This broadcast segment addresses the urgent need for verifiable facts about climate and weather that have been unable to make their way in a cohesive, understandable way to the public. The first in a two-part series, this show features Bob Felix, author of Not by Fire, But By Ice and Magnetic Reversals & Evolutionary Leaps. Bob has spent considerable time researching climate, extinctions, magnetic reversals, and ice ages. His books present staggering evidence of global cooling that suggests an ice age could begin at any moment.
Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and climatologist Dr. Tim Ball also join in to provide a broader perspective on climate change and explain what’s missing from the established climate dialogues. The information these men bring to bear will shake you to your very foundations!
A gross body of distortion and misinformation exists about the climate dangers we are truly facing. The truth is that very few of us understand climate or weather. Most of us have taken a blind faith approach to researching these subjects. Unfortunately, this will be to the great detriment of all of humanity. In order to adequately prepare for coming changes, we need a different framework to quickly and properly understand weather and climate. Get ready to learn things you have never known before about weather, climate, and the business of climate change!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
- Related posts
- A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather (2/2): The Plot Thickens Drs. Willie Soon & David Legates reveal startling information about the forces that influence climate & weather, and the political obstruction of science. Part 2 of 2....
- The Art of Weather Meteorologist and former weather anchor Art Horn discusses climate science, global warming education, and issues central to climate change....
Loading ...
It's Rainmaking Time!™ is a show and blog that showcases new solutions and discoveries, extraordinary projects, and compelling stories. Tune in!
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Kim, thank you, as a grad student in Illinois in the late 70’s I was able to convey an understanding of basic earth science. I am hopeful that real science will triumph over cherry picking urban heat island weather stations, false tree ring research, and ignoring the sun, cosmic ray, milancovitch cycles and historic heating and cooling events.
A typical conversation with a wildlife biologist co-worker goes like this: I say I just don’t believe in the current portrayal of of climate change: She says: Don’t you care about the Polar Bears; I say; How did they survive the Medieval Warm Period? She says: I don’t know, I wasn’t there. Makes a face and walks away. Now she won’t talk to me and doesn’t acknowledge I am in the room at meetings. Now this is an educated scientist; I know this will be an uphill battle! Keep up the good work of making the facts public. No spin, just the facts.
John, thank you for your input and feedback. Don’t lose heart. Truth has a life of its own and cannot be suppressed forever. The question is how long will the deception be empowered to continue and how many people are willing to roll up their sleeves, put the politics aside and do their own due diligence without accepting the official story. We are all trained to accept official stories. It is part of our conditioning. It takes courage to be willing to look and ask yourself the questions and do your own investigation. One need not be a scientist to sort truth from fiction. Isn’t that beautiful?
The first time I heard about global warming was in the mid-1990s. It was from a very liberal activist friend of mine. It didn’t make sense to me especially based on my education in natural sciences and my experience as a field soil scientist and mapping Pleistocene glacial features in Illinois. I would hope while in graduate school at Illinios teaching Earth science laboratories that I kept an open mind to new ideas and new thoughts in my field. So I made it my hobby/mission to read scientific papers, books, analysis and reports; as much of the subject and related issues that I reasonably could and still maintain my full time job and family. I have come to the same conclusion as all you have. I also read several historic accounts, Vikings in Greenland , Little Ice Age (Brian Fagan), Patrick Michaels “Global Warming every 1500 years”, and European history in the middle ages. Written history documents and supports significant temperature fluctuations during the little ice age.
I have come to two conclusions in the past few years about the public perception and the “alarmist” agenda. First, I work with professional people who up until recently I believed were very intelligent and open minded. I was wrong, within my group of archaeologists, wildlife biologists, hydrologists, and soils specialists; only one has the presence of mind to doubt the global warming agenda. Other co-workers are somewhat indignent when I express doubt, rolling eyes, laughing, and ignoring me. The second conclusion is that unless people like you, and many others with all your experience and presence continue to make public statements and present the facts I am afraid that the “alarmist” type may have their way. Our youngest daughter had to watch “The Inconvenient Truth” 3 times in school during the year it came out with absolutely no counter opinion. What I don’t understand is Why? What is the reason they would misrepresent data, falsify papers, and in some cases, hide the truth. I just don’t get it.
I’ve even offered to buy the school a copy of the “Great Global Warming Swindle”. Of course I was refused. The high school library doesn’t even have a copy of Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear”. Probably because it portrays the extreme environmentalists as the bad guys. But they do have all of Mr. Crighton’s other book’s.
I rarely ever write in blogs, but I enjoy ICECAP.US and Dr. Ball, Mr. D’Leo, and Mr. Felix have all in different ways contributed to my education. Thank you for having this forum.
This is a fascinating discussion and I had to laugh. I am one who studied geology at a time when any mention of continental drift brought ridicule from renowned but closed minded scientists.
If I learned anything from this program, it is that one must have a working knowledge of many sciences in order to begin the understanding of global climate.
Let me say that I am a big fan of Dr. William Gray at Colorado State. It is criminal that He has seen his research grants all but dry up. Another example of a scientist knuckling under to the power of politics is that of a study by Heidi Steltzer, also at Colorado State. She is a researcher in the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory and believes that desert drying caused by global warming and recreational land use was responsible for dust storms that colored the snow red in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. There is no doubt that the fallout resulted in early snow melt last year but her conclusions are flawed. According to Dr. Lee Allison, State Geologist and Director of the Arizona Geological Survey, the dust storms were the result of high winds driving the outwash from flooding in the San Francisco Mountains of Arizona after excessive snows melted in 2008. She also failed to understand that the area of NE Arizona, where the dust storms originated, is an ancient lake bed that dates to before the creation of the Grand Canyon. That area has not and will never support the amount of plant growth that it would take to prevent dust storms. Dust storms on the Navajo Reservation were a way of life, long before coal fired power plants and automobile emissions became an issue. Ms. Steltzer’s erroneous conclusions are now being used by proponents of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009 (H.R. 1925) that would make nearly 9.4 million acres of the Colorado Plateau off limits to nearly all human activity, including mining and gas and oil production.
I sympathize with your guests and other researchers who have been ridiculed or lost funding only to have it be given to others who will spread the gospel of those with a financial or political agenda. I believe that the debate is far from over and no discipline should be shut out.
Mark, the best way to leave a comment is to engender understanding, receptivity, open dialogue and clarity.
I would like to invite you back to write a comment that is constructive & brings clarity to your point without putdowns, insults and attacks. I know that you can do this.
It is of huge interest to note that the study of Chaos came out of the study of climate.
One simply must give a look to Chaos, by James Gleick and consider the work of Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist. (Back in the 1960s.)
Lorenz had no agenda to prove; he was just a working meteorologist. He came across some things in climate that confused, then amazed him; and later other scientists.
This was the beginning of the “science” of Chaos Study.
Interesting that it was based on weather patterns — but that was just and accident. Still, its result has much to say about this current “debate”.
Lady, you wouldn’t know a “Fact” if one came up and bit you on your fundament.
We can have NO FACTS until the be-all and end-all of an event is OVER! This is a FACT!
By then it is TOO LATE to do anything about your “FACT”! Err on the side of caution!!
All else is Theory!
Please go take a course in LOGIC!!
Hi Richard,
I have heard of his book but have not read it yet. As time permits, I will get his book and read it. Thank you for commenting.
Did you ever investigate the theories of John Hamaker and Don Weaver? They agree with much of your data interpretation but come to rather different bottom line conclusions.
Regards,
Richard Pokorny
The reason ‘they’ want to tax carbon, is to effectively gain the right to tax breathing itself.
Think about it – it’s so in your face, it doesn’t seem credible – but has anyone quantified how much CO2 HUMANS produce worldwide daily?
Why WOULDN’T that be on the table?
Hi Kim, I purchased “Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps” by Robert Felix and have to say it really is a mind opening experience. The interesting “after effect” is that other books such as “The Atlantic Blueprint” by Rand Flem-Ath & Colin Wilson where mention is made of unexplained phenomenons around the globe (for which they attempt a theoretical explanation), now, suddenly make perfect sense. I also checked out Roberts information on The Carolina Bays phenomenon and The Tunguska Event, and sure enough it adds up beautifully. It’s a good feeling to see things from an entirely new perspective. Thus I endorse what you say about him. The thing is if Robert Felix is correct then we should at least consider the consequences of what may well be a far worse situation than that proposed by “The Alarmists”. That timeless man in the background of those old black & white movies holding a sign reading “Repent, The End Is Nigh”, who has survived so many disasters, may well meet his end finally…lol !!!
Remember the movie Jerry Maguire? “Help me so that I can help you”. Remember that line? I am still laughing about it. Don’t worry about taking sides or joining a camp. It is all a big trap to make sure that you don’t do your own inquiry. Don’t allow yourself to be pulled into the state of emergency. Hold your own counsel regarding ingesting all the publicly declared official statements about Global Warming & Climate Change. Try to stay calm. Don’t be afraid to ask what you need to ask and to review what you need to review.
What is important, at least in my view, is that you put Climate Change in a context that is clear and realistic and not get dragged into a feeding frenzy about it.
Right now, it is being placed into an emergency context, into a problem, into a perceived location of a stated problem. Firstly, don’t buy it. Sit with it. Contemplate it, but don’t drink it like
a new adrenalin drink. Find out if Climate Change is a cycle. Really dedicate yourself to finding out. Put it in a proper time-line and context. Find out all about the time-frames over history.
Find out what is being used to declare and affirm this stated emergency. Dedicate yourself to learning about Carbon Dioxide and try not to get pulled into a “tit for tat” on every point about Science. Find out why the sun is being totally omitted from the arena. Find out about many factors that are influencing Climate and Weather. Learn about the Deal and the Treaty. Find out about the details of that deal. Look at who is at the helm of this global deal and financing. Look at the way the urgency is being used to upset, divide, confuse and rip the public apart as if we are all going to die if this deal in Copenhagen doesn’t go through.
Be mindful what you digest in terms of stories about how we are killing the planet. Keep your own counsel. Listen to your own inner voice. With this place of poise, you will know what you need to know and have peace and dominion about it no matter what goes on in the world. Now is an important time for clear vision and poise.
The tragedy is that we become what we declare and ingest as a part of mass consciousness. If something is said over and over to the public, most of us are very often guilty of accepting it as a flat fact. We have to watch what we tell ourselves about the planet, about being sustainable and about what is really unfolding. Thank you for writing. I hope this helps.
To Ian:
From my own personal research, I’ve come up a sensible preliminary basis on which to judge the legitimacy of a source. It’s quite simple, actually, and it’s embodied by the following question:
“When confronted with a different opinion, do they offer coherent, rational answers to the questions given – or do they completely divert (or resort to slander)?”
My line of reasoning is that someone who understands the scientific basis of their perspective has the wherewithal to discuss it comfortably.
I’ve seen a startling number of climate alarmists reduce legitimate inquiry to the subject of ridicule. I fail to see how that falls into the scientific paradigm. The loudest and angriest voices are usually the least objective. (Honestly, it reminds me of Galileo’s oppression by the church.)
Not that either side is free from negativity, of course. But it seems there are many skeptical voices who are willing to discuss their perspectives and the science behind them openly and in public forums. This seems a sensible thing, as debate on ANY scientific topic should *always* be open. Unfortunately, the forums in which alarmists gather seem to be devoid of differing opinions. That simply shouldn’t be.
It will take some legwork to understand the actual science. I think one of the best things to do when you’re starting out is to try to find a counterbalance for the perspectives you come across. It will be easy to find alarmist viewpoints, but don’t assume that means they’re infallible.
It’s sad that this issue has been so skewed that people have come to confuse skepticism with ignorance, disrespect for Earth, or alignment with corporate interest. Rest assured that it doesn’t; scientists are *supposed* to be skeptical. It is NEVER wrong to question the official story and seek truth beyond politicization.
By the way, you may want to check out the second part of “A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather” and the interview with Lord Monckton as well.
By the way, it’s interesting to note how alarmists have griped about folks like Bob Felix because he’s not a scientist – yet the loudest alarmists are ALSO not scientists (i.e. Al Gore and the vast majority of people working in the budding “carbon industry”), and that doesn’t seem to be an issue. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander!
One of the problems I have is that the alarmists say one thing is a fact and the sceptics say another. I am a layman and am very interested in so called climate change but don’t know what facts to believe are true.
Help me.
I was able to steam once on the hot potato climate discussion but when I went to the second climate discussion, it locked up when I tried to stream and now I can’t stream anything from you site. Any ideas to the cause?
Tom