Global Warming and the Polar Vortex

Cooling WorldBy John Hayward –

As a massive blanket of arctic air brings twenty-year record cold temperatures to the United States, it’s not surprising to see the Church of Global Warming in full-on shrieking panic mode, screaming at the top of their lungs that a blast of cold weather doesn’t disprove their theories.

Well, no, of course it doesn’t. A mountain of scientific data compiled over decades disproves their theories. Nobody has to point to today’s weather to demonstrate that global warming is a fraud. Actual scientists have already done that, using years of climate observations that do not in any way, shape, or form match up with the climate models that cost the industrialized world billions of dollars over the past three decades. The global warming cult has yet to be right about anything, so there’s nothing left to disprove.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

44 Responses to Global Warming and the Polar Vortex

  1. Charles Johnston January 10, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    My position for many years has been that the climate change scammers don’t bother to read and are being led by the nose, and by quacks masqurading as scientists, down the road to massive new taxes to solve a problem that does not exist, and that we could not fix if it did. The real science has been around since the mid-1960’s, proving with “Real science” that the Sun is the driving force of our heating and cooling, in lockstep with the Sun’s magnetic activity and low-energy cosmic ray shielding. But the climate change army is determined to shout everyone else down because their belief system is a religion, not concerned with science really, but mostly with faith. As Carl Sagan mused, “Facts are irrelevant because they have a desperate need to believe.” That’s a paraphrase, but no less true. The bottom line is depressing to these people: We have been warming and cooling for millions of years, but in the last three decades, politicians and professors and researchers have finally figured out how to make that profitable.

    • Neilio January 10, 2014 at 5:06 pm #

      Very well put. Thanks Charles. I agree with you 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

    • Jan Lindau January 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm #

      I agree 100 % ! Here in sweden the AGW climate change religion is very strong..scientists who dissagree cant reach media they are cencured but i have learned so much about carbondioxid glaciers storms deserts the atmosphere historic climate oceancurrents fotosynthes the arctic the antarctis etc etc…so im able to say that its all a bluff

      • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

        Well, the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% I disagree with is that I don’t think the bottom line is depressing to these people. They refuse to acknowledge reality, and therefore, go on in complete blissful ignorance. If they would get depressed, they may actually try to get at the truth to alleviate their sorrow.

    • Richard Brox January 23, 2014 at 4:09 pm #

      It is so refreshing to read about the pseudo science embraced by Al Gore and his brethren as the pack of lies that it is. Keep up the good work.

  2. Leah January 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm #

    What has happened during winter of 2013, and summer 2013 (it was cold some of the time) and now, certainly doesn’t look like global warming to me!

  3. Rob N. Hood January 17, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

    “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

    – Charles Bukowski

    • Dan McGrath January 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

      You mean, like, “The debate is over?”

  4. John Birdwell January 21, 2014 at 10:51 am #

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    I encourage you all to glance at these links. I’m sure most of you will dismiss it as left wing evilness. But based on my general “google surfing” (I have only basic college education it the science field) There is scientific consensus. Less than 2% would agree with this website.

    I’m not one to blindly agree with global issues, however based on the research out there, it’s ignorance to say otherwise. Kind of like the Catholic church maintaining that the world is flat.. But I understand why such a stubborn resistance.

    • Rob N. Hood January 23, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

      Well, said. I have said as much before, several times in fact. As you can see, such clear logic for your, and my, belief is wasted upon the true unbelievers. They are a cult created by and for the major polluters and fossil fuel industry.

    • kurt gandenberger January 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

      really? we’re freezing our tukuses off worrying about global warming???? thank GOD we’re in an interglacial period at present. if it gets cold again like the early 1800’s that’s when the real suffering occurs. warm (like the 1400’s when Greenland got it’s name) is good and it comes from solar activity…not from the gases in the atmosphere that are small contributors to the overall amount of warmth in the air. the politicians just want more sources of taxation, that’s all they ever want.

