Global Warming Or Global Freezing?
If the fear of death from a fictitious Swine Flu were not enough,
the scare stories on world media such as BBC or CNN, showing melting
icebergs are dramatic enough to cause one sleepless nights. The
Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal
while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2
emissions were causing "100 billion tons" of polar ice
to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be "ice-free".
One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting
so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters,
creating "floods affecting a quarter of the world."
Wow! That's scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam...
The publicity stunt of Ban Ki-Moon was carefully orchestrated.
It was not said that his ship could only come within 700 miles
of the North Pole owing to frozen ice. Nor that he made his stunt
in the summer when Arctic ice always melts before refreezing beginning
The reality about Arctic ice is quite different. Although some
10 million square kilometres of sea-ice melts each summer, each
September the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the
ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last
year which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September
2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see Cryosphere Today
of the University of Illinois, https://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
By next April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to
14 million sq km or likely more. As British science writer Christopher
Booker remarks, "even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this
would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a
gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass."
Sunbeams from cucumbers?
The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by
politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other
Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading
new carbon credit financial futures. They are making an all-out
effort to scare the world into a deal at the December Copenhagen
Global Warming summit, the successor to the Kyoto agreement on
CO2 emission reduction. It's been estimated that the Global Warming
bill supported by Barack Obama and his Wall Street patrons, passed
by the House of Representatives but not by the more conservative
US Senate, would cost US taxpayers some $10 trillion.
In the UK, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fully on the global
warming bandwagon, the BBC, the Royal Society are proposing wild
schemes for "climate engineering," including putting
up mirrors in space to keep out the sun's rays, or lining the
highways with artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the air, to
be taken away and buried in holes in the ground. Perhaps it would
provide make-work for a few thousand Britons unemployed by the
ravages of the recent financial collapse, but it would do nothing
else than waste taxpayer money already stretched to the limits
in bank bailouts. The entire farce has been compared to satirist
Jonathan Swift's Gulliver who meets a fictional character trying
to extract sunbeams from cucumbers.
A major new study published in the respected Journal of Geophysical
Research of the American Geophysical Union, Influence of the Southern
Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, by scientists J. D. McLean,
C. R. de Freitas of the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental
Science, University of Auckland in New Zealand and R.M. Carter
confirms that over the past fifty years, since 1950, fully 81%
of tropical climate change can be linked to the Pacific weather
phenomenon known as El Nino. And the remaining 19% they linked
to increased solar radiation. No man made emissions played a role.
El Ninos, termed by scientists El Nino Southern Oscillations or
ENSOs, are believed by climatologists and astrophysicists to be
related to eruptions in solar activity which occur periodically.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of Canada's Schroeter Institute for Research
in Cycles of Solar Activity, says ENSO is the "strongest
source of natural variability in the global climate system. During
the severe ENSO event 1982/1983, when the sea surface off Peru
warmed by more than 7° C, it was discovered that there are
strong links to weather in other regions as, for instance, floods
in California and intensified drought in Africa."
Landscheidt adds, "El Niño and La Niña are
subjected to external forcing by the sun's varying activity to
such a degree that it explains nearly all of ENSO's irregularities
and makes long-range forecasts beyond the 1-year limit possible.
This is no mere theory. My forecasts of the last two El Niños
turned out correct and that of the last one was made more than
two years ahead of the event" (Solar Activity Controls El
Niño and La Niña, in https://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm.).
Even James Hansen, one of the outspoken protagonists of the Global
Warming idea admits, "The forcings that drive long-term climate
change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future
climate change...The natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes
may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred
from comparisons with general circulation models alone."
El Ninos are linked to floods, droughts and other weather disturbances
in many regions of the world. In the Atlantic Ocean, effects lag
behind those in the Pacific by 12 to 18 months. They tend to occur
every three to eight years. La Ninas are the associated cooling
phase of the Pacific Ocean cycles.
According to the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration,
in North America, El Niño creates warmer-than-average winters
in the upper Midwest states and the Northeast. California and
the southwestern US become significantly wetter, while the northern
Gulf of Mexico states and northeast Mexico are wetter and cooler
than average during the El Niño phase of the oscillation.
In Asia and parts of Australia El Nino causes drier conditions,
increasing bush fires.
This sounds remarkably like what the Global Warming scare chorus
claims is the result of manmade CI2 emissions or as they now slyly
term it, "climate change."
Warmer 1000 years ago?
In Sweden a new study (in published by Haakan Grudd of the University
of Stockholm's Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary
Geology confirms that the Arctic today is not warmer than in previous
historical periods centuries ago before coal power plants or automobiles.
Grudd's study concludes that "The late-twentieth century
is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial
timescales, periods around a.d. 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were
equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered
on a.d. 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth
century and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate
data." (H. Grudd, Torneträsk tree-ring width and density
ad 5002004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year
reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers, Climate
Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8 / December, 2008) Put simply,
the earth was warmer one thousand years ago than today. And there
were no records of SUVs or coal plants belching CO2 into the atmosphere
The only problem with these serious scientific studies is that
mainstream media entirely ignores them, preferring dramatic scare
story scenarios such as Barack Obama presented in his UN speech
or the UN's Ban Ki-Moon in his staged Arctic ice drama.
Strangely enough, none of the Global Warming proponents that I
am aware of have tried to correlate ENSO activity with global
temperature changes. Should we instead be proposing to outlaw
El Ninos or forbid solar eruptions? It makes as much scientific
sense as banning or capping CO2 emissions. Global Warming as a
new religion is one thing, but we should be clear that the high
priests are the same Gods of Money who brought us Peak Oil religion
a few years ago and the current trillion dollar financial meltdown
known as asset securitization. The reality is that Global Warming
like Peak Oil and other scares are but another attempt by powerful
vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice that they
remain in control of the events of this planet. It's a thinly
veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian
reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while
a tiny elite gains more power.