The link between the Eddy Solar Minimum, global cooling, and the current uptick in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
The last couple of weeks, many parts of the world have been seeing record-breaking early snowfall and cold temperatures. Parts of Canada and the Northern US even got snowfall back in September, which is very unusual.
Then, there was the 5ft of snow that landed on the Swiss alps over the last three days, the foot of snow that appeared in Morocco yesterday, and also the snow that fell in Northern England – all in October, remember.
Which is where we come to something of a cognitive dissonance crossroads for most people, because just two weeks ago, the IPCC, the UN group tasked with whipping up hysteria about man-made global warming, released a report telling us we had 12 years to prevent the world from turning into a scorched, barren desert.
Global warming is happening, don’t you know, and it’s all being caused by human emissions of CO2!
But increasingly, the weather patterns that we’re all seeing with our own eyes isn’t bearing out the ‘theory’ of anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming. Yes, the climate is definitely changing – quite radically, even. But people burning fossil fuels is not what’s doing it.
And we’re not heading into a period of global warming, rather, the exact opposite.
THE EDDY MINIMUM
I know, these are bold statements to make, so what is the science that I’m basing this on?
In a nutshell, there is a different, and far more compelling, theory for climate change, which explains that the sun’s activity is cyclical. There’s an 11 year cycle, a centennial cycle, and also a bicentennial cycle which, lasts for 206 years.
During those 206 years, the sun’s solar spot activity increases, which leads to a slow but steady warming of the atmosphere down here on planet earth. And then, the sun’s solar spot activity starts to decrease, leading to a slow but steady cooling of the atmosphere.
This waxing and waning of the sun’s activity has been scientifically observed for around 400 years, or two whole bicentennial cycles.
When the sun’s solar spots start to reduce to 50 or less a year at the peak of the 11 year solar cycle (i.e. there are only sunspots on 50 out of the 365 days of the year), this is called a Grand Solar Minimum, or solar hibernation.
The last time we reached this stage in the sun’s cycle occurred approximately 200 years ago, and it was christened The Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). During the Dalton Minimum, freak weather was occurring all over the planet, the temperature dropped off radically, there were a number of massive volcanic explosions (including Tambora) and there were also a number of catastrophically large earthquakes.
And man-made CO2 was effectively nowhere to be found.
Prior to that, the Grand Solar Minimum that occurred between 1645 and 1750 (known as The Maunder Minimum) had so few sunspots, it lead to a period of time that was christened The Little Ice Age, because the weather across the globe became so arctic and cold.
Again, a huge number of volcanoes were also erupting at that time, and there were huge earthquakes occurring all over the world, including the massive Cascadia subduction zone rift of 1700.
BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING
The most recent warming part of the sun’s 206 year long cycle began around 1850. First, the planet had to recover from being in the deep-freeze of the Dalton Minimum for a few decades, and then by the early 1900s, temperatures started to rise all over the globe, vegetation started to flourish and weather patterns became much calmer and more predictable.
Just the sort of ideal conditions you need, for food to be grown in abundance and civilization to start to flourish. Which is exactly what happened. This warming trend continued up until around the year 2000, and prompted scientists to start theorizing about what was causing the ‘global warming’.
Of course, for most of these immensely intelligent brainboxes, it couldn’t be the sun that was warming the planet (or subsequently, cooling it). That would be far too simple and plebian an explanation.
And so, they came up with a new innovation called ‘man-made global warming’ a completely new theory that had no actual science to back it up, but plenty of hyperbole, and politicians eager to tap into a new way of taxing their populations.
In the meantime, just as the idea of ‘man-made global warming’ was catching on, planet earth threw Al Gore a curve ball, and stubbornly stopped heating up.
Over the last decade, the earth’s temperature has stopped rising, and since 2017, we’ve actually entered into that phase of the 206 year cycle where the sunspots decrease, and the temperature will start to drop, radically.
This latest Grand Solar Minimum has been christened The Eddy Minimum, and the coldest part of it began this year, and is set to last for another 20 years or so, until 2038.
So, there will be more snow, more cold, more frost, and it’s only going to intensify over the next two decades.
As to whether we’re going to have a relatively ‘milder’ cold snap, as occurred with the Dalton Minimum, or a much more severe and longer lasting one, leading to another ‘little ice age’, that question is currently being explored by the few (mostly retired…) honest climate scientists who are still out there.