      • Rob N. Hood January 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

        Well we could actually tax the polluters directly instead, but that’s a non-starter too as they say, because you know, tax. Or we could all pay what things actually cost, figuring in all the negative consequences which the corporations simply have gotten socialized via other means which you and I pay in taxes anyways, but usually not accurately causing greater long term negative consequences than if we did the right things up front.

        • Vic Pfitzner April 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm #

          Polluters? or are you talking about CO2 which is not a pollutant. Your figures are incredibly wrong. 98% of scientists don’t believe in AGW
          even if that was true remember Galileo.
          Why is this foolishness defended so vehemently by the lefties?

    • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 10:13 pm #

      Ok, let me get this straight. This is from the “study” referred to in the link you posted.

      “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

      The first thing that pops out to me is “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW.” Ok, so just about 2/3rds of the climate abstracts expressed NO POSITION on AGW, while just about 1/3rd of them ENDORSED AGW. So out of the 33.3% of climate abstracts that HAD A POSITION on AGW, they get 97.1% endorse the consensus opinion?
      Why do they throw away approximately 2/3rds of all the abstracts?
      It seems to me that the real number is 32.6%, not 97.1%.
      Isn’t the real consensus that a 2/3rds majority of climate papers has no position on AGW?
      Talk about cherry picking data, jeez!

      As far as the NASA website goes, it is government run so……?

      Take a look at these:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/team-of-ex-nasa-scientists-concludes-no-imminent-threat-from-man-made-co2/

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html

      As far as the consensus on AGW goes, it came from this:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
      ” So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

      Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

      That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

      The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?”

      • Fred February 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

        It doesn’t surprise me that the left distorts statistics in its own favor. It does it on every social issue it wants to ram down the public’s throat.

    • Dr. Chance February 22, 2014 at 4:52 am #

      I am a doctor and I deal with “EBP” all day every day. Even in the medical world we dont have good data and studies. The hardest part is understanding bias, and yes even in our studies its rampant. Im sorry to tell you this but anyone who tells you science can prove this our that, well they forgot the first rule of science which is science cant prove anything… it can only disprove a theory. Trust me when I tell you, research is not done to find the truth anymore. It is done to validate people and ideas, mostly in an attempt to gain money and status.

      • William Jeffrey Melear June 25, 2014 at 3:27 pm #

        Thank ypu Dr. Chance! As for the global warming lunatics maybe you should start crying global cooling mext year. Oh my bad “climate change”! Lol

    • Raymanond Acuna November 9, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

      Sure.
      And there was a time, when 99.99% agreed that the Earth is flat …
      Agreement doesn’t science make, and the 97% agreement has been proven a blatant lie, some time ago.

  5. Zebo January 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm #

    That’s great for you- Rob N Hood.
    That’s why you are so full of confidence while i always doubt “facts” that are forced down my throat,because history has proven that 99% of all “facts”people are forced to believe by governments/officials/religions/TV turned out to be 100% wrong.

    Saying this as someone who has benefitted because of his origin (muslim/communist)so much from white leftist sociophants who believe in any hoax as long it is done by a minority or pretending to protect nature.
    {Comment edited by moderator. Please refrain from using curse words in your posts. Thanks}

  6. Rob N. Hood January 23, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    A minority?! Nope. I believe in AGW because it is (currently) the majority opinion in the science world. That is the only reason I do so, similarly why I believe the majority of medical professionals about my health. This is a “duh” moment for you I guess.

    • Dan McGrath January 24, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

      No, it isn’t. Can you provide the names of 31,000 or more scientists who subscribe to the notion of AGW? I can provide the names of over 31,000 who don’t.

    • steve freeman May 14, 2014 at 1:56 pm #

      The majority opinion in science is almost always wrong in the 1st generation after a theory’s conception. Fyi. For example: tycho, copernicus, galileo, aristotle, hoyle, broyle…the list goes on. All these guys, especially the 1st 4 or 5 were ridiculed incessantly by the “majority” for their scientific views. Galileo and copernicus were brought before inquisition for their assertions that the earth orbited the sun. Broyle was laughed outa town for asserting that air has mass, hoyle was mocked as I recall, for asserting a hitherto unknown phenomenon we now know as CBMR (cosmic background microwave radiation). He was also part of the majority that mocked the Big Bang Theory and gave it its name…derisively. Science is not done by conscensus. We have this fun little system called the scientific method by which theories are supposed to make predictions that actually come to fruition, tested against observation and then maybe its legitimized.
      The fact that over 1000 scientists signed a petition denouncing the UN’s misrepresentation of their work to create the global warming scare is telling.

  7. Rob N. Hood January 24, 2014 at 6:51 pm #

    Excuse me Dan but I didn’t just make that up. And it is your job/duty to have these things at your finger-tips, so color me unimpressed. The numbers of scientists who do agree with AGW is out there for anyone who wants to honestly discuss this particular example of logic and reasoning. Just because, as Libertarian, you don’t agree with majority rules, doesn’t make my logic less valid.

    • Neilio January 24, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

      Where is the logic and reason in claiming 98% of the worlds scientists agree that there is AGW? Because that number came from an online survey that had 77 published scientists answer “yes” to a vague question. That is the truth behind the “consensus” RNH.
      That fact has been posted numerous times here but you seem to keep ignoring it. Why is that? Can we have an honest discussion about that? RNH?

  8. Dan January 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm #

    Arguments that can not be proven wrong are not worth having. I’m sincerely hoping that the strength of climate deniers denial will keep future generations safe from evidence:) One can hope. Keep going fellas! Scientific American, National Geographic and all those other poo-pooey peer reviewed organizations where legitimate scientists write and speak are so full of it! What do they know? Good thing we can type “climate change hoax” into Google and get this wonderfully credible website on the internet. Keep up the fantastic work! If you keep denying and keep equating weather with climate we’ll be in great shape! Looking forward to a bright future with you guys:)

    • Neilio January 25, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

      “Arguments that can not be proven wrong are not worth having.”
      How do you know if you are unwilling to listen to the argument? I’m sorry but that is just about the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Ever!
      Do you even realize what you’ve said? You are advocating a course that is foolish, and damaging to science. Look up the scientific method!
      It’s ok, I understand why you fear argument. You are just afraid that you might be proven wrong. And we can’t have that, can we?

      • steve freeman May 14, 2014 at 3:35 pm #

        Thats actually the very same argument the global warming nuts and the darwinian evolution nuts use. So if you’re a believer in either of these hoaxes the jokes on you. Theyre the ones always saying the debate is over, theres no reason to keep debating. If theyre unwilling to debate the evidence, why should you be so antogonistic towards another person who voices the same view as those you support, albeit in the other direction? Just goes to show how hypocritical you liberals are.

    • Neilio January 26, 2014 at 10:19 am #

      Yet another hit and run coward I guess. This is a good example of what I was talking about in an earlier post. Here you have a person, so completely convinced in what they believe, that they won’t even listen to an alternative point of view. They just shut it out and pretend as though it doesn’t exist! It makes me sad.

  9. tex January 29, 2014 at 7:44 pm #

    So is everyone saying the weather is not getting more extreme (like many scientists said would happen)? Or is this just your standard yearly polar vortex?

    • Neilio January 30, 2014 at 7:21 am #

      It’s funny Tex, Extreme weather happens all of the time. But what has changed is the extreme, and exaggerated hype of extreme weather reporting!
      As far as what “many scientists said would happen”, the truth there is, no they didn’t say that would happen. They’ve only been saying that in the last 5 years or so, only after extreme weather had begun to be hyped in the media.
      In fact, originally the AGW theory said that the main warming would be more pronounced in the polar regions. And as you may, or may not know all inclement weather is caused along the boundaries where high pressure systems meet low pressure systems. High pressure systems tend to be much warmer than low pressure systems, and the greater the difference in temperature, the more extreme weather events occur. So, the original theory of AGW would have produced warmer air coming from the polar regions which would have created a smaller temperature difference between systems, and thus would have created fewer extreme weather events, not more of them.
      Now, What we are seeing today is the media hyping extreme weather, and doing their best to link any event to AGW.

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/data-shows-dramatically-less-not-more-extreme-weather-in-2013/article/2541271
      http://science.time.com/2014/01/07/data-shows-that-extreme-weather-was-unextreme-in-2013/
      http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23226
      http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/05/10/extreme-weather-events-becoming-less-frequent
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/

      Now you might think that, by my own explanation above, fewer extreme weather events supports the original theory of AGW. It doesn’t. It just goes to show that supporters of AGW will change their theory to support the facts.

      • Neilio January 31, 2014 at 6:17 am #

        I want to amend something. It would be normal to change a theory to support facts. What AGW supporters do is change their theory while claiming that they haven’t changed their theory at all.
        Go back and read some articles from the 80’s. They all say warming, warming, warming. They would deny any role from solar activity, urban heat island effects, land use changes i.e. wooded areas cleared for agriculture, aerosols, or natural variability. Now they claim to have all of those things factored into their models.

      • steve freeman May 14, 2014 at 3:45 pm #

        What Im puzzled by is this: if global warming causes catastrauphic warming, how does it also cause catastrauphic cold? If it was supposed to cause all sorts of droughts, why is it supposedly also causing record rainfall? If it was supposed to melt all the polar ice why is it that even during summer months the arctic ocean has been unnavigatable the past 2 yrs? Same with antartica as we all noticed over Christmas. During the south pole mid summer those nut cases who claim to be the intellectual elite, but were too stupid to check a satelite map of the area they were going, couldnt even reach the continent bcs of record amounts of ice. The northwest passage from Pacific Ocean to Atlantic has been closed for 2 years bcs no ships can get thru all the ice even during summer. The area the ice covers has increased in recent years to widest area in abt 40 years.

  10. Nick February 5, 2014 at 5:15 pm #

    Taking an extreme example, if there were no CO2 all plant life would die, then all life, and the whole planet would turn into a lifeless desert. Then we certainly would have climate change. Otherwise I find it hard to believe CO2 emissions are causing extreme weather changes.

  11. Running deer February 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm #

    It’s nothing but a tax scheme. There has been no evidence of global warming . The contribution from the tiny increase in co2 is not possible to have any real effect on global climate. Compare the energy contribution of the sun , water vapor and winds and you will realize how foolish the global warming people are.

    • Neilio February 16, 2014 at 6:35 am #

      I think you are right Running deer, but I do disagree with one thing. It most definitely is a tax scheme, but I think it is so much more than that. I believe at its very heart it is no less than a scheme to control the entire world. And the organization behind it all is the UN.
      But, the good news is that they are failing miserably.

  12. Damien Rhodes February 16, 2014 at 8:59 pm #

    This argument reminds me of a joke whereby 2 people, one of ethnic class A which is the butt of the joke and the other of ethnic class B which is the “wise” one. They are embark on a walk through the forest and come upon a set of tracks. Person A argues that they are bear tracks while person B points out that they are in fact train tracks. In the midst of the argument a train comes along and runs them both over.

    On the balance of probabilities alone, the weight of evidence of climate change as being real (Person B) far out-weighs the argument/evidence put forth by person A. This argument will eventually be settled by mother nature (the train) who will bring back into balance the climate – at the expense of not only us but a lot of other species that are found on this planet.

    Simplistic view, climate change isn’t a gentle warming but rather a shift in distribution of energy (heat) to places we would rather not become heat sinks. One fact that all can agree on is the desalination of oceans. Currently localized but nature abhors imbalance so mixing will occur. That alone will be enough to stop the conveyor belt which moves heat from the equator to the poles which cools the planet as a whole. Remove that and the equator becomes hotter and the north/south become a lot colder.

    • Neilio February 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm #

      You know, the key to good comedy is that there has to be an element of truth in it. Otherwise people can’t connect it to something they have witnessed, or experienced themselves.

      I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but your argument falls flat on its face in the first step. No one is arguing that there is no climate change. The climate is constantly in a state of flux. It has constantly, and consistently changed throughout its entire existence. It is, in my opinion, the one thing that has kept this argument aloft for as long as it has been, because every time there is any kind of change in climate the alarmists say, “See? See? That’s what we said would happen!!” Even though all of the computer models predicted warming, warming, and more warming, they now claim the silliest things like, “The cooling is caused by warming!” And, “Our models predicted more extreme weather events!” Even though records indicate the global average temperatures have not risen in 16 years, and that extreme weather events have actually declined in the last 40 years.

      And, sorry the one fact you presume that we can all agree on is one I can’t agree with you upon. But don’t take my word for it, I’m not a scentist with papers published in scientific journals. But here are a few that are.

      Tropical Stabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation in a Greenhouse Warming Simulation
      (Journal of Climate, Volume 13, Issue 11, pp. 1809–1813, June 2000)
      – M. Latif et al.

      Abrupt climate change: An alternative view (PDF)
      (Quaternary Research, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp. 191-203, March 2006)
      – Carl Wunsch

      Can in situ floats and satellite altimeters detect long-term changes in Atlantic Ocean overturning?
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 6, March 2010)
      – Josh K. Willis

      UK newspaper (mis)representations of the potential for a collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation
      (Area, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp. 444–456, December 2010)
      – Neil Jennings, Mike Hulme

    • Vic Pfitzner April 5, 2014 at 4:22 pm #

      An even more simple and more accurate view is that many things influence the climate. The sun is the major factor and the least of these is CO2

      • steve freeman May 14, 2014 at 3:54 pm #

        The #1 greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. Somehow weve got to reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That will also help prevent floods, tsunamis, drowning, swimming accidents, all other water accidents, kids tracking mud into the house, getting stuck in mud, etc. Of course on the downside bathing will be a lot harder. Crap we just cant win.

    • steve freeman May 14, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

      The climate has been changing for nearly 4 billion years. Thats approximately 4 billion years longer than there have been humans on earth. Noone has ever claimed the climate doesnt change. The argument is whether human civilization has caused it. Short answer is no. For the simple fact is its been changing, as I said for 4 BILLION years before the 1st person appeared on Earth. There have been several periods during which the climate was much hotter than it is now. There have also been extensive periods during which the climate was much cooler than it is now. We call those Ice Ages and there were no people driving suv’s dumping CO2 into atmosphere to heat the earth up enough to drag ourselves out of said ice ages. The earth warmed up all by itself. Imagine that. God, the Creator is a fairly smart fella. He created the laws of nature in such a way as to provide us with a cornucopea of energy sources, each one never running out til human technology DISCOVERED, not created, a new source. Its almost like God knew what He was doing when He created the universe. Its like He planned it all out. Whoda thunk it?

      • Jeffery Sikes November 16, 2014 at 6:24 am #

        Steve, Our Father is wise, however he did leave us to our own devices and if we poison our own well, then things can get problematic. Its common sense that prevails in moments such as this, and common sense tells you that the claim of Global Climate Change is a farce. Once some study is accomplished, the fact erases hunch and the truth about Climate Change (Biospheric Rift) is exposed. We discover Environmentalist working with Marxist Politicians to create the illusion of Biospheric Rift (aka Climate Change).

        Failure in understanding the events stems from many people not actually understanding Biblical texts.
        They are given in 2nd Peter Ch 3, that there are three separate and distinct earth eons (ages). One which has already occurred and ended in a flood and related ice age (just as identified in 2nd Peter ch 3 and Jeremiah 4 (starting at vs 19). If there was a flood then no sun, then the result would have been ice. The reason for the flood can be found in the first vs of Revelation 12.

        This earth age was purposed specifically for souls to acquire recompense via forgiveness and judgment of their works, which allows them access into the 3rd earth eon (age). Evidence is Revelation 20. Evidence for two bodies and the end of flesh is 1 Corinthians 15. This earth age will end with the great deception of Satan (playing the role of fake Jesus) which is followed by 1000 years of teaching with the real Christ (Book of Revelation Through 20, Daniel 7 and 11). Those souls who will not make it at judgment are indicated specifically in Revelation 21, they are all destroyed in the lake of fire (not nuclear, or Father is a consuming fire). The other truth that folks miss is that a day with our Father is as 1000 of flesh mans years (again 2nd Peter ch3). Therefore this entire 2nd earth age will occur with a two week period. The first 6 days of its creation and a 7th day of rest and another week of 7 days which follow. All together 14000 years or two weeks of 7 days, which are 1000 years in duration. Its actually not difficult to understand once the deception is stripped away. This earth age has about 53 years left in the 6th day (the great deception) and of course the 1000 years of teaching which follow. Prophecy as stated in Daniel 8 is coming to pass in the Middle East as we are writing upon this very blog. Watch as Persia (Iran) rises to great power in the coming months.

        The third earth eon is stated again in 2nd Peter ch3 as well as Revelation 21.

        Not segregating up these events, gets folks in trouble, especially when that attempt to jam everything into one single earth eon, it simply will not fit, as it was never intended to.

  13. Bill April 6, 2014 at 9:53 am #

    6/4/14 .Reading the Daily Mail ‘Big Green Con’ today,I find that a crime has been committed by the IPCC.They,with the collaboration of Global politicians,have issued their latest ‘Man-madeDoom ‘ statement which claims that their ‘computer ‘ models are right -YET AGAIN!
    In the Mail article the actual truth is clearly exposed.How can any rational thinking Human be fooled any more by these strange self serving people?-and isn’t it time we told them to ‘get off our backs’ and shut up?
    Our lives have been dominated and spoilt by this false ‘science’ for far too long.Wake up world!!!

  14. Jeffery Sikes November 16, 2014 at 5:51 am #

    Understanding Climate Change is simple.
    First one must understand the the idea of “Climate Change” occurs through the application of Karl Marx theory of Metabolic Rift, which blames capitalism the core for all ills. its stated best in Wiki-Pedia which I never quote…but in this specific case, this statement happens to be accurate. The Global Marxist named the environmental version … Biospheric Rift (to avoid a connection with Karl Marx theory of Metabolic Rift). Its a classic application of soviet style disinformation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_rift

    “Marx theorized a rupture in the metabolic interaction between humanity and the rest of nature, emanating from capitalist production and the growing division between town and country. This concept has been widely used in recent years in various environmental discussions.”

    So why did environmentalist turn to Karl Marx theory of Metablic rift?
    Simple…Global Control (political power) and Global Financing. The environmentalists needed the financing and the global Marxists needed a global crisis, the two came together to create “Climate Change” or Global Biospheric Rift.

    It was proven conclusively, via the East Angelia emails that the data which stands behind the claim of Climate Change was purposefully manipulated to it would present the appearance needed to make the claim “Climate Change” However, once the truth is know about “Climate Change” (Global Biospheric Rift) and where the theory is laid, its difficult for sane people to support this purely Marxist, political based crisis.

    Crisis is the means by which Marxist-Leninist’s take control only this time, instead of a single country, they want global control of All Countries. I don’t look for them to back down from this Marxist based, politically manufactured crisis anytime soon, as long as they have dull witted people to sell their crisis to, they will continue to push the manufactured crisis and its lies, moving ever closer toward their goal of a One World Global Marxist Order.

    Your evidence is the fact that all of this hype concerning “Climate Change” has been built up between an elite group of Environmental Scientists and Politicians. The Scientist get their research grants from … wait for it… the politicians. Therefore its strictly based upon political motivation. The politicians gave grants to key Scientists who were willing to bend the rules of scientific finding, in order to provide the politicians with a global crisis which could only be solved at a global level, by a global government.

    Marxist use a 4 stages of ideological subversion to overthrow countries and implement Marxism-Leninism….. Crisis is Step 3, just before the overthrow. Destabilization is usually financially based “2008” and it will occur again, before 2016. Crisis can be a multiple of Crises (Climate Change, Financial Failure, Biological disease, etc.), usually all blamed upon Capitalism using disinformation.

    1) Demoralization
    2) Destabilization
    3) Crisis
    4) Communist “Normalization”

    • Neilio November 16, 2014 at 8:09 am #

      I don’t have a problem with people having religious beliefs, and I respect that you believe these things. But honestly, to me, it sounds as kooky as the warmists. But hey, that’s fine. As long as you don’t insist that I believe what you do, like the warmists insist we believe what they believe.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority