Home / Climate Change and the Plum Tree Outside My Window

Climate Change and the Plum Tree Outside My Window

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There’s a plum tree just outside the window of the kitchen. Every year it blooms for about two weeks, the bright pink blossoms filling the tree, adding a nice bit of color to our back yard. When we first moved here eight years ago, the plum tree budded in early February, and I remember thinking to myself that this seemed a little early compared to where I grew up in Mississippi. For the next several years the plum tree budded in January. This winter, however, the plum tree began sprouting buds in the third week of December.

A couple of days ago my teenage son and I were talking about nature, and he told me how ‘boring’ the Mississippi Delta was when compared to Puget Sound. I told him that each kind of land has its own language of sorts, and reminded him of the sounds of the doves, the cicadas, and the crickets in the Delta. I didn’t want to bore him, so I didn’t continue the description I had in mind which included watching the dark thunderclouds rumbling through on a hot summer afternoon, the near-constant brisk breeze of March that announces the welcome arrival of spring weather, the swarms of dragonflies hovering, swooping, crazily swerving to catch the hated mosquitoes that have always plagued the Delta since the days before it was drained, when it was just one vast swamp.

Yes, every distinct region of land has its own language (and old sailors will say the same of the seas around the world)…and as with the languages of humankind, the languages of the land are changing.

Last month Dallas got blanketed with snow…and then a great snowstorm covered almost entire northern European continent. There was an incredible satellite picture of the entire British Isles covered in the stuff. The conservative pundits and climate-change deniers made a great to-do about the wintry blast — after all, if ‘global warming’ was true, how could there be record-breaking cold weather?

Not really — it’s not that simple. Read this summary of research published by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2007:

There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. The chances of this near-term collapse of the circulation are unclear; there is some evidence for the short-term stability of the Gulf Stream and possible weakening of the North Atlantic drift. However, the degree of weakening, and whether it will be sufficient to shut down the circulation, is under debate. As yet, no cooling has been found in northern Europe or nearby seas.

Do you see the bolded sentences? The scientists knew what could happen and said so… and pay particular attention to the last sentence, because it looks like that cooling has been found. So is this proof of global warming?

Not really. As I said above, it’s not that simple. Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, it’s something called the Arctic Oscillation, described thusly:

In more scientific terms, the Arctic Oscillation refers to shifts in atmospheric pressure over the Arctic and the middle latitudes of the earth. In its positive phase, atmospheric pressure decreases over the Arctic and increases over the mid-latitudes. In the Arctic Oscillation's negative phase, it's just the reverse. Pressures are relatively high over the Arctic and relatively low over the mid-latitudes.  In December, the Arctic Oscillation went into extreme negative mode — more negative than it's been since at least 1950. Serreze says that has affected weather all over the Northern Hemisphere.  "At the very same time that we've seen these areas in the middle latitudes with sub-zero temperatures and big snow storms, the Arctic has been much, much warmer than normal." Ten to fifteen degrees warmer in some places.

So does this mean that now we don’t really have to worry about global warming? Again, not really — it’s not that simple. In the same article, Mr. Serreze points out that the extent of Arctic sea ice is already a million square kilometers below normal. And those who pay attention to news outside the U.S. may have noticed that for a second year in a row, dozens of trains have been cancelled in Melbourne, Australia, due to the heat, and in the Southern hemisphere.

The climate-change deniers don't have their story straight — that's why they generally fall into four camps. One camp claims that climate change is happening, but it’s not due to anything done by man, but is due to the sun or the heat of the Earth’s crust or a host of other possibilities. The second claims that global warming is a complete falsehood because there are a few scientists (and many businesses) who believe otherwise — and they believe that the vast majority of climate-change professors simply don’t know what they’re talking about. The third camp says that global warming is a myth propagated either by governments hell-bent on spreading socialism, or by scientists who are somehow afraid to speak up against the scientific theory du jour, or are afraid to jeopardize their funding.  And the fourth camp? They're the ones who think that climate change can't be real because God wouldn't allow it.

The vast majority – 90% – of the climate-change scientists, on the other hand, are pretty much united in what they report. There is always debate on which factors contribute what proportions of concern — which is true of any scientific community — but they are united in pointing the finger at humankind as the biggest single factor.

As for myself, if ninety percent of scientists tell me one thing, that fact in and of itself doesn’t mean they’re right – after all, a week or so ago I posted an article in BC denying dark matter and dark energy, which are supposed to make up over 90% of all matter and energy in the universe, and the existence of which is accepted by well over 90% of the world's astrophysicists. But when such a strong majority of scientists agree on something, I consider what they say very, very carefully before I say anything that is contrary to their professional studies.

But the reason I can speak out in opposition to most of the world’s astrophysicists is that there are observed anomalies that they cannot yet explain by any currently accepted theory, whereas I DO have an explanation that I cannot yet disprove. This is not so with climatologists — they are able to explain quite well the entire process of global warming.

Not only that, but there’s something else telling us to listen to 90% of the world’s climatologists — the language of the land. There’s a reason why the vast majority of glaciers are shrinking. There’s a reason why the oceans are measurably rising. And there’s a reason why the plum tree outside my kitchen window is budding earlier and earlier as the years go by.

Global warming is very, very real… and even if humanity isn’t the primary cause, we’re certainly aggravating the process. It is a great sadness indeed that there are so many intelligent Americans — mostly Republicans and other conservatives — who are so focused on keeping the dollars they have that they cannot see the slowly growing but now inevitable global catastrophe that is global warming.

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Leaving aside any comments on the content of this article; which editor either did not tell Glenn to close the HTML coding on page three of the article, or was unwilling to do so him/herself? A spelling mistake on a newsflash piece is one thing. It’s understandable. This, by contrast, is a whole different ball game!

  • Glenn,

    As to the content of your article, there is no question that the climate is changing. In addition, there is no question that man-made pollution is aggravating this climate change.

    The real issue is not that this is so; the real issue is that we are not sure whether this is an issue of climate swing (this is what the climate-gate e-mails were trying to erase records of or fudge, so as to push their case) or if this an issue of irreversible climate change. The fact of the matter is that we just do no know.

    We may well be seeing an example of what was warned about in the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” and the novel, “The Sixth Winter” – an ice age that will last 100 millennia – or we may be seeing an example of the mini-ice age of two centuries ago, where people skated on the Hudson River to the west of New York City and had barbecues on the Thames.

    This has nothing to do with ideology – this has everything to do with the lack of facts and the massaging of those facts extant for political and financial gain.

  • I always go back to what my dear friend, Miriam Goldberg says, “It doesn’t matter if we believe in global warming or not, we should take good care of our environment.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I LISTED THIS ARTICLE AS POLITICAL OPINION. I guess I don’t have to guess who wouldn’t want an article about global warming in the Politics section.

  • Glenn, just to respond to your comment #4 (and I also sent you an email, but since you made a public declaration, I’ll answer it publicly):

    I moved the piece. You lay out a very good case for the scientific basis for global warming, and the piece is, on the whole, more about that than it is about the politics of the thing, and that’s why I moved it.

    We never move articles because we don’t “want” them in a particular section, and no individual editor would ever do that, our politics editors included. Articles go where they go, and those decisions, when the lines are fuzzy, are made on the basis of what the article is mostly about. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about where those lines are drawn.

  • Be that as it may, Lisa, the science is pretty much settled. And the major dispute over this subject is political.

  • RichardC

    If there is Global Warming shouldn’t there be global warming? All I see is global cooling.

  • Dr. D,
    Considering the article I posted above, #7, maybe the science ISN’T settled.

  • “If there is Global Warming shouldn’t there be global warming? All I see is global cooling.”

    You obviously don’t understand the concept. In fairness to you, the scientists named it poorly because they usually don’t have to deal with the ill-informed weighing in on matters

  • FC,

    Because of a typo??!!

  • pablo

    You can tell all you need to know about the author’s lack of impartiality and indeed prejudice by this sentence of his:

    “The climate-change deniers don’t have their story straight”

    It is indeed typical of those that are in his camp concerning this phenomenon. Instead of being honest, the author is dishonest in his approach to a civil discussion on this issue.

    First of all until recently the phrase was “global warming” which is no longer being used by those that claim that man is causing the climate to heat up. Instead they now use the term “climate change”.

    Then the author uses the cute but derogatory terminology of “climate change deniers” instead of being honest and using the correct terminology, which is those that question human caused climate change. Everyone knows that the climate changes. Also by using the terminology of “deniers” the author is subtly inferring a connection between those that question human caused climate change and holocaust denial.

    Perhaps the author would care to comment on why Professor Phil Jones has recently stepped down from his top position as a climatologist recently due to the Climategate scandal. Or perhaps the author would care to comment on why the Arctic Ice Pack is growing at a very high rate currently.

    Climate change deniers? Please Glenn you can do better than this dribble can’t you?

    Oh and the human caused global warming folks fall into ONE camp. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Please help us IMF and World Bank, only you can save us!

  • pablo

    Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus – Grows in area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas. 🙂

  • First of all until recently the phrase was “global warming” which is no longer being used by those that claim that man is causing the climate to heat up. Instead they now use the term “climate change”.

    It’s not true that the phrase ‘global warming’ is no longer used. Both phrases are used commonly and, in many instances, interchangeably, although they don’t really mean the same thing.

    Perhaps the author would care to comment on why Professor Phil Jones has recently stepped down from his top position as a climatologist recently due to the Climategate scandal.

    Do you really think he shouldn’t have, Pablo, under the circumstances?

    Or perhaps the author would care to comment on why the Arctic Ice Pack is growing at a very high rate currently.

    Yet the overall extent of Arctic sea ice is still well below normal, and the long-term trend continues downward. And the ice is thinner. And Summer 2009 was still its third-lowest extent since records began.

    Oh and the human caused global warming folks fall into ONE camp. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Please help us IMF and World Bank, only you can save us!

    What the fuck are you talking about? I can’t claim to speak for Glenn, but I for one couldn’t care less about the World Bank.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo –

    How about you provide a link to prove your point? You see, that’s what I try to do – provide PROOF of what I say…

    …and part of that proof was the fact that the Arctic is currently 10-15 degrees WARMER than normal. Now how is it that it’s so much warmer in the Arctic, yet YOU say (without ANY backup) that that the ice is growing ‘at a very fast rate’.

    Methinks you’ve been watching a whole lot of Glenn Beck.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Lisa –

    Do you see the comments on this page? No offense, but it looks they THEY could tell that it’s a political article about a political issue…even if you thought otherwise.

    The article was written to help those who are climate-change deniers (who are obviously uncomfortable with real science) to understand that what they see outside their windows is NOT representative of the world as a whole, that a snowstorm in one area means little in the grand scheme of things.

    Please excuse me if I sound somewhat bitter…but I strongly feel my bitterness is justified. But apparently, if I’m to get this article in the politics section where it belongs, the only way I can do that is to change it to meet your…expectations.

    I will do so.

  • Politics VS Science
    Suppose the topic was “eugenics”? Scientists were pressured to go along with the politics on that topic.
    Glen, if you’re trying to convince readers to change their opinion (if it differs from yours) on this subject, why all the fuss about the category? Stay on topic. Give us more facts and benefits. Give us more unbiased evidence. After the scandal at IPCC, can we trust another agency like the NAS?
    Is there a way with this topic to have randomized double blind studies? Can scientists working independently with different sources of funding produce repeatable results?

  • Good questions, Chip.

  • Glenn, I guess I fail to see why that conversation can’t take place right here. Where it seems to be taking place, by the way.

    We publish articles every day that overlap categories, just like this one does.

  • I am surprised that a writer would not be notified in advance about something like a change of category. I would think Glenn should have gotten the chance to make his case for the politics section before he was just told what has been decided about his work.

    I think it’s really objectionable. I would be horrified if I wrote a piece for one section and it was moved without any consultation. Seems insulting.

  • I rather think this comment by the chair of the IPCC says a lot:

    The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim: But yesterday, at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi, he responded to British newspaper articles criticizing his chairmanship of the IPCC. “They can’t attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won’t sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher,” he told the Guardian.

    Hot air does cause that sort of rise.

    The “science” concerning the disappearance by 2035 of the Himalayan glaciers has, in fact, been challenged and shown to be non-existent. The recent climategate kerfuffle also attacked, with some success, the “science” of other aspects of global whatever. It’s like the story of the boy who cried wolf; do it often enough and get caught, and it’s difficult to believe him. And, in any event, belief should play no part in the discussion. Belief should be left where it belongs, in religion. People believe in God, but there is no scientific proof of which I am aware that She exists. That’s cool in religion, but not in something marketed as science.


  • pablo

    Glenn 13 15 and 16:

    Comment 13 where I said:

    “Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus – Grows in area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas.”

    Three links for your perousal, two of them MSM reports, as I would not want to link to conspiracy sites.

    Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus

    An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing

    Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking

    As for your comment to Lisa regarding wanting to “help” climate change deniers, what a bunch of bunk. If that were true, which it isn’t you would not continue to use the derogatory untrue label of “climate change deniers” as referenced by me in comment 12. Again allow me to reiterate for you. NO ONE is denying that the climate changes. I assume that you understand the english language pal. Someone who is a climate change denier by its very definition “denies” that the climate changes. Of course the climate as we all know has been changing for eons. But we all know that you will not stop using that untrue and derogatory terminology even though it is incorrect. So I doubt very much that you are trying to change anyone’s mind that disagrees with you. It is a repugnant terminology as well as meant to cast a demeaning and snobby remark in the interest of not having a civil debate, or quite frankly any debate at all on this subject.

    Dread 14:

    As to what the fuck I am talking about with reference to the World Bank and the IMF in regards to global warming, you could have googled it, however I have done that for you in the url listed below.

    Any one (not you) who was at all politically aware of what they were trying to do in Copenhagen knows that the centerpiece of that summit was going to be that the World Bank and the IMF be in charge of the carbon trading derivative scheme for the planet. That is what the fuck I was talking about dude.

    World Bank IMF Carbon Credits Copenhagen

  • Did anyone see that movie, “All the President’s Men” ?
    There was a scene in which the editors of THE WASHINGTON POST were meeting to decide where each story would go: city, politics, travel, national, etc.
    No writers were present and none were consulted. I know that was just a movie, but I think that’s one of the prerogatives of editors.
    As writers, we submit articles. There is no guarantee that any of our submissions will even be accepted. If they are accepted, they are accepted at the discretion of the editor(s). If I write an article that is a character study of a football coach who got elected to public office, it could show up in any of several categories.
    What’s this got to do with global warming?

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    There’s no doubt that there will always be a changing climate. The issue here is the Carbon Dioxide scam that is causing the fear & intimidation in society about our supposed demise if we don’t change our ways. This allows for the pillaging of citizens in the name of “Alternative Energy” which is non-existent.

    Here’s an interesting coverage from John Coleman: GLOBAL WARMING:THE OTHER SIDE

  • pablo

    Dan(Miller) comment 21

    Excellent comment, allow me if I may to add a bit to what you have said.

    Regarding Rajendra Pachauri the head of the IPCC, he is currently being accused by numerous sources of having a direct conflict of interest in the area of global warming.

    More Global Warming Scandals Implicate IPCC Climate Scientists

    UN climate chief jabs back at allegations of financial impropriety

    Pachauri’s Lucrative World of Climate Change

    Pachauri reminds me alot of our own huckster former Oil and tobacco man Al Gore.

    Regarding The “science” concerning the disappearance by 2035 of the Himalayan glaciers scandal, it was none other than the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) that was responsible for this debacle. For those of you not in the know about this phony environmental outfit, it was started by none other than former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, who also incidentally and co-incidentally was the founder of the Bilderberg Group! Surprise surprise, how the ruling smarmy fascist global elite are always there at the cutting edge of deceit. Prince Bernhard cares about Mother Nature about as much as Exxon Corporation, to be raped pillaged and paved over.

  • pablo

    15 Glenn

    As to Glenn Beck, I can’t stand anything about him. Below are excellent articles written about this New World Order shill acting as if he is a freedom lover.

    Beck Says Truth Activists in the White House Threaten Obama’s Life ]

    Communism and the Obamatrons: Beck Only Tells Half the Story

    Glenn Beck? YUCK

  • pablo

    24 Brian

    Excellent video by the former owner of the Weather Channel! Unfortunately the man made global warming zealots already have their minds made up. After all the science is settled, hehehe 😉

    You don’t really need science however, at least I don’t. I have what is known as a bullshit meter that works perfectly every time.

    The way that my BS reader works is this: If you start to see a Rothschild, or a Rockefeller, or a KissASSinger nosing around an issue and then taking sides it always stinks to high heaven, every time.

    Here we have the Club of Rome, Prince Bernhardt of the Bilderberg Group and the WWF, the Rothschilds, Maurice (oil man) Strong, Al (oil man) Gore, David (oil man) Rockefeller, the World Bank and the IMF all in agreement on man made global warming, and carbon trading derivatives, it doesn’t take a fucking rocket scientist to know this is a load of bull.

  • There is already a massive amount of evidence published to show both that global warming is a fact and that human activity is the most important factor. We have, in the last century, pumped out more carbon into the atmosphere than was fixed by climate processes in the previous million years. That alone ought to make people think seriously about the facts.

    But many people can’t understand the complexity of the science, especially when they want to reduce it to a single cause rather than take on board that it is a multifactor problem. Because it’s multifactor, we need to use models to simulate the change and that requires us to identify scenarios which cover those factors we can control, namely the emission levels. That’s what the IPCC Working Group 1 did and you can see the evidence for yourself.

    The evidence comes in two forms: the direct measurements we can make of the sea level, atmospheric temperature, ice cap measures, acidity of the sea, satellite pictures, etc; and the indirect data which is obtained from tree rings, ice cores, etc. Both feed data into the simulations.

    If this was a clinical investigation, we’d be organising a controlled, double-blind trial to eliminate bias but that’s not possible in this case. We are already immersed in an uncontrolled experiment in which the potential outcomes can be catastrophic. And since the changes in carbon dioxide levels now will have effects which are visible only in decades time, we have to be in the business of risk management.

    Anyone who insists on 100% certainty, or all the data up front before relaxing their tight grip on their dollar bill, is condemning everyone to take the maximum risk with their eyes shut.

    Scientific results are not dependent on consensus, or even wide agreement with scientists and politicians – even though the latter often control the funding. Scientific results are dependent on the evidence. The computer simulations have predictive capability and predictions based on historical data have been spot on. By testing the predictions against the actual historical changes, these models have shown good reliability.

    Recognising this, the IPCC had three working groups, the first dealing with the evidence, the second with the economic impacts, and the third with the political options and recommendations. The science is in, and despite what a few people say, there isn’t any evidence to contradict the IPCC findings. Far from it, there is a wealth of additional evidence from many sources that support it.

    Those who deny AGW are burying their heads in the sand, trying to muddy the political discussion by trying to undermine the science. We need to move past this stuff because time is running out. Every time we pass a tipping point our options are reduced and the future gets bleaker.

    Incidentally, wasn’t there also a sewerage denier movement in the US’s past, when people advocating the use of sewers were accused of making up the germ theory of disease? Apparently it was all a scam, a fiction designed to line the pockets of pipe manufacturers…

  • Well, Bob Lloyd, long time no see.

    We may disagree on the metaphysics of science and the relative merits of postmodern thought, but I’ve got to give you this: I like your political instinct(s).

    Perhaps you should try to comment more often in the Politics section.

  • Actually, a very informative article, Glenn, regardless of whether the science is settled or not. At least it lays out the opposing positions.

    I wish though you could have continued in the vein in which you started – most of page one in fact. It’s a sample of beautiful writing and, for all intents and purposes, it could be classed in the literature section if we had any such.

  • pablo

    “There is already a massive amount of evidence published to show both that global warming is a fact”

    “Anyone who insists on 100% certainty, or all the data up front before relaxing their tight grip on their dollar bill, is condemning everyone to take the maximum risk with their eyes shut.”

    Facts are facts, and supposition and theory and beliefs are not facts, or probable facts.

    The above two quotations are in conflict with each other Bob. Human caused global warming particularly by carbon dioxide is not a fact, in fact far from it.

    Oh and again I am not a climate change denier pal, I am a human caused climate change questioner, and for the most part doubter. I do like to think that I have an open mind on this issue though, obviously you do not, and you can’t even distinguish between fact and conjecture or theory. I hope your not a scientist!

  • Pablo,

    You do realize, of course, the extent to which your position on any number of issues is formed on whether you sniff a conspiracy or not.

    Nothing wrong with that, just thought I might bring this up.

  • That’s cool in religion, but not in something marketed as science.

    It has recently been discovered that, contrary to former theories, scientists are actually just ordinary human beings. They tend to do much the same thing as others of their ilk. And they are an ilky lot.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo –

    DID YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE CHART on your reference showing how fast the Arctic sea ice is ‘growing’? Hm?

    Apparently NOT…because if you’ll LOOK at it, you’ll see that very chart shows that the current level – 5.25M sq. miles – is still only SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT of what it was in 1996!

    What you did – what conservatives ALWAYS do – is you look at ONE event like the one-year growth of Arctic sea ice from 2007-2008, or the snowstorms in America and Europe this year – and think that’s somehow a trend!

    What you are NOT doing is looking at the overall picture! What you are NOT doing is challenging your assumptions and seeing what how this or that event compares to the overall trend! What you are NOT doing is asking yourself whether ONE event is indicative of a trend, or is simply a single event, an anomaly that means NOTHING in the big picture, in the overall trend.

    Part of what the climatologists have always said is that because of global warming, some areas of the planet WILL become colder – like Europe and Antarctica – and that’s PRECISELY what I pointed out in my article! Next time, look at more than just your Faux News resources, willya?

    (man, but I do love it when some conservative shows me his ‘references’ and I use those same references to point out how he didn’t take the time and effort to understand what that article really said….)

  • Pablo is not a conservative, Glenn. That’s the catch.

  • Bob,

    Thanks for that well-stated post. I think you make the most sense. Could you please give me some guidance?

    If you have the time, could you comment on Pablo’s link here: Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking It is a very short news piece of maybe 4 paragraphs. It is talking about East Antarctica cooling and that there is more ice there. I don’t understand it. It seems like you might be able to provide a simple explanation.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    Read comment #35 – it explains the (temporarily) growing antarctic ice.

  • Glenn,

    Thank YOU, I will have to REREAD the article again, I AM not sure that your POST covered what those scientists WERE saying THERE.

    (sorry, I am IN a silly MOOD!)

  • Okay Glenn, I am still at a loss. Here is a quote from the link:

    Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

    ‘Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,’ Allison said.

  • pablo

    33 Roger

    Yes I was aware of that Roger. As the late Marshall McLuhan once said:

    “The arts and sciences are in the pockets of the secret societies.”

    Climategate: it’s all unravelling now

    By the way Roger the conspiracies that I sniff are all coming from the same nefarious players. There really is only one great conspiracy, with numerous tributaries flowing from it.

    It is too bad that you have never taken the time to read the Illuminati book that I recommended to you over a year ago, then perhaps you could comment succinctly on my political positions. I know that you do not necessarily subscribe to the conspiratorial history of the world, that being said it is no reason not to bring yourself up to snuff on the matter, and who knows you might even god forbid change your mind!

  • pablo

    Oh and Roger I have taken the time to hyperlink this excellent book again in case you lost the link that I sent you before.

    Terrorism and the Illuminati | A Three Thousand Year History

    Fortunately the author David Livingstone has made his book freely available online.

  • I haven’t closed my mind to the subject, Pablo. And changing my mind has never been a problem for me. For as the saying goes, truth shall make you free.

  • I do thank you, and perhaps the next time we talk I might even comment on the subject.

  • pablo

    Glenn calling me a conservative, now that is funny! Let me give you a list of conservatives that I cannot stand Glenn.
    Ed Meese
    Eliot Abrahms
    James Woolsey
    Richard Armitage
    3 Bushes Prescott, George, and Jr.
    Arnold Schwarzenazi
    Dick Armey
    Jeff Sessions
    Dick Cheney
    Richard Nixon
    Ronald Reagan
    Richard Perle
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Charles krauthammer
    Bill O’lielly
    Glenn Beck
    Sean Hannity
    Roger Ailes
    Rupurt Murdoch
    Dave Nalle
    Jeb Bush
    Antonin Scalia
    Clarence Thomas
    Donald Rumsfeld

    I could go on and on Glenn, just because I doubt that human beings are causing global warming with carbon dioxide does not a conservative make! That being said I find most liberals to be extremely naive, and they have a distinct problem of understanding an age old political axiom. Follow the money.

    Liberals don’t seem to have any problem seeing some of their favorite media pundits being funded by totalitarians. A case in point is Amy Goodman who is funded by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations. They also don’t seem to have a problem with their favorite magazine of choice having an editor who’s whole family are CIA agents, I am referring to the Nation magazine. The Daily Kos is another so called liberal online magazine whos founder is in love with the CIA and once worked for them as well.

    No Glen I am not a conservative in the classic sense of the word. I do however like Gary Allen’s excellent book “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”.

    I do not know if you are aware Glenn of the Fabian Socialists of Britain, who are also part of the great conspiracy started by Cecil Rhodes to bring about a one world totalitarian dictatorship. Their logo is actually composed of a wolf in sheep’s clothing! BTW both Tony Blair and the current fascist Prime Minister Harold Brown are both Fabians.

    So please Glennn in the future if you want to call me a conspiracist be my guest, but I am not a conservative and I get a gag reflex when I think of any of the individuals named above.
    thank you

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    Part of what’s up with global warming is that parts of the Earth will get colder, not warmer. For instance, England is at the same latitude as Alaska, but is much warmer thanks to the Gulf Stream. If too much of the Arctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet melt, then the billions (with a ‘b’) of fresh water that enter the water may well disrupt the Gulf Stream. How? Easy. The fresh water dilutes the salt water in the vicinity where the Gulf Stream curves (somewhere around Iceland) to turn south. When heavier salt water enters an area of less-dense salt water, the heavier salt water will likely sink rather than continue like a river as the Gulf Stream presently does.

    It’s the same thing near Antarctica – it would be pretty simple for me to look up the currents in the areas surrounding Antarctica and see how they may have been disrupted by the effects of global warming.

    That was one of the points of my article, to show that there will be places that get colder as a result of global warming.

    Some people (mostly conservatives) seem to think this whole global warming warning is some kind of political game…but it’s not. It’s very, very real. I’ve seen NO claims against global warming that I can’t refute just on my own…and I’m no climatologist. With a little skill at searching, a little scientific understanding, and a little determination, one can easily see through every single one of the arguments of the deniers.

    Again, look at what I pointed out to Pablo – he was so hot under the collar about the growing minimum of the Arctic ice sheet…but he didn’t look deeper at his own references. I simply pointed out using his own reference how his assumption was completely wrong.

  • pablo

    Well Glenn you said it not me:

    “With a little skill at searching, a little scientific understanding, and a little determination, one can easily see through every single one of the arguments of the deniers.”

    Exactly my point, you have a “little” understanding of this issue. I like how you keep characterizing me as a “denier”, I an only assume that you mean a climate change denier, and as I have said repeatedly to you I do not deny climate change, since it is a scientific given. I wonder if you ever will learn to use english in a clear and concise manner Glenn.

    If you were to say for instance “human caused climate change denier” then I would have no issue with that, however apparently that is too difficult for your limited ability to convey yourself via the enlgish language. I am not a “denier” Glenn wither of climate change or of the holocaust.

    You also say that this issue is not political when nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed it is very political as well as economic. When you have the head of the EPA issuing an executive fiat listing one of the primary life giving gases as a poison, it is political. When you have the Copenhagen global warming conference as well as the current legislation before the congress to implement a “cap and trade” carbon derivative scheme (scam) it is political. And when you have the current head of the IPCC engaging in financial speculation as well as his american counterpart Al Gore doing the same it is both political and economic.

    In your world Glenn up is down and cold is hot. You will come up with anything even if it makes no sense in your clinging to your false beliefs concerning this issue. As you said yourself you are not a scientist, nor am I, that being said you are doing nothing more than speculating on this issue, as am I. Unfortunately the climate scientists that are working on this issue have been shown to be highly unprofessional, and engaging in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the people of the world in this charade via Climategate.

    Again as to your assertion that man made global warming is a fact, that is untrue. Even the most ardent scientific supporters of this scam, have said that they do no know in fact it to be the case, that is why frequently they will hedge their bets, and say we cannot afford to take a chance that we may be wrong. It is not a fact, period. It is a theory at best, and in my opinion a fraud.

  • pablo

    Below are some links refuting Glenn’s “facts” concerning man made global warmth, with particular reference to Climategate.

    Climategate – Global Warming Hoax Blown Wide Open

    10 mins to Expose Global Warming Scam


    Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

    These links are not for you however Glenn, as I know you already have made your mind up, so much to the point of representing a theory as a fact. Unfortunately your mind does not seem capable of differentiating between the two. Good luck!

  • pablo

    Oh no! It looks like Pachauri fucks up again, the second time in less than 2 weeks concerning the great Himalayas glacier melt scam. For those of you that are not up to snuff on this issuer Pachauri is the head of the UN’s IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change, which should be called the International Panel on Global Warming.

    Her is the scoop with referencing url in the MSM below:

    Pachauri has been using bogus claims about the Himalayan Glaceiers melting by 2035 and collecting millions of dollars in doing so for his company Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Quoted from the article linked to below:

    “In one presentation at last May’s launch, Anastasios Kentarchos, of the European Commission’s Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit, specifically cited the bogus IPCC claims about glacier melt as a reason for pouring EU taxpayers’ money into the project.”

    “The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 – an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report. Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

    One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

    An abstract of the grant application published on Carnegie’s website said: “The Himalaya glaciers, vital to more than a dozen major rivers that sustain hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, are melting and receding at a dangerous rate.

    “One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region “will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming, resulting in widespread water shortages.”

    Indeed there is no shame in these present day hucksters in their zeal to fleece the public coffers. Pachauri is in good company with his american counterpart Al Gore who is also busy scamming the world. Right before Mr. Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize award, a british court ruled that his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” could no longer be shown in British public schools because of so many factual errors in it, nevertheless Gore got the Nobel, along with I might add Mr. Pachauri who was standing in for the IPCC receiving the prize too! What a world folks.

    You keep telling us how it is Glenn ole boy, nothing like going down with a sinking ship.

    UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

    By the way Glenn I have never said that the world is not currently warming up as a whole, what I have said is that I am a man made carbon dioxide caused global warming doubter, and I remain one.

  • Ruvy

    The problem with your arguments are not that there is not climate change – there is. That is why your plum tree is flowering in December and not February. Further, people pouring pollutants into the air have contributed heavily to that climate change. That can’t be argued either.

    Neither Paul nor I have disputed these basic and indisputable points. What Paul brings forth is the evidence of large firms trying to shovel down their version of climate change so as to make a fortune of money, and what I’m telling you is that the data is not complete so as to state with any certainty that what we face is a climate swing, or a permanent climate change.

    And a lot of the “climate-gate” has been about fudging evidence to force the latter conclusion, no matter what the facts are, or the reality is.

    You are trying to beat down straw men, Glenn. Why don’t you pay attention to what we are saying, and not to what some jumped up crazy is screaming at you?

  • pablo

    Oh and one other thing Glenn. Like so many other prominent man made global warming proponents, Pachauri is an oil man. Just as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and David Rockefeller are. Isn’t it amazing to you after decades and decades of being in a business that rapes the earth, dislocates indigeneous people, and spews out hydrocarbons and other toxic waste products, now these guys all love the earth and wanna save it! Sure they do Glenn, and there is an Easter Bunny too!

    Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor GloriOil, a Houston, Texas-based oil technology company. He also until recently was represented by numerous pro human global warming sites as an expert or even a scientist himself which he is not. He was a railroad man, nothing more.

    28 Bob Lloyd you said:

    “The computer simulations have predictive capability and predictions based on historical data have been spot on”

    Should you be foolish enough to challenge me on this ridiculous claim, I will be happy to comply, because your statement is false on its face.

  • pablo

    Was I screaming Ruvy? I think not.

  • pablo

    Oh and Bob Lloyd and Glenn, if you don’t think that your man made carbon dioxide global warming scheme is not sinking and fast, just take a look at some of the comments on the Times article referenced above. This is not a “denier” hehehe site, but a MSM site. Also if you were to take the time to look at other MSM news reports about the same subject matter, you will also find that the commenters are against your point of view currently to the tune of about 90%. Have fun with your sinking ship boys, I sure am 🙂

  • Ruvy

    Paul, you are the farthest thing from a “jumped up crazy” screaming on this site. A tad vindictive, a tad unforgiving, perhaps – but not a jumped up crazy at all.

  • pablo


    I can be very forgiving, but that is when I get an apology. Thus far on this site for the past 2 years that has not happened. As I recall I have issued several of them.

    Vindictive? Sure why not? I am not the type to spread the other cheek, and when attacked with ridicule, scorn or sarcasm I respond in kind.

    Should at anytime anyone of the writers or commenters on this site choose to engage me in a political debate politely, and with a minimum of respect I will respond in kind. I learned as a kid Ruvy to never throw the first punch, and I carry that philosophy here, that beings said, when a punch is thrown I can be sarcastic, caustic, and vindictive.

  • pablo


    I have just come across a new phrase in a comment on another site that I am going to start using to people such as Glenn that love to use the derogatory term “denier” or “climate change denier”, both of which are not only repugnant, but a very poor use of the english language.

    WARMER MONGER! Oh yeah I love it!

  • pablo

    I have been accused on this site by numerous individuals of being paranoid, having on a tin foil hat, and being delusional concerning my beliefs concerning political conspiracies and such. I on the other hand view numerous people on this site that don’t share my view as being extremely naive.

    I just want to illustrate a case in point as to one of the reasons why I believe as I do. I was just on the Washington Post’s website perousing a global warming article when I saw a subheading for a Climate Change section. I clicked it and I include the link here below. Right in big bold headlines, the first thing one notices is the headline:


    Now it wasnt me that made this site. This is THEIR terminology not mine. Just as if you go to the news section on google and type in the phrase in quotes “New World Order” you will find literally thousands of news articles around the world using this exact terminology. Now we have folks such as Clavy who will tell you that the new world order that they are referring to is not the new world order that I am referring to! Obviously Clavos is full of it, the phrase and its meaning speaks for itself. As I am a coinspiracist and one of the things that folks like me do is notice coincidences, because in this game more often than not coincidences aside for the mathematical odds, are very often related to just this sort of thing. George Bush the elder on September 11, 1991 used this exact phrase of the new world order in a keynote speech.

    Gary Hart used it also within a week after 9/11 and then had the audacity to actually deny ever having said it when questioned about it 9 years later. However Mr. Hart can easily be googled and seen both using the phrase right after 9/11 and then denying having said it recently.

    There is a New World Order coming folks whether you want to believe it or not. It is not an order based on the sovereignty of the individual, or of her/his unalienable rigthts. It is a New World Order based on the rule of the elite, undemocratic in nature, feudalistic in action, unjust in nature, and horrific.

    Here is the link, and as you can see the MSM is pushing this phrase and has been for some time now, with particular reference to the Washington Post, one of the biggest purveyors of this New World Order.

    Washington Post’s Climate Section

    Sigh, I know I know I am the paranoid one, what are you?

  • pablo

    Oh yeah and Osama Bin Laden just came out with a new tape! In it he thanked the xmas bomber too. Funny thing about Osama, for all his connections, and his millions he just can’t seem to come up with a video cam. I know this comment will go over the heads of those of you that still believe in Santa Claus. For those of us in the know, he is the Boogeyman, just as carbon dioxide is the new Chicken Little. Meant for several things. To scare you, to fool you, to fleece you, to treat you like a child so that big brother can protect you with his Homeland Security, when in truth this department along with its military equivalent NorthCom was created to kill freedom and freedom lovers in this country. Unfortunately that is just too great a leap for many of you on this site to grasp.

    All the while your attention is diverted to these frauds, the real fleecing is taking place right under your very noses. As I recall Bloomberg’s latest assessment of this theft is to the tune of well over 20,000,000,000,000 dollars. For those of you that cannot count that is twenty thousand billion dollars. But hey don’t worry about it Obama will bring reform to banking soon LOL.

    Between Obama and Osama your gettin screwed folks. Ain’t it time to awaken from your slumber, or would you prefer to be penniless, homeless, or incarcerated first? Wake up and smell the napalm.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger #30 –

    Thanks – I must say I appreciate the literary compliment more than anything supporting my argument. It’s very encouraging.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo – four things:

    First, I apologize – it’s mostly conservatives who are climate-change deniers (or ‘questioners’) and I lumped you in with them. That’s what I get for assuming.

    Facts are facts, and supposition and theory and beliefs are not facts, or probable facts.

    Gravity’s a theory. So’s evolution. The fact that we physically observe them every day doesn’t make them any more or less of a theory…and the fact that these are theories doesn’t make them any less factual.


    Tell me which path is better to follow: if you’re right and the vast majority of the climatologists are wrong, yet we still follow ALL their recommendations and we spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to support green tech and whatever, what exactly is the harm? In my opinion, in the big picture, not much.

    Conversely, if you’re wrong and the vast majority of the climatologists in the world are right…yet we do NOTHING, what is the harm? Wars over water, wars over living space, a Europe with weather like Alaska, and far worse hurricane seasons.

    This question is sorta like Pascal’s Wager…but it has real-world implications, Pablo.


    Why is the plum tree outside my window budding in the third week of December?

  • pablo

    That’s all you really have to say on this issue Glenn, particularly with reference to my above posts? Are you frigging serious?

    ps. Apology accepted, the first one that I have ever received from anyone on this site.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo –

    When it comes to apologies, I’ve apologized several times on BC – most often to Dave and to Clavos – and I strongly feel that those who refuse to apologize are simply insecure. I’m not trying to suck up to anyone – it’s just that I never, ever lose.

    And here’s why I say that. I’m not afraid to be wrong – I’m only afraid of remaining wrong when someone shows me that I’m wrong. If I ‘win’ an argument, I win. If I ‘lose’ an argument, I still win because I’ve gained knowledge that I didn’t have beforehand.

    Not only that, but if I’ve said or done something wrong, I believe it is dishonorable not to own up to it – so I must admit that my apology has two purposes: first, to right a wrong done to you, and second, to try to maintain what I see as my own sense of honor.

    And when someone refuses to apologize, I really do pity them because I know that the reason lies within their own insecurity.

    Also, please don’t take all this as some kind of ‘holier-than-thou’ pontificating – it’s not. It’s just my personal viewpoint.

  • What’s obvious even after a cursory look at Pablo’s WaPo link is that a new world order is not at all the same thing as the New World Order.

    There was a new world order after the fall of the Roman Empire, after the end of feudalism, after Columbus, after the rise of the British Empire, after both World Wars, after the collapse of communism… need I go on?

    The world order is constantly changing, the phrase has been in popular use at least since the Wilson presidency, and such changes are consistent in that they always end up being based on the rule of the elite.

    And I’m just wondering, if we accept Pablo’s proposition that Copenhagen was supposed to set the stage for a global economic scam using climate change as an excuse, why it was such a colossal fuck-up.

  • BTW, I think the comments, if not the article itself, have amply demonstrated which section it was appropriate to publish in.

  • Good distinction, Dreadful, the NWO is always being presented in apocalyptic terms, as though it signified the end of history.

  • My philosophical (general) objection to Pablo’s view of history is that it’s simplistic. It amounts to individual determinism. No question people plot and conspire, and sometimes parts of those plans are brought into fruition. But one cannot possibly account for all of history in those terms alone. At best, it’s only a partial explanation.

    What it ignores are the unintended effects, or what some call an “invisible hand” type of explanations, whereby history appears to have a mind all its own and proceed regardless, even against the best planned or perfectly conceived human designs.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo –

    When it comes to your question as to whether that’s ‘all I have to say’, I think we’re dealing in different paradigms here – because I am loath to think in terms of grand conspiracies.

    If there’s one thing I learned in military law enforcement, it’s that when there’s more than one or two people involved in a plot or conspiracy, the chances of keeping that conspiracy secret drop precipitously. Yes, there have been grand conspiracies in the past, but never, never, EVER has there been one that involved scientists and government functionaries from forty-odd different countries. In a world that is saturated in real-time electronic media, such is flatly impossible – and that’s a word I very rarely use.

    There is NO grand conspiracy. That particular line of thought is a non-starter, Pablo.

    Let me address the Himalayan glaciers for a moment. What happened? the forecast was based not on a scientific study but on an interview with an Indian scientist in the New Scientist magazine. The scientist’s forecast was then incorporated into the IPCC’s comprehensive 2007 report.

    The people who make up the IPCC are HUMAN, Pablo, and humans screw up every once in a while. The fact that they screwed up does NOT in any way whatsoever indicate some kind of conspiracy. Furthermore, it does NOT indicate that the Himalayan glaciers are NOT melting, as this article clearly points out.

    Now, so you can get a better picture of what’s going on, read this article that contains pictures of just how far the glaciers have retreated in the past few decades…and these pictures are precisely in line with the glacial retreat that I see on Mount Rainier from my front lawn, and compare it to pictures from forty, fifty years ago. It’s not just pictures on a website, Pablo – it’s what I can see with my own eyes!

    So how do you think all these glaciers from ALL OVER THE WORLD (with a very few exceptions) are retreating so much? D’ya think the evil IPCC has armies of serfs with blowdryers out there melting the glaciers?

    Of course you don’t. Sorry for the sarcasm, but when it’s so obvious, it’s hard to keep my temper in check.

    Pablo, you need to get off the ‘grand conspiracy’ schtick…because not only is it impossible on the scale you seem to believe, but buying into such a concept reflects poorly upon you.

  • pablo

    Dread 62

    I am just curious. What New World Order do you think that Bush Sr. was referring to on 9.11.91?
    I am all ears.
    Regarding Copenhagen, I never said that they had their plans in the bag, otherwise it would already be a done deal. It is a plan, not an outright accomplishment. There are numerous individuals, groups as well as countries that are resisting this New World Order, as well as the implementation of a global carbon trading derivatives scheme (con).


    History and political history are two different things. Since the dawn of time up to and including today man has been preying on man. There is nothing new under the sun in that. There has always been a ruling aristocracy, whether of church or state. These elites have not always been aligned that is true. However when it is in their interests, which more often than not it is they conspire to remain predators, and oppress the masses. That is just pain fact Roger.

  • But Pablo, I am not disputing that fact, the fact of the ruling elite. Dreadful himself, see comment # 62, says:

    “The world order is constantly changing, the phrase has been in popular use at least since the Wilson presidency, and such changes are consistent in that they always end up being based on the rule of the elite.”

    Indeed, the rule of the elite is at the essence of any kind of rule, especially political rule or power.

  • I am just curious. What New World Order do you think that Bush Sr. was referring to on 9.11.91?

    You mean 1990 (but I’m splitting hairs), as the Iron Curtain was disintegrating and just after a groundbreaking summit in which the presidents of the USA and the USSR agreed to tackle Saddam Hussein together.

    Perhaps, then, he was referring to “an era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony […] A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”

    …Oh well.

  • pablo

    Here is an example in real time of the type of bullshit being foisted onto the world regarding the boogeyman.

    The latest to come down the AP and Reuters pike is that Osama has released a new tape. Now when the headlines were first released there was a scintilla of a disclaimer, and I mean a scintilla as to having to do with the authenticity of the tape.

    I just opened up google news us section, and there in plain black and white reads the headlines:

    Bin Laden takes responsibility for Christmas Day airline bombing attempt—Los Angeles Times

    It is so typical of these so called news gathering organizations that are nothing more than propaganda pieces for the government. No attempt by them (news gathering insitutions) to conduct any sort of verification procedure, such as voice print analysis or anything else.

    Now next to the LA Times article in the google news section is a photo of an aged computer generated photo of a guy who is supposedly Osama, that even the dullest person could tell in no way in a hundred thousand years could it be Osama.

    Fortunately for me I get some of my news from Alex Jones’s infowars.com and they just happened to have done an excellent article in the past few days on this computer generated aged photo of Osama showing clearly who the person was that they age generated the photo of. Of course that does not stop the dishonest lying press from using the photo anyways. Below is the url of the Osama phony aged photo.

    I only say this to point out what a complete fucking hoax the MSM is, and that only a complete idiot would buy into any of their BS, particularly when they just say something of great news import such as Bin laden has released another tape as fact.

    Spanish Politician Threatens to Sue FBI Over Bin Laden Makeover

    And a link for you too Glenn. Godfrey Bloom addressing the European Parliament on the Climate Change Scam.

    Once Again, Godfrey Bloom Exposes the Climate Change Scam

    Oh and Glenn as to your comment:

    “Pablo, you need to get off the ‘grand conspiracy’ schtick…because not only is it impossible on the scale you seem to believe, but buying into such a concept reflects poorly upon you”

    I could give a shit if you think my thoughts and opinions regarding conspiracies reflect poorly on me buddy. Thanks for lookin out for me though ;). You’re obviously such a swell guy to me looking out for me like that Glenn.

  • Pablo, I saw that story about the Spanish politician’s photo being passed off as bin Laden several days ago on the BBC. Evidently they were fully aware of the FBI’s balls-up; perhaps the LA Times reporter and his editor were not.

  • pablo
  • pablo

    Dread 71

    Apparently Reuters who is the one still using the pic on the google video site is not aware either! LOL. You know Reuters the ones that actually report on the news! And as usual Dread you miss my point, but hey nothing new about that.

  • pablo

    An AP story on Yahoo carrying the following headline

    “Bin Laden claims airline bomb attempt on Christmas”

    The first pargagraph of the article:

    “CAIRO – Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the failed attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas in a new audio message released Sunday threatening more attacks on the United States.”

    Then several paragraphs later a scintilla of a disclaimer:

    “There was no way to verify the voice on the audio message was actually bin Laden, but it resembled previous recordings attributed to him”

    This is what I am talking about. If these news organizations had even a shred of respectability they would never use either a headline like that nor an opening paragraph categorically stating something as fact that is not necessarily fact.

    It kind of reminds me of the way that Glenn will present something as a fact about global warming when it is conjecture at best. It is dishonest.

  • pablo

    Not apparently Reuters but Reuters, here is a direct link in real time from Reuters itself.

    Bin Laden claims U.S. plane attempt, vows more attacks

    I guess Reuters is not following the news as they are too busy being propaganda pieces for their masters. I know Dread its just a mistake or an oversight. Sure it is. Reuters IS the news.

  • pablo

    Also in the fraudulent Reuters story pic included, they also present it as a fact that the tape is from Osama, with this cute little disclaimer in the middle:

    “White House adviser David Axelrod said he could not confirm the authenticity of the tape, which was broadcast by Al Jazeera television before international meetings this week on how to deal with militancy in Afghanistan and Yemen.”

    Oh wow, since Axelrod cannot confirm the authenticity, hey its fact! Sure it is Reuters.

  • The Reuters story makes no mention of the ‘photo’, so I’m not sure why they ran them together.

    And I do agree with you that the person in the tape is only slightly more likely to actually be bin Laden that the Detroit Lions are to win next year’s Superbowl.

    Some of the bullshit he’s quoted as saying read like something an extremely bad Hollywood screenwriter might come up with.

  • Hmmmmm…..sounds like the peer review process didn’t work in the IPCC case either: “Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.”

  • Ruvy


    Note that all this “conspiracy” stuff is really aimed at finding what the mass media is obviously trying to hide – the truth. Why should the mass media want to hid the truth? Because the stockholders who OWN them will not profit from truth, they will profit from convenient lies.

    That, sir, is the “inconvenient truth”, to coin a phrase.

    You see in comment #78 that the IPCC was trying to kasher a pig (make real data out of non-peer-reviewed data). You see in previous comments that Reuters, the BBC and other “news” services were running a story about what is in reality an “alleged” tape from Osama bin-Ladin – while calling it real.

    Now it may be that this tape by “Osama bin-Ladin” is real – but no evidence to adduce that claim is submitted. Which is the point made by Paul here.

    Are you getting the picture? It is not that the conspiracies are so secret – if they were that secret, Paul and others would have been floating in Puget Sound or the East River or some other convenient dumping ground for “inconvenient truthsters” – like a cornfield in the middle of Iowa. As you can see, Paul, Barry Chamish and others are very much alive.

    The “conspiracies” are not secret. They are “hidden in plain sight”. And they are not conspiracies, either. They are plans made by powerful organizations that have tried to keep their secrecy but have failed to, and they are being plugged with the intent of shoving some unpleasant program or theft down your throat. Your interest, my interest, the interest of decent people, is being threatened by powerful organizations which work together and have lots and lots of influence – but do not always succeed.

    Let’s look at the Middle East just briefly. The Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank representing the interests of the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and successors in interests to the Morgan family, among other powerful families in the United States, released a report years ago saying it would be better for Israel to be forced to withdraw to the 1966 borders.

    And former head of the Council of Foreign Relations, George Mitchell, Obama’s “special envoy” is hustling a plan to do just that! My, my, what a coincidence!!

    The truth is usually something that the big shots with the money do not want us to know. But they do not always succeed.

  • pablo

    Excellent post Ruvy.

  • STM

    Glenn, I have a mature jacaranda in my backyard that’s never flowered in the three years I’ve owned the house.

    This summer it did … just like it’s supposed to, beautiful blue flowers everywhere lighting up my backyard.

    I don’t know what that says. Perhaps it says that the conditions were perfect this summer for the tree to flower, just like they have for a million summers before.

    They were everywhere in Australia when I was a kid. They still are.

    Now there’s an extra splash of colour if you peer up my driveway garden.

    But I remain a sceptic on man-made climate change.

    Not saying it’s not true, just that I’m sceptical.

  • Mark

    It has been reported to me via first hand observation that the permafrost is melting in many locations throughout Alaska; the gases released in this process should make discussion of agw and a new world order passe.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    STM –

    I don’t know how the seasons work down there…but if I remember correctly, your winters aren’t quite so bad. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC you have no animals that hibernate through the winter – there’s no need for them to do so.

    Here in fall – our September through November – leaves fall as the trees cut off the flow of sap to and from those leaves, thus preparing for the bitter cold to come; then they begin to bud – sprout leaves – in February, March at the latest. This is the way it’s been for millenia, the bitter cold slowly giving way to the summer heat.

    For a tree to begin budding in the third week of December – that’s unheard of.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Then explain the melting glaciers, the melting permafrost, the record-high level of methane in the Arctic, the already-measured rise of the seas…and my plum tree budding in the third week of December.

    See what’s happening here? Before examining the physical evidence, you’re going straight to conspiracy-theory central.

    And when you try to explain away the observations of global warming, don’t try to claim it’s the sun – we’re presently coming off a solar minimum. Don’t try to claim it’s a ‘natural cycle’, because in terms of geological time it’s happening almost instantaneously. Don’t try to claim that this or that glacier actually grew…because just like the stock market, their rate of shrinkage or growth has ups and downs, but the overall trend is unmistakably indicating a warming on a worldwide scale.

    Explain the observations, Ruvy – and THEN, if you can satisfactorily explain the observations, THEN we can discuss how all these supposed conspiracies came to be.

    It’s like any crime scene – collect and verify the evidence FIRST, before you try to explain what happened.

  • STM

    Yeah, mild winters here Glenn … and midsummer in December.

    Perhaps your plum tree is trying to tell you something.

    It needs a holiday down under.

  • Ruvy

    Then explain the melting glaciers, the melting permafrost, the record-high level of methane in the Arctic, the already-measured rise of the seas…and my plum tree budding in the third week of December.

    What does it take to get through to you? For the third time, now, from comment #49. Read it and pay attention!

    The problem with your arguments are not that there is not climate change – there is. That is why your plum tree is flowering in December and not February. Further, people pouring pollutants into the air have contributed heavily to that climate change. That can’t be argued either.

    Neither Paul nor I have disputed these basic and indisputable points. What Paul brings forth is the evidence of large firms trying to shovel down their version of climate change so as to make a fortune of money, and what I’m telling you is that the data is not complete so as to state with any certainty that what we face is a climate swing, or a permanent climate change.

    All the things you see with you own eyes are happening. But others, with an agenda of controlling you and me and others to their own profit and to our loss want to turn this “climate change” into a tool for enacting draconian controls on our lives that need not be there. And you refuse to see this at all.

  • Ruvy

    By the way….

    The fiasco in Copenhagen failed because the Chinese sandbagged it – they did not want to accept what was at base an Indian plan. Had the Chinese drawn up the plan, it would have been passed and shoved down everyone’s throats. That goes just to show you how much the Americans have been sidelined on the world’s stage.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    STM –

    As you implied, it’s not just the plum tree that needs a holiday – 🙂

    Ruvy –

    I’m all for those ‘draconian controls’. Why? Because with out those draconian controls now, all too quickly we’re reaching the point where NO controls – no matter how draconian – will help.

    When a ship is in danger of sinking, everything on that ship – food, drinking water, weapons, medical supplies – has ZERO priority until the ship is out of danger of sinking. Then and only then do we worry about the rest of what keeps us alive and free.

  • pablo

    Glenn 84 you said:

    “It’s like any crime scene – collect and verify the evidence FIRST, before you try to explain what happened.”

    Your words Glenn, not mine. I agree wholeheartedly. However that sentence is at odds with the rest of your diatribes, and your continued warmer mongering.

    You have asserted rather than your above quote that we can’t take the chance. I wonder if you have really thought in depth what a global coercive carbon tax derivative scheme would look like. Since carbon dioxide is exchanged/used in virtually all human and animal endeavors every scintilla of an individuals’s carbon footprint (I hate the phrase by the ways) would be monitored. More than likely with an rfid individual carbon footprint card. In other words big brother would be examining every thing that you do down to the minutest level, not to mention that literally thousands and thousands of activities of yours would now be subject to a tax.

    Indeed if you look closely at the attempted Copenhagen agreement you will in fact find that one of the main things that they were trying to to is turn over the the IMF and the World Bank extraordinary global powers to regulate and profit from the carbon trading derivative sham.

    The costs alone of acting now as you want to do are astronomical in nature. Literally trillions of dollars that you and I and the rest of humanity would have to cough up to our new IMF and World Bank masters.

    It is rather obvious to me Glenn that you have not really thought this through, instead are promoting a rather hysterical (the sky is falling) solution to a problem that according to your own words above has not been conclusively proven.

    Perhaps you want to live in such a world Glenn. I do not. I value my privacy and my ability to go about my life without having big brother sniffing up my asshole. I do not subscribe to the dribbling automatons that frequently say about big brother and privacy, “I have nothing to hide, so I don’t mind if the government knows everything about me and what I do”. These sorts of uneducated mindless drones are part of the reason we are in such a fix today, regarding big brother.

    On another point regarding global warming. You dismiss out of hand that the sun is responsible for what is going on, and are so eager it seems to blame it on one of the primary building blocks of life on this planet. Below are several links, that point out conclusively that numerous planets in our solar system are currently heating up. I hope that you are not so dense as to subscribe these phenomenons as due to carbon dioxide. Is it such a stretch of your imagination to maybe assume it has something to do with the sun Glenn? And if so, perhaps, just perhaps Glenn the sun has something to do with what is going on here on earth.

    As I have said repeatedly I am a layman, and no scientist. However I do have a very acute nose for bullshit and conspiracy, something of which I have spent the better part of 30 years studying. When I see the major fascistic players such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the Club of Rome, and such minions of them as Maurice Strong, and Henry KissAssinger, promoting this agenda, and even acting as if they give a flying fuck about nature, or indeed the common person, I know they are lying. Just as I know that Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and former SS officer in Nazi Germany who founded the WWF, (the main organization now responsible for the Glaciergate scandal), and the founder of the Bilderberg Group, is a fraud. I do not picture him out communing with nature, just as I do not picture Prince Bernhard giving a flying fuck about the fact that Judeo/Western civilization has been in the process of exterminating native people living on the land for the past 500 fucking years. He could give a shit, and if he and his ilk have their way they are coming for the rest of us soon pal.

    Climate change hits Mars

    Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

    Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

    Two of the above links are from science sites Glenn. Doesn’t it strike you as odd just a bit, that some of the major players in warmer mongering are former oil men? I am referring to Al (Occidental Petroleum) Gore, Maurice Strong, Prince Bernhard (Shell Oil) and the Rockefellers. We have known scientifically for decades that spewing out carbon monoxides, hydrocarbons, and other exhausts from petroleum was having a very nasty effect on our environment. They continued. Not to mention the indigeneous humans that have been poisoned, and displaced by such corporate giants such as Shell Oil. Incidentally Glenn Shell Oil’s biggest owner to this day is none other than Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands husband to Prince Bernhardt.

    Also you will hear frequently from the warmer mongering zealots whenever a challenge is mounted against their hyteria, that obviously the opposition must be in bed with big Oil. Quite the contrary is what is actually going on. Should you request of me, I will provide you with numerous solid links showing that the CRU in England was in fact financed by BP, Shell Oil and several other nefarious corporations. Of course you will never hear about that from the warmer mongers!

    Do not assume because I doubt human caused global warming, that I do not love our planet, and nature in particular. I unlike Prince Bernhardt, the Rockefellers, and other robber barons AM a nature lover, and I do commune frequently with nature. I have watched in horror Glenn these multi-national corporations rape the planet and murder native peoples for decades, and they are my sworn enemies.

    You are being fooled and misled by these monsters, they have co-opted the entire environmental movement, as well as liberal politics in this country. You apparently are the last to know buddy.

  • pablo

    India’s environmental minister Mr Jairam Ramesh on the IPCC February 4th:

    ““There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses… they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks. ”

    He also said “while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing despite global warming.”

    This is the second largest country in the world folks.

  • pablo

    From the Daily Mail UK:

    “Professor Phil Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

    HA fucking HA HA 🙂

  • “Professor Phil Jones…”

    Hold up, Pablo. Would this be the same Phil Jones who a few weeks ago was a liar and a cad and not to be trusted? And now you’re hanging onto his every word?

    Well, no, not exactly. What you appear to be hanging onto every word of is the Daily Mail report, which even for them is a spectacularly shoddy excuse for a piece of journalism.

    “…conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now “

    Um, not exactly. What he said was that there was insufficient data to show whether the Medieval Warm Period was a global or a northern hemisphere-only phenomenon. (The available data, as I understand it, suggest the latter.) If – if – the data were to show that the MWP was global, then the current warming would not be unprecedented. However, (a) this is purely a hypothetical and (b) it does not follow that the present warming is not man-caused.

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

    Yes, but he reminded the questioner that there still has been warming over that period. The reason it’s not statistically significant is that it’s a cherry-picked and very short timeframe. It’s a bit like looking at the record of the Boston Celtics from 1995-2009 and conceding that they hadn’t won the NBA Championship a statistically significant number of times.

    HA fucking HA HA 🙂


  • pablo

    I will ignore your lame argument, since the beginning paragraph was a smear, and the rest of your comment is gobbledygook. Nice try though Dread. Here is a new movie that was aired for the first time only 2 days ago on a local news channel in San Diego by John Coleman former owner of the Weather Channel, completely debunking the warmer mongers.

    Global Warming: Meltdown

  • Cindy

    Interestingly, none of these comments addresses the primary point of this article–the plum tree. Why is the plum tree changing? Why is my garden this year in May looking as it did in June 3 years ago? Why are seas rising against islands in Alaska, the Pacific, and Bangladesh? Why is the Ross Ice Shelf melting? These people remind me of those who ridiculed

  • Cindy

    Climate Change explains these things–it predicted the things we are seeing now. But some people will continue to refuse to accept the facts they see in front of them. They are so afraid of change. Paleontologists have found at least 5 incidents of global extinction in the history of our planet, only 1 caused by an asteroid hitting Earth. Scientists who study these things mostly agree the signs are pointing to a possible major extinction event–possibly including humans–if we do not bring down CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if we caused them to be there or not. What matters is what we can still do to stop it. Why is it so hard to believe the unbelievable? It is outside of our experience. So we ridicule that which we fear. And even stop the rest of us from taking action to save ourselves. We are on a runaway train here, folks, and you won’t let us get to the handbrake! Get out of the way, please. You don’t have to agree–but don’t take us all down with you.