Many of these scientists don’t live in the West, where the politicised CO2 crackpots hold sway over tenure and research budgets.
Basically, it comes down to the number of daily sunspots that will appear. If the sunspots number nearer to 50, it will be milder. If they number closer to zero (as at least one prominent Russian climate scientist believes) – it’ll be much harsher.
And we’ll have the answer to this question by 2022.
THE LINK WITH EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANOES
In the meantime, there’s another, probably even more disturbing link between Grand Solar Minimums and our planet, and that’s the effect Grand Solar Minimums have on seismic activity and volcanic eruptions.
In his excellent book, former NASA scientist John Casey and Professor Dr Dong Choi set out the clear evidence that the US’s most devastating earthquakes over the last 200 years occurred during the time of the Dalton Minimum.
The book includes a number of scientific papers – written in plain English, as these scientists have nothing to hide and are actually trying to share their research with the public – and some frankly very disturbing findings. Like this:
And, like this:
And, like this:
Absolutely no-one took them seriously.
Because the real threat to the planet is coming from plastic drinking straws, as any fule knows.
And in the meantime, Casey et al’s predictions are literally materializing before our very eyes.
MASSIVE EARTHQUAKES IN THE US
Government agencies don’t like honest scientists like John Casey, because they like to pretend that everything is under control, and that the world is 100% in human hands. That’s also why they pooh-pooh any notion that earthquakes can be forecast – even though Casey and his colleagues have rock-solid evidence showing that massive earthquakes routinely pop up during Grand Solar Minimums.
Take the New Madrid Seismic Zone, (NMSZ) for example. Last time it ruptured between 1811-1812, with a number of ginormous earthquakes estimated to be between 7-8 in magnitude, relatively few people lived in the US.
Casey’s team found that New Madrid experienced huge earthquakes every time there has been a Grand Solar Minimum, and that it has a >80% probability of being hit by a quake in the 8 magnitude range now too, between 2017-2038.
Eight states would be directly affected by this, and tens of millions of people.
But that’s not all: the oil and gas pipes that bring energy from the West Coast to the NE of America would probably also rupture, if a quake that magnitude struck. The roads would be cracked and unpassable. And let’s not even talk about whether the nuclear facilities in the area would be able to survive a disaster of this magnitude.
And that’s just one quake, in one place, that’s not even close to San Francisco or the LA Basin.
And really, we’re not talking about just one quake happening. We’re talking about multiple massive earthquakes striking across the globe’s seismically active areas, one after another, over the next 20 years or so.
No wonder it’s so much easier to talk about man-made global warming, and to focus so much time, attention and hysteria on banning drinking straws.
Massive earthquakes and volcanoes are far more scary prospects.
But if you look around and open your eyes, you’ll see that the process of global cooling and its associated period of increased geophysical catastrophes has already begun. And there’s very little anyone can do to stop it.
I'm currently reading a book by John L. Casey, who until his recent stroke was one of the few high-level NASA and NOAA scientists to actually speak about the clear links between Grand Solar Minimums, volcanic eruptions and freak weather.
This is the last interview he gave before his stroke, back in February 2018, and I guarantee you'll learn more real science in an hour of watching this then in a decade of reading the pap being put out by the man-made climate change lobby.
His book is called: Upheaval: Why Catastrophic Earthquakes Will Soon Strike the United States.
He wrote the book - with a bunch of illustrious, serious scientist colleagues - back in 2016, and as we're heading towards the end of 2018, his predictions about how the Grand Solar Minimum would affect the earth's climate seems to be spot on the money.
(Shmirat Eynayim friendly)
Two days’ ago, Dutchsinse posted up a whole, long video showing how more unexplained wildfires are breaking out within the volcanic fields of a whole bunch of the volcanos in Western USA.
The day after he posted that up on Youtube, Youtube pulled his livestream channel and blocked him.
Why did Youtube do that?
That is the question.
In the meantime, you can see that particular video above, here, and it’s shmirat eynayim friendly (as much as anything can be, considering the ads on Youtube).
Here’s a few things to toss into the mix about what may be really going on, with all the record wildfires happening across California, plus a few other Western states.
Firstly, the whole area is literally covered in volcanoes.
Some of them – 167 – are marked as officially ‘live’ by the authorities (including the Long Valley caldera, which was just raised up to ‘live’ supervolcano status when they discovered 240 sq miles of melted magma, beneath its surface).
But there are literally thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of volcanic cones and vents and also a bunch of related geo-thermal features like hot springs, geysers and mudpots, all over the Western part of the USA.
And while many of them are officially being ignored, and being marked ‘dormant’, or even dead, here’s the thing:
Even ‘dead’ and dormant volcanic fields continue to degas a whole bunch of gases and vapors into the atmosphere from the ground.
To put this another way, volcanoes don't have to be actively erupting, or actively doing anything much, to still be pumping a huge amount of diffuse CO2 and other greenhouse gases out into the atmosphere.
There’s a bunch of science to prove that, but perhaps the most simple way of proving it is this: geothermal pumping operations are going after oil, and gas extraction, and super-heated steam to turn turbines.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of geothermal ‘wells’ now drilled into huge swathes of land in the US (and also in places like New Zealand, which is also very volcanically active). Most if not all of these operations are occurring on the flanks of 'dead' and 'dormant' volcanoes (although in Hawaii, they also drilled down into the flanks of the ever-erupting Kilauea...)
And the gas they are extracting – what they actually call ‘shale gas’, or ‘natural gas’ – is mostly made up of methane.
And methane is highly flammable.
As the magma is moving below the crust – and all the earthquakes and volcanoes popping off around the whole Pacific ‘ring of fire’ right now show that magma is on the move across the globe, and is coming closer to the surface – then the volcanic gases associated with the magma will start to rise up, and degas in increasing quantities through the earth’s crust.
And everyone knows, that a single spark can ignite an explosion, or a fire, if there’s gas anywhere near it.
And the amount of gas being stored in volcanic shale, and in other of these deep rock formations, is mind-boggling – we’re literally talking about many trillions of cubic metres of methane.
How do you know this is true?
Well, why else would the fracking companies would go to such lengths to drill wells many thousands of feet down into rock, if there wasn’t some serious amounts of gas to extract and sell?
And now, that gas is coming closer to the surface, and igniting fires all over the Western US, in the volcanic fields associated with a whole bunch of volcanoes, many of which are either not even listed, or are listed as being dormant or ‘dead’.
If you’re bored and you’d like to learn a little more about US volcanoes, go and look up Mount Shasta. It last exploded around 1797 – very recent times. And it’s the USGS’s #1 volcanic risk for the US, that no-one even really talks about.
Here's what the USGS has to say about it - and it's a masterpiece of double-speak! You have to read it very carefully to understand that Mount Shasta is currently a huge eruption risk, because it's barely erupted the last few hundred years, and even the USGS admits some massive eruption is due 'every 6-800 years'.
I.e., round around now.
Now, read THIS article on how 2 of North California's volcanoes are currently listed as 'very high' threat levels by none other than the USGS, and one of them is Mount Shasta.
Shasta county was devastated by the wildfires raging a couple of months’ back.
Do you think that’s a coincidence?
Now, can you start to figure out why Youtube is trying to close down Dutchsinse?
After I'd written this, I came across a news story from a couple of weeks' ago, about a hole in the ground in Arkansas, that's been 'spewing fire' for the last month or so. You can see the full story HERE, but here's some of the key points:
While methane is being fingered as a culprit for the fire, no-one can figure out where the methane is coming from, because it's ALL NATURAL, and is coming up from volcanic gas degassing at the site. But the authorities are only exploring 'man-made' gas leaks, vis:
"Gas company Black Hills Energy, which was asked to help inspect the site, confirmed it didn't find any utility or fuel lines leaking in the area.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality also examined several underground fuel storage tanks in Midway to ensure they were sealed.
"Based on ADEQ inspections it does not appear that any of these tanks contributed to the fire," the agency said in a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette."
But I think it's kind of proving the point: more and more volcanic gas is rising to the surface, and causing 'wildfires', and methane is a the main culprit.
It’s going to be slow posting on spiritualselfhelp at the mo, as I’m still in the process of trying to figure out what God really wants from me, and where to turn my attentions next.
But I just wanted to share with you that the seismic and volcanic activity across planet earth is continuing to pick up sharply. Usually, there are between 8-12 magnitude 6+ earthquakes occurring in any 30 day period.
Between the middle of September, and the middle of October 2018, there’s been 30 6+ earthquakes striking, plus many more volcanoes erupting – including ones like Kadovar, which were listed as ‘dormant’ because they hadn’t exploded in a thousand years.
Pay attention to the news headlines about all the crazy weather and flash flooding going on, and you’ll see that many of the stories will include lines like ‘one in a thousand years occurrence’, or will tell you that the last time something as ‘dramatic’ as this occurred – whether it’s hurricanes slamming into the US, like Michael, or flash floods killing 30 people across Europe, particularly France – was in the 1800s sometime.
That’s not a coincidence.
The last solar maximum began around 1850, and we’ve had relatively benign, stable weather for the best part of 150 years, as a result. But now, we’re entering into what could very well be a severe solar minimum, and solar minimums affect seismicity, volcanic explosions, and weather, in ways that very few people are even beginning to understand.
(If you go HERE, Sacha Dobler has a very clear explanation of what solar minimums and solar maximums actually are, and some of the ways they can affect planet earth.)
So, the earthquakes and volcanoes will continue to pick up, and that will feed in to increasingly erratic weather patterns. Every time a volcanic eruption reaches up to the stratosphere, as happened with the recent eruption of Manam in Papua New Guinea, that saw a column of ash injected into the sky to a height of 50,000 feet, that can severely disrupt weather patterns.
It has to do with the sulfur particles contained in the ash, that then bind with water vapor in the stratosphere, and become what’s called ‘sulfur aerosols’ that reflect sunlight back away from planet earth.
Grand solar minimums generally coincide with much colder periods of time, and guess what? Parts of the US and Canada got their earliest snowfalls for over a century last month, and average temperatures for October 2018 already seem to be coming in on the much colder side.
We aren’t headed into a period of ‘global warming’, if anything, we are looking at a time of ‘global cooling’. And as more and more volcanic eruptions start to occur – also in the oceans, where there are an estimated 3.5 million submarine volcanoes that are barely being registered, let alone tracked for emissions of Co2 and eruptions – that’s going to lead to more crazy and erratic freak weather.
If you want to know why so many fish and marine creatures are dying off – it’s because the submarine volcanoes are erupting, and either boiling them in super-heated water or poisoning them with localized clouds of volcanic gases.
If you want to know why warm-water creatures like whales are being found swimming up the Thames – it’s because the oceans ARE getting warmer. Why? Because a lot of the submarine volcanoes that no-one talks about are erupting, and are degassing Co2 (and other volcanic gases) in huge quantities.
If you want to know why birds are dropping dead out of the sky, why aquatic fowl were found ‘poisoned’ after drinking from lakes in Winnipeg, and why rare waterspouts are forming off coastlines in so many different places at the moment – the volcanoes hold the answer.
There is much, much more volcanic activity going on – including ‘passive’ degassing of often toxic substances, from the flanks of volcanoes listed as ‘dead’ or ‘dormant’, and including geothermal springs, mudpots and geysers – than anyone official ever talks about.
But I think as we enter the grand solar minimum and more and more seismicity, volcanic activity and freak weather occurs, even the scientists will have to lift their heads out of the sand at some point, and admit that something is going on.
And that volcanoes, and not man-made carbon emissions, really hold the key to understanding our changing climate.
At the end of the last post, you saw the National Geographic sponsored video of the 'poor, starving' polar bear who is so emblematic of the 'problem' of rising CO2 levels melting all the ice in the Arctic basin etc etc etc.
Well, reader Elisheva just sent me a great link to a site that shows that actually, the polar bears of Hudson Bay and the Baffin Islands (where the 'starving' bear video was shot) actually have a different health problem to contend with, if any:
They are fat!
And some of them are positively obese!
(In polar bear terms, this is a good thing, because more fat helps to insulate them from the cold).
You can read more about them for yourself, and see more pictures HERE.
But it looks like even the polar bears are enjoying global warming.
For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.
If you’ve been following this blog’s series on ‘the false foundations of modern science’ you’ll hopefully already have picked up an inkling of how all this ‘false science’ gets established in the world.
A researcher comes up with a theory or proposal that garners a lot of attention, and / or a lot of funding, and / or a lot of ‘political clout’ (for whatever vested interest reasons) - and then they build a big career, and a big reputation, and a big bank balance defending that ‘theory’ for all it’s worth.
Depending on who else thinks their theory is a good idea (regardless of whether the real facts or true science backs it up) any opponent to this theory will then usually have their career torpedoed, their reputations publicly trashed, and their credibility tarnished at every turn.
It takes a very strong person indeed to stand up to people who are ‘religious’ about their scientific beliefs, and who will stoop to any tactic to ensure that their version of events, and their interpretation of data is the only one the public ever gets to hear about.
We’ve seen this tactic play out with macro-evolution, with geology, with the infamous ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for mental illness, and now, we’re going to take a look at one of the biggest ‘false science’ scams of modern times: climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
The first thing to note is that climate change is real, and is happening all the time. There is no doubt that some parts of the planet are hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier etc than they were a few decades, or a few centuries ago.
No-one is really arguing about that.
But where the rub comes is that while the pseudo-scientific community - with Al Gore and ex-president Obama at its head - is loudly proclaiming that PEOPLE are to blame for the changing climate, and especially FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PEOPLE, the actual science paints a very different picture.
Before we continue, remember that so much of what we think is ‘proven’ in so many fields of science actually really isn’t. Also remember that vested interests manipulate us via the media into believing things that really aren’t true, for their own agendas and aims.
Between 2010 and 2013, the US government alone paid climate change researchers $64 billion. A lot of scientists, a lot of politicians, and a lot of companies have their fingers in that very big pie. Climate change is big business and great for your scientific career, if you happen to be ‘sounding the alarm’ on climate change.
But what’s really going on, what’s really causing climate change, and how did we get to this place where so many people are panicking over Co2 emissions? Read on.
CARL SAGAN AND THE VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY
Carl Sagan was a professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, and in 1974 he renewed official science’s attack on Immanual Velikovsky, and his ‘ridiculous’ theories that Noah’s flood actually happened, the bible’s account was literally true, and that the world had been shaken to its core a number of times in the last 8,000 years, due to ‘action at a distance’ events with enormous planet-sized comets.
So many of Velikovsky’s theories have subsequently been validated by science over the last 70 years since he wrote them, including his claim that Venus would be found to have a scorchingly hot temperature, due to it being a very new addition to the solar system.
(Velikovsky suggested that Venus only became a planet in our solar system within the last 3,500 years or so. Before that Venus had been the ‘comet’ responsible for wreaking utter havoc on the earth and the moon - as described in innumerable ancient sources and as evidenced by the geological record - and which had also stripped planet Mars of its atmosphere and water on one of its fly-bys.)
Of course, the suggestion that such cataclysmic things might have occurred within the modern age, or that all the theories of the world being many billions of years and uniformly ‘stable’ were anathema to the open minds of modern scientists like Sagan, so they used any tool they could to discredit Velikovsky and his ‘theories’.
The first space probe, Venera 7, successfully landed on Venus on December 15, 1970. It remained in contact with Earth for 23 minutes, relaying surface temperatures of 455 °C to 475 °C (855 °F to 885 °F). Before this information was discovered, Sagan and other NASA scientists were confidently predicting that Venus would have an ambient temperature akin to earth’s.
When the NASA probe reported back the shocking information that Venus was scorchingly hot - just as Velikovsky had predicted - Sagan et al went into damage limitation mode, and came up with the VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS theory.
Scientist Charles Ginenthal wrote a whole book deconstructing this hugely deceitful and fraudulent ‘theory’, but here’s the crux of the matter (as explained by a reviewer):
“Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings.
And NASA is still doing its best to try to link Venus with faulty climate change theories for earth, as this story from last year shows:
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable
Remember, false assumptions and beliefs in one area of science inevitably give rise to other false assumptions and beliefs, as this little snippet clearly demonstrates. The same ‘science’ that is telling us Venus is billions of years old is telling us that humans are responsible for disastrous climate change.
STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN
Even though Sagan’s greenhouse gas theory has subsequently been discredited for Venus, it sadly put down very deep roots in the nascent field of ‘climate change science’, as we shall see.
One of the main people pushing the issue of climate change was the so-called ‘father of climate change’ James Hansen. He bought Sagan’s false theory of greenhouse gases hook, line and sinker.
The following quote is from Hansen’s book called“Storms of My Grandchildren” end of chapter 10, The Venus Syndrome:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
How’s that for unparalleled scientific rigor? Hansen appears to have proven that the only reason Venus is a hot, barren hell-hole of a planet it because human beings were burning tar on it at some undefined time in the past…
This is the same person who wrote this in 1981:
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
And here’s what he told Congress in 1988:
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere.
Unperturbed by the lack of evidence to support his theories, Hansen has continued to churn out alarming soundbytes and scary quotes for the last 40 years’ or so, like:
“Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise.
Sadly, the internet is chock-full of quotes from Hansen along these same lines, but I picked these four out to show a few recurring themes:
1) Hansen’s language makes clear that anyone burning fossil fuels is akin to a Nazi, which seems to be an exaggerated comparison, even if you ARE a big believer in human-induced climate change.
2) This is much more about emotive propaganda than hard science.
3) There’s loads of false suggestions contained in these few sparse quotes.
Uh, really? Burning coal is giving my kid asthma? Where’s the studies that show that’s true? Uh, really? Natural disasters are being caused by burning fossil fuels? Where’s the scientific evidence for that big statement? Uh, are you sure that Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that this was known since the 1800s?
The ‘proof’ for that last statement, as referenced by the NASA website on climate change, amounts to this:
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Over on the website climatechange.org, a headline from May 2013 screams:
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
It seems to be completely lost on the author of this article - and the many climate change scientists he quotes (more on that in a moment) that if this is true, then human beings burning fossil fuels is clearly not the cause of climate change on planet earth…
But these are the types of obvious arguments that false science can never seem to wrap its head around. So instead, you get told pseudo-scientific guff like:
“While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
Once again, we see how the false beliefs in one field of science sow more false beliefs in other areas.
Climate change scientists make huge assumptions that ‘the rate of change taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past.’ But this simply isn’t true! Every time they drill more ice cores, they are presented with the EVIDENCE that the climate has changed rapidly in the very recent past. For example, this comes from the British Antartic Survey website:
Abrupt climate changes
Again, note all the usual assumptions about these changes ‘only’ happening in the ancient past, because modern science teaches that the world has been stable for millions of years (despite all the evidence they keep turning up that this patently untrue…) There’s no evidence for these statements, they are just beliefs.
And while we’re on the subject of ice-cores, this (from the NASA climate change website) explains how they date those things, again using the same assumptions that weather patterns have always been the same for millions of years:
“How old is the oldest ice core—and how do we know it’s that old?
Again, even a cursory reading of this paragraph tells you that the ‘science’ being used to date these ice cores is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions about the world always working the same way - which again flys in the face of the actual evidence on the ground.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR GLOBAL COOLING?
The last thing to share with you in this first post on climate change is that back in the 1970s, scientists started ‘alarming’ the world that the next Ice Age was imminent. Back in 1975:
Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it." On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".
In the 1980s, with James Hansen at the helm, the alarm about ‘global cooling’ gave way to an even more impassioned alarm about ‘global warming’. So what’s really going on? This comes from the Friends of Science website:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
In other words, the planet’s temperature is oscillating all the time, and there is no ‘unusual’ warming going on right now.
(I’m kind of ruining my own production here, but go check out the Friends of Science webpage called ClimateChange 101, as it presents a lot of useful information in a very easy-to-digest way: http://www.climatechange101.ca/)
THE MAIN POINTS SO FAR:
The scientific establishment is so wedded to the false idea the world is billions of years’ old, and that the earth’s climate has been ‘stable’ for millennia (even though both ideas are patently false), that they have consistently discredited any evidence that suggests that:
But I know, ex-President Obama said this about climate change:
“Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”
And no-one could accuse him of manipulating the public with mass-produced, deceitful soundbytes that didn’t stand up to any real scrutiny…..
So in the next post, we’ll take a look at the nuts and bolts of the ‘false science’ - and outright lies - that’s propping up the befuddled theory of climate change.
Again, no-one is claiming that climate change isn’t actually happening - that’s a straw man.
What is being very seriously debated is: