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:
In 1949, one Professor M Ewing from Columbia University set out with a team of researchers to go and take a closer look at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Amongst other things, the team used sound echo equipment to measure the depth of the sediment on the ocean floor - something they expected to be many thousands of feet thick.
Ocean sediment is typically made up of all the millions and billions of microscopic creatures that live and then die in the oceans - called ‘foraminifera’ - amongst other things. The skeletons of these microscopic creatures very slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, and become sediment.
According to Professor Ewing, other things that add to the sediment on the ocean floor are volcanic dust, wind-blown soil and “the ashes of burned-out meteorites and cosmic dust from outer space sifting constantly down upon the earth.”
If the world was really billions of years old, as claimed, there should be miles of sediment at the bottom of the sea. But that’s not what Professor Ewing and his researchers found when they started measuring it. Writing in: “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ride” in National Geographic in 1949, Professor Ewing said:
“Surprisingly, we have found that in the great flat basins on either side of the Ridge, this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick…. Always it had been thought the sediment must be extremely thick, since it has been accumulating for countless ages (sic).
The lost continent of Atlantis, anyone?
Fast forward to July 2016, and researcher Isabel Yeo from GEOMAR's Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel took a team of researchers to the North Kolbeinsey Atlantic Ocean Ridge, around 500km off the north coast of Iceland, to start collecting detailed images of the ‘hundreds’ of deep water volcanoes - many of which are still live - scattered on the ocean floor there.
Yeo came up with a new method of photographing and dating the lava flows from these volcanoes, which are found between 7--2,000 metres below the surface of the ocean using ‘hydro-acoustic properties’.
The basic idea is that this technology hits the lava flows with sonar, and then analyses how much sound the lava flow reflects back. Yeo commented that her super-sharp images: “combined with the spatial extents of the flows, mean we can work out how much lava erupted where and when.”
As with all of these dating techniques, it relies heavily on a number of unproven assumptions, that Yeo identified in her paper presenting the findings:
“These calculations are heavily dependent on a number of assumptions including assuming that the sediment drape and the surface structure of the lava flow fields are homogeneous, that sedimentation rate is constant through time and that the effects of acoustic refraction within the sediment are negligible. Sediment thickness may be overestimated if the sediments are sandier than assumed.”
But the basic findings were still shocking enough:
Yeo found that these massive volcanic eruptions on the sea floor had all occurred within the last 4,000 years, and that the biggest eruptions and lava flows occurred 3,200 years ago.
But the sea held more secrets, too.
In 1947, a Swedish deep-sea expedition headed by H Pettersson, director of the Oceanographic Institute of Goteborg also found “evidence of great catastrophes that have altered the face of the earth.”
What did the Swedes find, to convince them of this? Here’s a small part of what they reported finding in Scientific American, in 1950:
“Nickel is a very rare element in most terrestrial rocks and continental sediments, and it is almost absent from the ocean waters. On the other hand, it’s one of the main components of meteorites.”
I.e. whenever a lot of nickel shows up, that’s usually a clear sign that a particular area or region got bombarded by a very heavy shower of meteorites.
All over the world, there is evidence that around 3,500 years ago, the ocean level suddenly and significantly dropped leading to the shorelines ‘emerging’ well over 20ft higher. Professor Reginald Daly, writing in Our Mobile Earth, said:
“Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of Eastern Australia, along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In all these and other published cases, the emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude.”
Daly thought that this came about due to a “recent worldwide sinking of ocean level”. Daly put the date for this huge upheaval at between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. This dating was subsequently confirmed by another researcher, PN Kuenen of Leyden University, who wrote in Marine Geology:
“The time of the movement was estimated by Daly to be probably some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Detailed field work in the Netherlands and in Eastern England has shown a recent eustatic depression of the same order of magnitude as deduced by Daly. Here the time can be fixed as roughly 3,000 - 3,500 years ago.”
I.e. exactly the time the Israelites left Egypt.
We’re currently in the Jewish year 5778. The Exodus from Egypt occurred in 2446.
5778-2446 = 3332 years’ ago, at the date of writing.
And you’ll recall that our Sages taught that when the sea ‘split’ in Egypt, the seas all over the world also ‘split’ at exactly the same time, which is how the nations of the world knew of the miracles that were being done for the Jewish people.
Wherever you turn, there is more and more evidence that the land became sea, and that sea became land across huge swathes of the planet, around 3,500 years ago - and that it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called ‘global warming’.
Here’s what Velikovsky has to say:
“Human artifacts and bones of land animals were dredged from the bottom of the North Sea; and along the shores of Scotland and England, as well as on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the sea, stumps of trees with their roots still in the ground were found. Forty five miles from the coast, from a depth of thirty six metres. Norfolk fishermen drew up a spearhead carved from the antler of a deer, embedded in a block of peat.”
Which dated whatever it was that submerged huge areas of Northern Europe under water to 1500 BCE - i.e., 3,500 years ago, when the Jews were leaving Egypt.
There is a huge list of locations in England and Wales which are home to recently submerged forests, which still have large trees somehow rooted to the bottom of the ocean floor, showing they were submerged only recently. These were found at:
In February 2014, a huge storm shifted a ton of sand shale off the Cornish and Welsh coasts revealing more of these ‘submerged forests’. One of the biggest forests is at Mount Bay, Cornwall, which contains a number of underwater oak, beech and pine trees, measuring between 3 and 5 metres tall.
Modern geologists grabbed the opportunity to use carbon 14 dating on the trunks, to date them - and again stunned the scientific community by coming up with a time period of between 4000 - 6000 years.
(You’ll recall from THIS article that carbon 14 dating is usually fairly accurate within the last 3,500 years or so).
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Frank Howie, Cornwall Wildlife Trustee and chair of the county's Geoconservation Group, said:
"The storms have revealed two to five metre trunks of pine and oak as well as the remains of hazel thickets with well-preserved cob nuts and acorns washed out by streams running across the beach.
All of this shows that very recently, much of what is now underwater was previously inhabited dry land. And that this massive change to the earth’s contours didn’t occur billions, or even millions of years ago.
It all happened within the last 3,500 years, i.e. well within what’s known as ‘historical’ times, and at the time that the Jewish people left Egypt amidst the huge natural upheavals that came to be known as the 10 plagues, and then received the Torah on Mount Sinai amidst more huge 'natural' cataclysms.
Like my stuff? Then please consider becoming a PATRON of spiritualselfhelp, even for just $1 a month. Click the button below.