Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NASA says sea level has not been rising as Gore said it would.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NASA says sea level has not been rising as Gore said it would.



    http://conservativetribune.com/nasa-...ibertyalliance


    REAL WORLD NASA Issues Shock Statement on What They Just Saw from Orbit… Blackout from MSM


    BY BEN MARQUIS
    ON JULY 31, 2017 AT 4:10PM

    For many years now, climate change alarmists have been ominously warning of rising sea levels that would alter humanity and all of society.

    In fact, chief fear-mongerer Al Gore once predicted that giant metropolises like Miami and New York City would soon be completely underwater as the oceans rose.

    And who can forget former President Barack Obama touting that he and he alone would stop the seas from rising upon his election in 2008, only to continue fretting about such issues during his tenure in office, using it along with other scare tactics to coerce public support for his signing of the economy-killing Paris Agreement on climate change.

    But perhaps Obama was more successful in fulfilling that promise than even he or his sycophants in the media thought, as recent data put forward by NASA seem to suggest that all the worry about rising sea levels may have been for nothing, according to The New American.

    On a page recently published on NASA’s site that was likely intended to continue drumming up fear of rising sea levels, there was graph showing the rise of the ocean level dating back to 1993, as observed by satellites orbiting the earth and taking measurements.
    While the graph certainly does appear to show that sea levels have risen over the past couple decades at a claimed average rate of 3.4 millimeters per year, zooming in on the last two years of the chart showed …

    … that sea levels had actually, at best, held steady, if not fallen somewhat.



    Indeed, following a high of 88.5 mm in March 2016, the levels then fell to 83.2 mm in August 2016, only to rise once more to 86.8 mm in November 2016 before dropping to 83.7 mm in February 2017 and inching back up to 86.4 mm by April.

    To be sure, critics will claim that nothing substantial can be drawn from data derived from such a short time frame as two years, but nevertheless, these “inconvenient” facts do nothing to help support the progressive narrative that sea levels are rising faster than can be dealt with.

    To be sure, climate change believers — or more accurately, those who gain by pushing the narrative for whatever reason — will argue that the recent dips in sea level are easily explained away.

    For instance, in February 2016 NASA published a study which suggested that increased absorption of rain and snow melt by the earth’s soil, continental bodies of water and underground aquifers was the reason for a slight decrease in sea levels, or as they put it, a slowing of the rising rate. Add this to the fact that polar icecaps have been shown to be growing in recent years instead of shrinking, as had been gloomily predicted, and we see that the climate change narrative is really struggling to keep up with pesky reality these days.

    Is it any wonder then that the mainstream media has all but ignored this latest revelation regarding sea levels from NASA? They are the chief promoters of the failing narrative, and broadly sharing this latest bit of info would only further reveal their penchant for “fake news,” particularly in regard to the climate.

    Barring a major storm or tidal wave, cities like Miami and New York can hold off on developing dedicated boat lanes for commuters, as we aren’t quite at that point just yet.

  • #2
    Global warming ought to be viewed as any other defensive strategy is approached.
    Example: The Soviet Union may never attack but was having a prepared defense or deterrent a wise policy? The Soviet Union never attacked the USA, but the USA spent billions if not trillions making sure it didn't happen in spite of the fact that western intelligent agencies and international economist determined by 1974 the Soviet Union was doomed because of debt from its economic polices.
    To completely deny there is a risk is to evaluate there is no risk.
    Whether there is a risk from global warming or not is an opinion.
    The facts about the Soviet Union required only about 30 years to be actualized after WW II and another 15 years to be realized - and that was politics.
    Global warming is about much longer effects on nature.
    For any laymen to make this issue paramount in their complaints seems a bit like swatting at flies.

    When my children were dependent upon me I carried term life insurance to replace my income so they would have a funded future.
    The risk of death was low and the cost relative cheep.
    Today, I have zero life insurance. Why? The risk of death is much, much higher and is certainty coming soon, but the risk of leaving my family unfunded is zero.

    Why must so many issues be black or white?
    Is not risk evaluation just plain old human reason.
    Is the global warming issue about the kingdom of God?
    I must be just too dumb to understand why global warming issues apart from carbon credits is such a divisive issue.
    However, I know I am too dumb to understand why there is such opposition and so little compromise or submission to a vast range of issues - especially in Christianity.

    Shouldn't human depravity have impacted any confidence in human reason, yet it is upon human reason all our arguments are based even if we claim, "God told me"?

    Well, I see what began as an insight has ended up as a rant! Global warming . . . may the Lord help me to focus upon the kingdom!

    Comment


    • #3
      For me it's divisive because of all the fraud. My inheritance is the Lord. But while I am here I am to stand for what is right. How can I be okay with this obvious fraud that is poised to hold nations in bondage to yet another gargantuan global scam?

      What do you mean by "little compromise or submission", brother Glen, with regards to the global warming myth?

      Honest scientists have soundly debunked this, yet so-called politicians (corporate board members in a pretense of public service) are making policy and implementing solutions based on skewed data provided by corporate interests to create a very lucrative opportunity for insiders. People who live on the seaboard aren't seeing rising sea levels with their own eyes. But honest scientists and eye witnesses are ignored by Congress, so that we know who its master is: mammon, and we and our progeny are expected to keep paying the daily ransom as usual, in perpetuity, while virtually all of us are one personal crisis away from financial ruin and death.

      This same kind of situation exists with Big Pharma, a largely autonomous empire with a veneer of governmental controls in place, and new mandates (which, surprise surprise, cost tons more money) every day, pseudo-science is for hire to the highest bidder, propaganda outlets sell and whitewash the brand. Fraud is fraud, whether the snake oil they're selling is climate, terror, war on drugs, vaccines, flouride, invasive medical screenings, death with dignity, public education, taxation, ..., ..., ..., ...

      God gave us a world that provides for us abundantly. Yet we live in scarcity. God gave the earth to the children of men, and made us stewards of this wonderful garden. And we are systematically destroying it. We know the problem is sin. The cure is Light.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Baruch View Post
        For me it's divisive because of all the fraud. My inheritance is the Lord. But while I am here I am to stand for what is right. How can I be okay with this obvious fraud that is poised to hold nations in bondage to yet another gargantuan global scam?

        What do you mean by "little compromise or submission", brother Glen, with regards to the global warming myth?

        Honest scientists have soundly debunked this, yet so-called politicians (corporate board members in a pretense of public service) are making policy and implementing solutions based on skewed data provided by corporate interests to create a very lucrative opportunity for insiders. People who live on the seaboard aren't seeing rising sea levels with their own eyes. But honest scientists and eye witnesses are ignored by Congress, so that we know who its master is: mammon, and we and our progeny are expected to keep paying the daily ransom as usual, in perpetuity, while virtually all of us are one personal crisis away from financial ruin and death.

        This same kind of situation exists with Big Pharma, a largely autonomous empire with a veneer of governmental controls in place, and new mandates (which, surprise surprise, cost tons more money) every day, pseudo-science is for hire to the highest bidder, propaganda outlets sell and whitewash the brand. Fraud is fraud, whether the snake oil they're selling is climate, terror, war on drugs, vaccines, flouride, invasive medical screenings, death with dignity, public education, taxation, ..., ..., ..., ...

        God gave us a world that provides for us abundantly. Yet we live in scarcity. God gave the earth to the children of men, and made us stewards of this wonderful garden. And we are systematically destroying it. We know the problem is sin. The cure is Light.
        Amen Barry.

        To discuss any lie is profitable for people to be able to tell truth from lies. Lies are from Satan and all Truth is from Jesus.

        What does a blind man being able to see natural light have to do with the spiritual. Yet Jesus gave natural sight to every single blind man who confessed he was blind and wanted to see. Jesus was not wasting His time or doing something that was not profitable to His Kingdom.


        There are powerful groups trying to control our whole world and everyone needs to know this is taking place so they can stand against it.

        2 Cor 3:17
        Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

        Evil men have made slaves of other men since men have been on the earth and Godly men have fought to keep them free. Satan wants to destroy all freedom so he can more easily control mankind.

        Of course we should take good care of the earth that God gave us. But for Obama to agree for the people of the US to pay billions in taxes for the CO2 we produced is tyranny. Why should we pay Europe and Asia billions and trillions when the US gave billions to keep them free from Hitler and Stalin. Where is their dept of gratitude for this. China and India produce far more CO2 than the US and they were to pay nothing while we were already in dept to them.

        This is simply an evil plan to bankrupt the US and bring down it's Republic because the gun owning US citizen stands in the way of these men taking over the US and the world.
        Last edited by Lou Newton; August 2nd, 2017, 04:55 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Baruch View Post
          Honest scientists have soundly debunked this, yet so-called politicians (corporate board members in a pretense of public service) are making policy and implementing solutions based on skewed data provided by corporate interests to create a very lucrative opportunity for insiders. People who live on the seaboard aren't seeing rising sea levels with their own eyes. But honest scientists and eye witnesses are ignored by Congress, so that we know who its master is: mammon, and we and our progeny are expected to keep paying the daily ransom as usual, in perpetuity, while virtually all of us are one personal crisis away from financial ruin and death.
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          There are a number in Congress and the President who either dispute the actual facts or the interpretation of these facts as being evidence supporting global warming or human induced climate change.

          Just because the position one holds is supported by a scientist or opposed by a scientist, in and of its self, is not what determines an “honest scientist.”

          It is well known that there are dishonest scientists who offer a “scientific” opinion simply for their own benefit. The scientist’s opinion would be:
          (1) supporting the scientist’s previous hypotheses
          (2) supporting the scientist’s employer as in a prosecution or defense at law or as in the J. R. Reynolds Company.
          (3) as an outside paid consultant to support a predetermined outcome.

          I think these ideas would include those scientists you say are “debunked” by “honest scientists.”

          Note: I have a collection of colorful and interesting magazine advertisements where medical doctors and scientist claim tobacco smoking is not harmful.

          My question to you is how does a non expert label some scientists as dishonest based upon the collection and reporting of facts which facts are disputed by other scientists?

          Is it how these facts are interpreted as evidence for one position or the other which determines their honesty? In other words, one position is honest and the opposing position dishonest?

          Or is it that all global warming scientists are included in one or more of the three dishonest scientists as suggested above while those opposed to global warming have remained pure in their intent? Such a position would statistically have to be a presupposition.

          In an attempt to be objective it appears to me from my minimal observations that some scientist supporting climate change begin with a predetermined supposition because in the field of their specialty there were changes due to a rise in temperature. On the other hand, it appears to me the articles I have read by scientists opposed to global warming are biased. While you find their opinions honest, I do not. However, I am not an expert. How about you?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Baruch View Post
            What do you mean by "little compromise or submission", brother Glen, with regards to the global warming myth?
            -----------------------------------------------------------------
            The intent of my statement "so little compromise or submission" was tilted toward Christian differences in light of the entrenched oppositions of global warming. My previous sentence, “I must be just too dumb to understand why global warming issues apart from carbon credits is such a divisive issue” set the tone for the following sentence in that warming or not warming ought not be so divisive because it is the issue of carbon credits that is the political bomb at the moment. This sentence was a segway to the one that followed for which you reversed the segway back to “global warming myth” by asking your question. My intent and interest was not climate change but correct thinking and how correct thinking or incorrect thinking affects the Christian Church.

            If I had wished to apply a statement at that point about global warming differences I might have left out “submission” and left off “- especially Christianity.” I added “submission” after “compromise” particularly because the intent was to segway back to correct thinking about things Christian.

            Synonyms for the verb submission:
            accept, acquiescence, assent, capitulation, compliance, consent, defer, giving in, obedience, offer, resignation, surrender, yield

            Antonyms for the verb submission:
            denial, disobedience, dissent, insurrection, opposition, rebellion, resistance, thwart

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by glen smith View Post
              My question to you is how does a non expert label some scientists as dishonest based upon the collection and reporting of facts which facts are disputed by other scientists?

              Is it how these facts are interpreted as evidence for one position or the other which determines their honesty? In other words, one position is honest and the opposing position dishonest?

              Or is it that all global warming scientists are included in one or more of the three dishonest scientists as suggested above while those opposed to global warming have remained pure in their intent? Such a position would statistically have to be a presupposition.

              In an attempt to be objective it appears to me from my minimal observations that some scientist supporting climate change begin with a predetermined supposition because in the field of their specialty there were changes due to a rise in temperature. On the other hand, it appears to me the articles I have read by scientists opposed to global warming are biased. While you find their opinions honest, I do not. However, I am not an expert. How about you?
              Those are good questions, Glen. I'm glad you asked them.

              First, I propose we need to stop worshiping experts. Their opinions are valuable. But they are still opinions. You and I have the money, we're the employer, we pay the salaries of experts who are selling us their services. Any expert worth his salt must be able to present any case to his employer who is a layman, so we can understand at least abstractly what informs the opinion, and we can be engaged in proposals and decisions that we pay for, and significantly impacted by the results. This has not happened. One Ralph Nader isn't enough. We need an army of govt watchdogs. And who can we trust more than our own selves? Who else will stick their nose into the business of our servants, and can't be bought off? (Over all of this, I'm thankful for God, who is sovereign, and who is for us, but we are still responsible to manage our affairs. We have been prevented from doing so by our own supposed servants for a long time.)

              Second, I can examine the apparent history and see how it unfolded. The scandal was affectionately called Climategate. A private government-sponsored task force produced reports in support of global warming. Reports are interpretations of data, i.e. opinions. Those opinions are reviewed by peers as a best practice. When asked by the body of climate experts for the data that the reports were derived from, the task force claimed they had accidentally destroyed the data: all PCs, backups, thumb drives, hard copies. (Seriously? Smells like Someone's deleted emails.) Meanwhile, the agenda pressed onward, plans and policies were implemented at the national and global level based on the unproven reports. (And look at today, they have a full blown treaty, and UN policies, and plans roll out to the local level. Based on...what?)

              Sometime from 2015 to early 2016 it became clear that global warming wasn't happening. The trend was not demonstrable. In fact, the opposite was happening. So some ad propaganda guru was hired, and he concocted the re-branding to Climate Change. The climate is always changing, so why not cover all your bases and you can spin it in any direction.

              This is no small mound of funny business. There isn't a need to go any deeper. But people have studied big money behind this, and there are huge profits to be made. Again, by government mandates creating a market, and incentive to phase in new tech; certain patent holders with solutions; certain corporations with seed money; and government controls create incentive to phase out old tech. Why did Tesla Corp. basically give away over 100 electric automobile technology patents? They could have cornered the market. But they were offered something much bigger, and the patents opened up the tech to the whole market at once, which spawned a flurry of development to electric. Cause people see the writing on the wall: carbon tax, fossil fuels are being phased out, to be replaced by the "approved" new tech. And you and I are funding much of this, through government grants and incentives. This entire thing is cleverly designed by corporate experts and government experts, using climate experts to sell the premise - and we don't really understand any of it. Because, you know, national security, or global security, or non-disclosure agreements: whatever, it is secrets, and you and I are not privy. We're being bamboozled by fascism posing as Democracy. And their experts know best how to save the world - incidentally, you and I are being painted as the human plague causing the climate crisis. We should not neglect to recognize the danger of the control apparatus growing up around us. Control and monopoly go hand in hand.

              Thirdly, now independent climate experts are coming forth with studies based on available data sets. They are claiming the data doesn't support the hype of this climate change. It's myth: mistake at best. I think these guys are playing it safe and not accusing the frauds of defrauding the world. Well, these dissenting experts have been vocal for years. We're not talking about two or three. But 32,000. Thirty-two thousand climate experts, who signed a petition to stop the climate change lie. These guys are the honest bunch. They are the ones calling for open review of all the data. They want access, but they're being stonewalled by the journal committees so they can't publish. Effectively stonewalled. When the government and academia and other commercial entities are behaving so flagrantly, it's corruption and many are in cahoots.

              But fundamentally, if this country were operating as it was intended, I don't have to be an expert. I only have to be advised on the best options, pros and cons. I hold the purse strings. I've delegate Congress to represent me (my state) at the federal level. And I control my Congressman, and what s/he commits me to. They need to have skin in the game. The experts I select to advise me ought to have a vested interest. For example, they need to live where I do, have a home and family and business, so I can be assured their concerns align with mine. Obviously, what we have is not functioning properly.

              And climate change looks like a big fat lie. It's a cash cow farm, and we are being corralled towards it.
              Last edited by Baruch; August 4th, 2017, 01:08 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by glen smith View Post
                -----------------------------------------------------------------
                The intent of my statement "so little compromise or submission" was tilted toward Christian differences in light of the entrenched oppositions of global warming. My previous sentence, “I must be just too dumb to understand why global warming issues apart from carbon credits is such a divisive issue” set the tone for the following sentence in that warming or not warming ought not be so divisive because it is the issue of carbon credits that is the political bomb at the moment. This sentence was a segway to the one that followed for which you reversed the segway back to “global warming myth” by asking your question. My intent and interest was not climate change but correct thinking and how correct thinking or incorrect thinking affects the Christian Church.

                If I had wished to apply a statement at that point about global warming differences I might have left out “submission” and left off “- especially Christianity.” I added “submission” after “compromise” particularly because the intent was to segway back to correct thinking about things Christian.

                Synonyms for the verb submission:
                accept, acquiescence, assent, capitulation, compliance, consent, defer, giving in, obedience, offer, resignation, surrender, yield

                Antonyms for the verb submission:
                denial, disobedience, dissent, insurrection, opposition, rebellion, resistance, thwart
                Gotcha. Thanks for helping me out. I admit I'm still learning the way you write.

                I wish carbon credits were not the focus. This is the bone we're meant to fight over.

                The real battlefront is the fabric of lies. They are being discovered. God promises discovering. We are very fortunate that the overthrow of the Republic was not completed. We still have a Republic. This seems to be where the present exodus leads, if I may apply Biblical precept, and if God tarries. We've been in captivity to a beast. It is a miracle America was not entirely consumed by it. No one can claim to be a hero, no one can explain it other than God raised up people at the 11th hour and revealed it to them, and equipped them for the battle. Now we have a task before us. We need to get the Republic functioning again, starting at the county level. We can and must ignore the federal corporations for now. What can we do directly against them? What can they do without God's allowance?

                If we continue to argue for or against carbon taxes, we're consenting to the corporate beast and feeding it as much as it demands. That is why I don't argue politics. Politics are captive to the rules of the corporate beast system, which is built upon the commercial and contractual judicial system of modern day Rome. If we can end the probate and collapse the public trusts, the corporation controlling the trusts can't profit off of us - huge profits. This is why all the chaos, to keep us joined with the corporate system so they can draw on the trusts and spin off new frauds after this round of "national" bankruptcies; and it is why they want third world immigrants, to create new trust accounts in their jurisdiction, among other nefarious purposes.
                Last edited by Baruch; August 4th, 2017, 01:38 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Baruch View Post

                  Those are good questions, Glen. I'm glad you asked them.

                  First, I propose we need to stop worshiping experts. Their opinions are valuable. But they are still opinions. You and I have the money, we're the employer, we pay the salaries of experts who are selling us their services. Any expert worth his salt must be able to present any case to his employer who is a layman, so we can understand at least abstractly what informs the opinion, and we can be engaged in proposals and decisions that we pay for, and significantly impacted by the results. This has not happened. One Ralph Nader isn't enough. We need an army of govt watchdogs. And who can we trust more than our own selves? Who else will stick their nose into the business of our servants, and can't be bought off? (Over all of this, I'm thankful for God, who is sovereign, and who is for us, but we are still responsible to manage our affairs. We have been prevented from doing so by our own supposed servants for a long time.)

                  Second, I can examine the apparent history and see how it unfolded. The scandal was affectionately called Climategate. A private government-sponsored task force produced reports in support of global warming. Reports are interpretations of data, i.e. opinions. Those opinions are reviewed by peers as a best practice. When asked by the body of climate experts for the data that the reports were derived from, the task force claimed they had accidentally destroyed the data: all PCs, backups, thumb drives, hard copies. (Seriously? Smells like Someone's deleted emails.) Meanwhile, the agenda pressed onward, plans and policies were implemented at the national and global level based on the unproven reports. (And look at today, they have a full blown treaty, and UN policies, and plans roll out to the local level. Based on...what?)

                  Sometime from 2015 to early 2016 it became clear that global warming wasn't happening. The trend was not demonstrable. In fact, the opposite was happening. So some ad propaganda guru was hired, and he concocted the re-branding to Climate Change. The climate is always changing, so why not cover all your bases and you can spin it in any direction.

                  This is no small mound of funny business. There isn't a need to go any deeper. But people have studied big money behind this, and there are huge profits to be made. Again, by government mandates creating a market, and incentive to phase in new tech; certain patent holders with solutions; certain corporations with seed money; and government controls create incentive to phase out old tech. Why did Tesla Corp. basically give away over 100 electric automobile technology patents? They could have cornered the market. But they were offered something much bigger, and the patents opened up the tech to the whole market at once, which spawned a flurry of development to electric. Cause people see the writing on the wall: carbon tax, fossil fuels are being phased out, to be replaced by the "approved" new tech. And you and I are funding much of this, through government grants and incentives. This entire thing is cleverly designed by corporate experts and government experts, using climate experts to sell the premise - and we don't really understand any of it. Because, you know, national security, or global security, or non-disclosure agreements: whatever, it is secrets, and you and I are not privy. We're being bamboozled by fascism posing as Democracy. And their experts know best how to save the world - incidentally, you and I are being painted as the human plague causing the climate crisis. We should not neglect to recognize the danger of the control apparatus growing up around us. Control and monopoly go hand in hand.

                  Thirdly, now independent climate experts are coming forth with studies based on available data sets. They are claiming the data doesn't support the hype of this climate change. It's myth: mistake at best. I think these guys are playing it safe and not accusing the frauds of defrauding the world. Well, these dissenting experts have been vocal for years. We're not talking about two or three. But 32,000. Thirty-two thousand climate experts, who signed a petition to stop the climate change lie. These guys are the honest bunch. They are the ones calling for open review of all the data. They want access, but they're being stonewalled by the journal committees so they can't publish. Effectively stonewalled. When the government and academia and other commercial entities are behaving so flagrantly, it's corruption and many are in cahoots.

                  But fundamentally, if this country were operating as it was intended, I don't have to be an expert. I only have to be advised on the best options, pros and cons. I hold the purse strings. I've delegate Congress to represent me (my state) at the federal level. And I control my Congressman, and what s/he commits me to. They need to have skin in the game. The experts I select to advise me ought to have a vested interest. For example, they need to live where I do, have a home and family and business, so I can be assured their concerns align with mine. Obviously, what we have is not functioning properly.

                  And climate change looks like a big fat lie. It's a cash cow farm, and we are being corralled towards it.
                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Excellent explanation. I am aware of much of this. I cannot determine how much of the facts supporting the global warming issue has passed from hypothesis to theory to observable predictions. The carbon credits aspect seems to me to be just as you state - a money maker for the wealthy at the expense of the ordinary tax payer.

                  Considering the basis of your opposition to global warming one would assume you would also be opposed to large cooperation and the wealthy in how they corrupt the political system for their own gain. This is observable in the concentration of wealth for the 494,000 richest Americans which has primarily occurred under Republican polices starting with President Ronald Reagan.

                  Baruch wrote, "The real battlefront is the fabric of lies." Another term for this is propaganda. It is not only the lobbyist for the wealthy but the wealthy also are engage in propaganda to deceive the public - to fool voters into voting for politicians who spout the propaganda. This is as seemingly begin as in the case as one of the Koch brothers supporting PBS programing in the name of science which supports his view of the world to straightforward bribery of public officials.
                  Last edited by glen smith; August 4th, 2017, 02:50 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X