climate modelling

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun


To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.

Global_Climate_Model

“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?

***

We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


Notes

[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.

Dark Green XIV: Global Cooling, Bilderberg and the Oceanic Wild-Card

By M.K. Styllinski

“In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 1)  ‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.’ 2) ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes.’  To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

– Professor C. R DeFreitas | www.friendsofscience.org/


With the precautionary principle being happily brushed aside yet again via the introduction of geo-engineering into the public arena, the craziness from our so-called “leaders” has reached stratospheric levels of lunacy as the stakes get higher. Nonetheless, let’s get back to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer and his take on Pacific Decadal Oscillation which, in his view and an increasing number of scientists: “… is critical to our understanding of global warming.”

He reiterates the point that small changes can have enormous impact over time, especially regarding the presence of global cloud cover and states: “… clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), [therefore] a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more.” Not forgetting the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) – another variable natural cycle of around 60-80 years which occurs in the North Atlantic Ocean. It seems we are just starting a cool phase on that cycle too.[1] Both of these circulation patterns in our oceans have been occurring for about one thousand years.

Another theory contributing to the idea of global cooling is water vapour concentrations in the stratosphere which have decreased by about 10% after the year 2000, showing stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change – rather than carbon dioxide. Factor in low solar activity and the continuing lack of global warming for 18 years – despite CO2 concentrations – there isn’t much of climate science which is pointing to the exclusivity of global warming. Most of the recent climate models have been entirely wrong in their predictions, yet climate activists and many scientists cling to excess CO2 levels as the main driver of climate change. There is no evidence for this.

As discussed previously, the scientific facts can be spun from either side of the divide and argued into eternity until we see who benefits from the politicising. Clearly, the global warming camp and its traditional left-liberal leanings work in concert with corporate sponsorship and elite ideology which has much to gain, as we shall see in the next post. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to jump aboard with those resisting AGW advocates simply because it fits in with their conservative-corporate views and short-term greed. Coupled with institutionalised science which is as divorced from an ethical discourse as any other activity we have a very heady brew of confusion that sends the public’s collective head spinning.

2013-01-15 15.10.15 Ice Age on the way? | © infrakshun

One obvious factoid which has rarely, if ever been placed under the microscope next to climate science is the Bilderberg group’s connection. It is not simply a glorified talking shop but a place where present and future leaders determine which direction international politics should go. Such (perceived) dignitaries included Henry Kissinger, Princess Beatrice of the Netherlands, arch Zio-Con strategist Richard Perle and Bill Gates. Which is why many of us pay attention when attendees and topics for discussion are sometimes leaked from its annual meetings as they are often indicators as to how domestic and geopolitical policy is going to play out in the coming months and years.

At the 58th Bilderberg Meeting of June 2010 in Stiges, Spain, tucked away in a list of conference subjects under discussion was the mention of “global cooling.” After all the hullabaloo in media and scientific journals decrying “climate deniers” and establishing a scientific consensus on global warming, it is more than a little curious that global cooling was even on the conference agenda, especially when the AGW-led Carbon Tax is a much loved and looming policy of the very kinds of Elite present at the meeting. It is more probable that knowledge of AGW as a social engineering project is generally known by many members, some of whom were responsible for its creation. Therefore, it becomes less surprising that global cooling was given top billing since it may represent a more authentic picture of climate change in the not so distant future. What does this have to do with the picture of global decarbonisation and Carbon Tax? If CO2 is not the villain of the story – by accident or decree – and it’s a lot more complicated than the Establishment thought, then it will require some substantial tweaking of the AGW script.

Back in 2006, glaciologists were able to show data from tropical ice cores that indicated two abrupt global climate shifts. By comparing ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas a huge shift from a warm climate to a cooler regime was discovered. This occurred over 5,000 years ago along with a more recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years. It seems the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 1,000 years warmed parts of the globe and was swiftly followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA) and a sudden onset of much colder temperatures, the vanguard of which was the advance of glaciers in Europe.

It seems the rise of a warm climate followed by an abrupt descent of an Ice Age has been happening as a natural cycle not only here on earth but on other planets so it seems even more unlikely that the microscopic activities of us humans are affecting the climate in the way that AGW advocates suggest. Furthermore, instead of the much trumpeted cehrry-picked media images of ice melting and polar bears stranded on floating boats of ice, the reverse seems to be true, at least in part. Antarctica’s land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate but sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. These are two separate phenomena. A recent paper from Bristol University on the Greenland ice sheet (not ‘arctic ice’) shows that changes to the ice sheet mass indicates weather influences (shifting pressure systems in the North Atlantic, or El Niño and La Niña events) rather than anthropogenic climate changes.

Oceanography is another field very poorly understood in relation to climate change. In the 2013, August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten a two part article included academic research on solar influence as well as the mystery of the oceans which stated: “… are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.”  The journal quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark to illustrate why this is so. He explains: “How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.

The IPCC and its legion of computer modellers have assumed that AGW is an obvious fact with further increases of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 with CO2 as the cause. Yet, at the time of writing eighteen years have passed with no temperature increase and with record levels of cold being recorded over the last few years. Rather than simply a glitch in the global warming trend the decrease in temperature may indicate the underlying cause of climate change is one of cycles of global warming and cooling stretching back thousands of years.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Department of Geology, Western Washington University is one of an increasing number of scientists who think that the evidence is pointing in the direction of a global cooling trend and the onset of the “Little Ice Age.” Indeed, Professor Easterbook’s research summarised in his 2008 paper shows that: “Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.” Comparing over ten global climate changes in the last 15,000 years it is clear that: “….global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant.” The professor is certain that human CO2 input is not a factor during these ancient global climate changes since anthropogenic CO2 emissions simply weren’t on the scene during these climatic upheavals. What is more likely is that the cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was … the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.” [2]

Easterbrook spent decades studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, (GDO) which showed a pattern of glacial advances and retreats that correlated with climate records. Furthermore, the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve) also correlated with glacial fluctuations. The GDA and PDO data matched global temperature records suggesting a clear relationship. This had implications for the assumption that CO2 was the arch-culprit in anthropogenic global warming due to the fact that all but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions. In truth, the tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) is likely not the cause of the warming, but a symptom of the natural cycles which have ebbed and flowed over the past 500 years.

The professor believes the significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and the influence of sun-spot activity on global temperature is dramatic. He states: “… once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future.”

Unlike the climate modelling of the IPCC using the climate pattern which had been established for several hundred years, in 1998 Easterbrook created a temperature curve based on past natural cycles which would predict changes from this century into the next and which suggested: “… global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090.” [3]

His research has so far been vindicated since it is clear that the IPCC forecast of global climate warming of 1° F was wrong so too the measures suggested to curb AGW in the form of carbon taxes and CO2-based reduction schemes. From 2007-2008 there was a marked cooling and a continuing decrease in global temperatures with: “… NASA satellite imagery confirming that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.” [4]

100_5010© infrakshun

If the cooling is severe this could lead us into aforementioned Little Ice Age, something which has not only happened before but is likely to happen much, MUCH faster than we imagine. According to findings from a 2009 study led by UK geological sciences professor William Patterson, the earth’s climate can flip from warm to cold extraordinarily quickly.

In November 2013, a newspaper report quoted Patterson describing his research which involved hours of “scraping off layers of mud 0.5mm thick from a lake in Western Ireland” that yielded surprising results. The report went on: “Each layer represented three months of sediment deposition, so he could measure changes in temperature over very short periods. He found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake’s plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The subsequent mini Ice Age lasted for 1,300 years.” Patterson likened the speed of the arriving Ice Age as: “… the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months.” The article goes on to make the point that while this is a ‘mini’ ice age in geological terms – 1,300 years is roughly 61 generations. That’s a considerable time and something which humanity may be facing.[5]

As 2013 was the coldest year for 200 years, Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory went on record in a UK report to warn about the validity Ice Ages.  The last big freeze, or “Little Ice Age” was between 1650 and 1850 the return of which Abdussamatov is convinced we are presently on an: “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.” He further commented: “Humanity has always been prospering during the warm periods and suffering during the cold ones. The climate has never been and will never be stable.”  [6]

