't change my position on having cleaner, less toxic products, homes, water, air or food."
But it does make you a heretic whose ideas and suggestions, no matter how well-founded they may be, should be casually dismissed ... as should you ... because you are obviously part of the vast right wing conspiracy and a nazi if you do not believe every asinine component of the religious-like tenets of their system of belief. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Jan 9, 2019 - 9:40pm
just to let you know, Im less than half the way through.
Will Meek Added Jan 9, 2019 - 10:01pm
It is of great importance that we have this debate. This debate shouldn't even be happening. The evidence for human caused warming has been clear for over 30 years. The "natural cycles" that exist are nearly all pushing temperature lower. We really had been heading for an ice age before we intervened. Our inputs have over ridden natural cycles and pushed temperature up.
To begin with, the idea that we can add as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere without changing the climate does not pass the smell test. CO2 is the second most influential gas after water vapor.
Second, on conspiracy theories; Conspiracy theories don't work when they get to big. For human caused global warming, you would need a truly global conspiracy of all major institutions of learning coordinating data between several countries.
To call this unlikely would be the understatement of the year.
But the anti-global warming messaging comes mostly from a very few small groups with strong financial interest in creating confusion about human caused global warming.
Third, the idea that NOAA and NASA data is unreliable is ludicrous with your climate deniers in charge. If there were real conspiracies in those agencies, trump and his cronies would have exposed them and thrown them in jail for abuse of power and misappropriation of public funds.
They have not because NOAA and NASA do solid science that is near incontrovertible and very reliable.
These are my opening fundamental assertions that I will use when arguing again the thesis of this article.
Tomorrow I will get into the specific problems with each of the references. 
Gerrilea Added Jan 9, 2019 - 11:43pm
Will Meek-- Okay, so we should have this debate but we shouldn't be having this debate.
Be clear: I am not your enemy. I will entertain respectful disagreements and honest debate.
To sum up your position:
1.  AGW is settled science for 30 yrs and is directly correlated to our dumping of CO2.
2.  It's a conspiracy of monumental proportions to believe otherwise.
3.  The "deniers" currently in charge would have found the criminal malfeasance on the part of NOAA and NASA's manipulated data records, if there was any.
Well, at least we're getting somewhere.  Before you continue, I request that you watch the video links I've provided.  Understand what we, on the other side, remember, understand and know to be factual.
1.  The "science is only settled" by decree, not by historical record.  Science is not a popularity contest confirmed by voting.
2.  America developed and deployed the Atomic Bomb, employing over 600,000 people in total and only a handful of people knew what the final product was going to be.
Secrets can be kept, even on a mass scale.
That said, you must have missed my point on The True Believer
There is no need for there to be a conspiracy if you believe what you are doing is right, just and true and you enlist followers and converts to the cause. Those whom dared speak out were publicly humiliatedfired and excommunicated.
3.  Your logical fallacy on this point is clear.  Lack of prosecution does not equal nothing fraudulent.  The best example I can think of at the moment. The Clinton Foundation and Hillary's private server and phones she destroyed to obstruct justice and hide her crimes.  We know the truth but Trump hasn't prosecuted her/them for it.
The evidence of NOAA & NASA's fraud are presented in the videos.
Please let me make this clear, I believe our planet is warming, as part of a natural cyclical process. I'm truly happy that our planet is warming, it will bring eons of life and growth. 
PBS Science explains it wonderfully.  While I do not agree with the narrators emotional conclusions, he does explain how our planet's climate works.
Mustafa, fabulous.  I'd be grateful for input and legitimate critiques of Tony Heller's presentations.  I didn't have time to research all the slides and data he showed.  When he toggles back and forth between 2 different published temperature data records created by NASA, et would have been nice to have links to each "before and after".
Ward T--- You know, I can't tell if you insulted me or not.  But I guess that would be based on if I consider being declared a "heretic" a bad thing.  Hmmmmm....nope, keep on keeping on.
Flying Junior Added Jan 10, 2019 - 1:17am
I think that only really stupid people still believe in AGW.
That is so classic!  lolz  Pantheon.  Valhalla stuff
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:27am
"To begin with, the idea that we can add as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere without changing the climate does not pass the smell test. CO2 is the second most influential gas after water vapor."
CO2 is actually a very distant third with Water Vapor being the primary and methane ... which is also substantially more potent as a greenhouse gas being second. Any scientific research that totally omits the top two leading causes, is not by nature, scientific at all, most notably when that distant third is comprised of thirteen percent of four hundred parts per million. 
Getting rid of all of the greenhouse gases would kill the atmosphere leaving us in the same shape as Mars on a planetary scale ... not a great enhancer for life on this planet. 
Gerrilea ... Nope ... just saying that you and I, despite offering a great many viable and meaningful solutions that would actually benefit the environment and humanity, will be scorned and dismissed as heretics because we do not buy into the religious-like tenets of the alarmists. 
Will Meek Added Jan 10, 2019 - 6:52am
No, we shouldn't HAVE to be having this debate, because the broad outlines of human caused global warming IS settled science. Oh, sure, some of the specifics are in doubt, like the exact year the Artic will melt, but arguing that global warming isn't real and humans are not causing it is like arguing that if you throw a bucket of water in the air, that water won't fall because I can't tell you where each drop is going to land.
Corrections to your summary of my position .
1. "AGW" is STRONGLY correlated with CO2 emissions. 
2. Yes.
3. And Yes.
Your pionts.
1. The science has been settled BY the historic record. Both the history before modern climate science, and now over 30 years of accurate predictions of global average temperature. 
2. The Manhattan Project only lasted a few years and even then, the secret was getting out. Now, such a project would be impossible to keep secret. This only serves to reinforce my point.
And, for further evidence, an anti-global warming conspiracy has been exposed multiple times from multiple sources. It has just been that people have refused to believe it because that would have meant a real self evaluation. 
No. I didn't miss your point on true believer. I have verified everything I state throughly and repeatedly, looking for mistakes or something I have missed. I mean, how could the people in our government be so bad as to aid in the cover up of damage to our own country? 
But it tires out they have, because it is easier to deny something than realize you need to make changes of yours own world view.
3. You are wrong here, there is no logical fallacy. The trump administration has intervened in other agency websites, like the National Park Service, and removed references to climate change demonstrating that they know they have an interest in promoting a particular viewpoint. Also, they have a responsibility to remove people that are breaking the law and lying to the public to further political ideals. They have complained publicly about climate change science but what evidence has been brought? None. Just the statement of "I don't believe it". So what are we left with there? The trump administration is either lying about climate change itself or in dereliction of duty.
With Clinton you reveal another area where you are not critiquing what you are told, but that would be off topic for here.
I will get to critiquing your first video in a few hours. It will take time to assemble. There is a lot wrong with them.
I think you will find when we are done that you have not done a through job of critiquing your sources as I have critiqued mine.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:46am
@ Will Meek re " Conspiracy theories don't work when they get to big."
lol. You should read Aristotle or Plato, or both. That way you know what is real and what is bullshit. Politics is conspiracy. The PTB are always scheming against the people because their interest and viewpoints are different. An educated public keeps them at bay. That is why they destroyed education and teach people about AGW and how to be fags instead of teaching them about law and philosophy.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:02am
Will, there is a meteor headed toward the earth at a million times the speed of light. Its the size of a ping pong ball but its kinetic energy is so great that the earth will explode when it is hit.
Duck and cover.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:15am
@ Katharine re "Also, it could be said the central bankers run the world now, because we gullible human beings believe debt is money and debt until the sun burns out is valid because computers say so."
I wish I had said that.
Gerrilea Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:09am
Will Meek--- Emotional grandstanding and sly innuendo doesn't prove anything.
"Both the history before modern climate science, and now over 30 years of accurate predictions of global average temperature."
First off, there is no such animal as "global average temperature".  You would need at least 100,000 uniformly placed weather stations around the world collecting data each hour, day by day. And we already know the reverse is true, Weather Stations Are Disappearing Worldwide.  If my memory serves, we had over 4700 stations in 1972, just in the US alone, today we have less than 1200.
Anthony Watts published a book a while back and the visual and photographic evidence cannot be denied. 89% of all weather stations still operating in the US did not meet the National Weather Service's own standards for the "sitting" of said stations.
As for those "accurate predictions", let me bring you up to speed.
Climate Models Exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%:
In the study, authors target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
We know Obama politicized the D.O.E.  He fired any scientist that didn't agree with AGW.  It was revealed in April 2016. Long before Trump was even elected.
As for this:
"I mean, how could the people in our government be so bad as to aid in the cover up of damage to our own country?"
Meaningless argument when you accept that AGW has become religious dogma.  You may believe what you say is true, that does not make it so.
And this:
"Also, they have a responsibility to remove people that are breaking the law and lying to the public to further political ideals."
Show us what law(s) requires any federal, state or local official to prosecute criminals.
In fact, I can establish, by way of the Supreme Court, you are mistaken:
Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."
Again, reinforcing your logical fallacy.
Finally, for this:
"They have complained publicly about climate change science but what evidence has been brought? None. Just the statement of "I don't believe it". So what are we left with there?"
The evidence starts with Anthony Watts website and continues on with the video links at the bottom of the article.
Gerrilea Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:14am
Doug P--- NOW you decide to tell me this?  What the heck am I doing arguing on a blog all day for?  Has NASA, the Pentagon, the President Of The United States made any plans to deflect this "ping pong"???
Surely we could build a very large Ping-Pong Paddle or something.
Ugh, do you have any good leads on bunker supplies or "off the grid" power equipment?
Jim Stoner Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:28am
Yeah, really.  What good is duck and cover if the Earth explodes? 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:33am
Off the grid you can do mostly with 12 volt DC ... no need for a bunch of power inverters and other expensive equipment ... ever stare into a xenon car headlight or hear a good car stereo with a simple power booster? Just do not run anything with high amperage, and you can run refrigeration off propane ... that you can even collect from your livestock ... methane or natural gas actually ... which should have a slightly larger pilot light orifice ... just sayin' ... 
Dave Volek Added Jan 10, 2019 - 1:28pm
Just been thinking about the first video you recommended.
The video spent a lot of time on how NASA had manipulated its own data to better make the case for global warming (which is not necessarily anthropological global warming). According to the video maker, NASA had charted global temperatures over a couple of centuries. It created one chart in 2000, and another in 2017. The two charts are not the same. The first one doesn't show any significant global warming, the second does. It seems the pre-2000 data has been changed in the second chart to show a colder Earth. The video claims that NASA has doctored the data to suit a certain agenda.
My first question was: "How do I know either chart came from NASA in first place?" It is possible the video maker just made up that chart and attributed whatever discrepancies to NASA to make a certain point: i.e., NASA doctors its own data.
Then I asked: "How does a simple chart represent the process for average global temperature?" I can see a lot of ways to massage raw data, and different scientists come to different conclusions with the same data. And maybe the application of 2000 was improved for 2017? 
There are reasons to doubt the validity of the video. 
In order for me to get to the truth behind this video, I would need to partake a lot more independent study. For example, I should rake over NASA to get 2017 chart. But if they are hiding something, they won't be showing me the 2000 chart. That would have to come from somewhere other than NASA. So I can see many hours of detective work to see if the video maker was indeed telling the truth.
There are lunatics and vested interests on both sides of this debate. So I'm not going to stake my position on who makes the prettiest or most logical videos. Rather I am going to use my high school science skills. We have been burning fossil fuels which could have an effect on our climate. The system may be able to absorb these changes, but maybe not. Direct observation says changes are happening. These changes could be natural, but given the coincidence of our burning of fossil fuel, we should not assume so. If we don't want the consequences of a warmer Earth, then we should do something. The consequences don't look too great.
I didn't see any point in going to your other videos. They may have been well crafted and convincing, but I have no practical way of checking the videos' facts for myself. I'll stick to my high school science.
Gerrilea Added Jan 10, 2019 - 3:52pm
Dave V--- High School Science really has nothing to do with the data records but I'll bite. I must assume you mean the critical thinking that you were taught in HS Science.
The news articles he referenced are online. 
Here are my Google Results:
NASA & GISS were caught changing the actual data without legitimate explanations.
Dr. John Bates, who led NOAA's climate-data records program how "studies" failed to provide the datasets they used!  They're basically making it up as they go along.  All we know is that they stopped using the buoy data and used ship data.  Buoy data sets are/were always lower. 
Then we have published reports and data from the UN's IPCC and The UK's Hadley-CRU Center establishing a cooling over the past 20 yrs.
We have independent researchers finding the same fraud with NASA:
"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
When you just scratch the surface, you start finding all these "anomalies".
"The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures."
I do agree that burning things and releasing them into the atmosphere will have consequences AND that we shouldn't pollute our environment, this does not equal catastrophic global warming.
Just a side note:  A few years ago, here in the Buffalo, NY area, we had record cold temperatures for almost 40 days straight. So cold, in fact, Niagara Falls froze over for the first time in over 104 yrs. What they reported was that 2014 was the hottest on record! Locally they claimed there was NO difference in the temperatures for Dec thru Feb (over previous year) AND the monthly temperature variance was ZERO!
The following year winter started in September and then in November we got 9 1/2 feet of snow, in less than 48 hrs. We had snow on the ground until June of the following year!  YET AGAIN!, 2015 was the hottest on record!
The critical analysis I was taught in HS tells me they are lying.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:53pm
Gerrilea, your findings are in line with the fact that these bastards said they were going to do all this back in the 30's (The Open Conspiracy) and in the 60's (Report From Iron Mountain) then in the 70's (The Next Global Revolution).
Will Meek Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:12pm
I literally just read this when taking a break from studying. Remember what I said about investigation of lying scientists? Well here are the results of an investigation demanded by a Texas Representative.
Ars Technica news summary
Department of Commerce press release on the accuracy of climate data with full report link
Gerrilea Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:29pm
Will Meek--- I've deleted your last posting.

I didn't ask for a debate on the qualifications of the people presenting the information.
In fact, I forbid it.

"Anthony Watts is a meteorologist...he is an amateur..."
"Watts is closely associated with the Heartland institute..."

Any information from him is tainted and should be rejected..."
I forbid personal attacks, you've done it a second time, against me personally.

"I will walk you through the rest of this video to teach you how to throughly critique information if the source passes the smell test."
This was to be a debate on the data, not how you perceive my abilities to critically analyze sources. Nor a discussion on how you are going to teach me anything.
The final reason for the deletion:

"I already reject the information from the videos as disinformation..."
You see, you've conflated two different sources. Anthony Watts took me down the path of actual evidence, years ago.  The videos are from a gentleman named Tony Heller.  TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Had you even attempted to watch the videos, you'd have known that.
Don't waste my time with propaganda and religious dogma.
Johnny Fever Added Jan 11, 2019 - 9:36am
“We know the planet is warming and has been for at least 10,000 yrs.”
Bullshit.  Humans have not developed the technological ability to determine the average temperature of the Earth right now.  Seeing the technology doesn’t exist now, it didn’t exist yesterday either.  If it didn’t exist yesterday, it didn’t exist 10,000 years ago either.  So anyone that says they know the Earth is warming is using garbage data and making conclusions from that data.  Garbage in is garbage out. 
Allow me, we know with certainty the climate is always in a state of flux.  Accordingly, any scientist that claims the climate isn’t changing is an idiot.  Similarly, any scientist that can say with certainty that humans are to blame for global warming has no conclusive data to support their opinion. 
Gerrilea Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:16am
Johnny Fever--- ROFL, ya know.... So the images in my mind of the Wooly Mammoth and our forebearers that lived in caves didn't happen? The snow and ice the mammoth evolved into because of said wasn't there?
The sunken cities near Egypt and all over the world, under hundreds of feet of water are real.
Logically I agree, we had no thermometers 10, 20, 50 or 100 thousand years ago, don't we have evidence that there have been multiple ice ages and evidence that the water levels around the world were much lower? Low enough where humans built entire civilizations that became flooded and submerged?  Where did all the water come from to bury these things?  A physical planetary pole-shift? Ice caps and glaciers?
Three logical conclusions:  A pole shit Or glacial melt or a combination of both.
The Owl Added Jan 11, 2019 - 1:41pm
Climate Change and Governance
Global government will not occur until there is a commonly and universally recognized outside existential threat.  Until then the "tribal nature" that defines the nation-state will inevitably create tensions that lead to conflict, global or otherwise.  And as long as there are tensions between nations states that will not be resolved, any attempts at globals solution will be pre-conditioned to fail.
We know that the League of Nations failed because one nation, Italy, decided that it was in their best interest to act while the rest of the world talked.  The rest of the world just kept on talking and talking, too, until Hitler decided that Poland was his for the taking...
The United Nation is another tower of babble, hamstrung primarily by the veto powers of the United States, Russia, France, England, and China.  It can attempt to put out brush fires here and there between states with little real power, but they are impotent in resolving core issues between the most powerful.  Though its tenure may stretch on for some decades more, its usefulness will be as a platform for propaganda and posturing far more than it will be for the interests of peace.
Will "climate change" be that external existential threat that will bind the world?
Not in my lifetime, and likely not in the lifetimes of those alive today.  There is far too much to be gained by the focus on internal development in the emerging nations, between the major powers, too, for tribal tensions to be cast aside.  Doing so would render openly much of what we see now as dogma as being the bald-faced lies that they really are.
A push for globalization will on divert attention until such time as globally accepted consensus overtake the senses of patriotism and distinct and separate culture.
Talk is cheap and can be done effectively in many ways.  The United Nations is one of the more expensive and ineffective means for speaking to others on the national level.
Time for the UN to go.
Will Meek Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:19pm
Pointing out an error, as you have done to me is not a personal attack. I have made no personal attack against you.
You however have made personal attacks against me. This is the most recent example.
"Emotional grandstanding and sly innuendo doesn't prove anything."
As to the author of the video, I have not watched it in a few weeks and had taken some of your words as indicating that Watts was the author. That is my mistake. 
Critiquing the source of your information is the absolutely necessary first step of evaluation of the information. Otherwise you would have to evaluate every claim and there simply isn't that much time.
So when I present the critique of the video, it will begin with a critique of the source, as you identified as Tony Heller. But as I stated, this is where we start, not where we end. You are clearly not looking at the information in a critical maner. And no, that is not a personal attack.
If you do not do this you are simply not doing a real evaluation of the information. 
So my question to you is: Are we going to REALLY evaluate this information?
Gerrilea Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:15pm
Will Meek--- We will not "evaluate" the information as you've decided.
Is the data presented accurate or not?  It doesn't matter who paid for it, why they paid for it or who presents it or the personal motives of the presenter.  Attacking the messenger ignores the message.  That is the first step in disinformation.  Attack your opponents motives, etc.
My personal critique of the videos that the author does not provide links to where he got the information from.  He does present published newspaper records. I'm quit certain those are not "photoshopped".  I remember many of them.
What becomes more clear, there is an agenda, void of facts.  The facts are the planet has warmed .08 degrees C over the past 100 yrs. That rise in temperature is beyond our own body's ability to "feel" and is within the margin of error of our own equipment and measurements.
I've presented personal examples of that agenda and how it has played out.  As the actual temperature records show, they then changed the data and then made false claims of a crisis.
Gerrilea Added Jan 11, 2019 - 9:07pm
(Edited postings to condense into one)
Will Meek--- I've been searching for the "before and after" data -sets and found this:
Top NASA Climate ‘Data Fraudster’ Named & Shamed

It has various charts that appear to be included in the videos above.
Will Meek, now I must edit my own postings.
It appears that Tony Heller did present the "before and after" data-sets on his own website.
Systematic Destruction Of The Temperature Record Since 2000
Clearly he's telling the truth and the data-sets are valid.
Will Meek, if we were to use your "standard" of:
"Critiquing the source of your information is the absolutely necessary first step of evaluation of the information."
I could have destroyed Michael Mann & Pachauri of the IPCC.  The climategate emails establish fraud, petty politics and criminal collusion between various government funded agencies worldwide, including Mann's personal and professional fraud.  Then we go onto Pachauri, the head author of the IPCC's reports was a railroad engineer and soft-porn writer and has been arrested on sex charges.
I really have more ammunition than you do, if we were to go down that road but IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. 
What matters is:
--The data records and their accuracy.
--The public policies initiated based on said.
--The integrity of the entire process.
(I'm sure I could think of more, if given more time).
Doug Plumb Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:18am
re " Similarly, any scientist that can say with certainty that humans are to blame for global warming has no conclusive data to support their opinion."
  They are bought and paid for globalist shills.
@The Owl re " The rest of the world just kept on talking and talking, too, until Hitler decided that Poland was his for the taking..."
  Poland started that one by massacring thousands of formerly German citizens, leaving their bodies to rot in the streets. Also, Germany didn't want war. International Jewry was starving it from the international boycotts. They had two choices, capitulate to international Judaism and pay the phoney debt, or go to war.
  Germany was being punished by all the Jewish cont6roled nations for not going along with Jewish debt and the Jewish new world order.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:20am
See the Greatest Story Never Told for a timeline of events leading to ww2. Forget about Time magazine and your Jewish history education.
The Owl Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:43pm
Whether or not Hilter's Germany was able to justify their action, they believed that Poland was theirs for the taking, and their action initiated the diplomatic exchanges, the result of which was what we now call World War II.
The matter of who was responsible is irrelevant to the argument that I was making.