Predictions by scientists backed by the IPCC have included sea level increases between 26 to 81 centimetres by the end of the century. This in turn, may cause expansion of the oceans and the melting of global ice formations. Despite feverish computer modelling churning out the worst case scenarios tied strictly to anthropocentric global warming and feeding into the public belief that it is fact, the embarrassing reality for AGW experts and the IPCC is that most of the dire warnings of horror and mayhem have not come to fruition. Embarrassing that is, if you have let well-intentioned passion succumb to ill-intentioned social engineers. For example, AGW advocates offer a flurry of explanations as to why the IPCC’s projections on global temperature rises have not been met. Warming has continued but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, for instance. Those opposed to AGW believe there is not the slightest evidence for this and represents more computer modelling based on wishful thinking rather than concrete observational data.

Since minds and money were not brought to bear thirty years ago to initiate preventative measures and mitigate the effects of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere it seems we are literally between the devil and the deep blue sea. This doesn’t mean that global cooling scenario alleviates the possibility of catastrophic change. Massive implications remain for agriculture, the total breakdown of the social fabric and city infrastructure, ecological destruction and species die-off, the signs of which are already appearing – with or without an ice age. A global warming scenario compared to a new ice age might actually be preferable. It prompted US climate change scientist Franklin Hadley to say in a 2009 article for MIT: “Given how catastrophic another ice age could be, one might be tempted to ask whether a human-caused increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures will actually be a boon.” [7]

The frozen Thames 1677 by Abraham Hondius

So, what is the central issue that we need to be aware of in amongst the mire of politicised science?

Simply this: that preventative measures are being lost in favour of fake solutions which benefit only those who intend to cream off one last big financial bonanza before the globe goes belly up.

It is a horrendous truth to contemplate that there really are people out there that willingly use civilian casualties and environmental destruction to bolster their stock options at boardroom get-togethers. But it should be no surprise that massive scientific fraud and naive activism is similarly used to make big money. The Bilderbergers and other elite outfits are certainly aware of the ramifications of climate change since it is their business to analyse and predict socio-economic trends in order to load the dice toward the own plans. What is more compelling for many scientists and researchers is the reality that the weather is infinitely more complex than we ever realised and that’s without including more anomalous Earth changes and cosmological influences. There are factors that loom much larger than the idea that human beings can affect the outcome of meteorological phenomena on a scale which has been suggested.

I suspect the cosmos would laugh at such an idea…

What does appear to be true is that greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and terra firma destruction in general may have exacerbated and added to the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. In this sense, human beings are culpable. Sensible skepticism about the magnitude of greenhouses gases is necessary rather than claiming there is no validity to any of the climate theories. No one can argue that we are not collectively responsible for despoiling our planet and allowing psychopaths to rape the ecology of our minds, thus our external environment. However, once again, we must understand that science is not exempt from pathogenic infection and the ease to which the best of intentions can be subverted toward their cause.

We know there is Climate Change. We should know that there is more than a strong case that AGW and CO2 as the primary cause has been massively hyped. We also know that greenhouse gases and the ozone layer, the sun and natural cycles are all playing a crucial part. More importantly, the green spin tells us that if we adopt a host of new global economic and social laws and infrastructure changes then it will inevitably solve the problem.

It will not.

Excluding the purposeful design of control that is behind, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, SMART society and a global warming fraud, if we ushered in an Ecotopia overnight it would not change the vast processes of cyclic change of which we are a part. This is much bigger than us. Therefore, the correct preparation and preventative measures would be welcome in the face of either global warming or global cooling based on reality and away from elite centralisation.

Sadly, it is unlikely we will be able to see the wood for the trees when the very heart of the debate is compromised.

 


Notes

[1]‘The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Key to the Global Warming Debate?’ By Roy Spencer, 2008.
[2] ‘Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ By Daniel Easterbrook, Global Research, October 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Ice Age took just SIX months arrive 10-years’ Daily Mail.
[6]‘Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age.’ Daily Express.
[7] ‘Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age,By Franklin Hadley Cocks ’63, SM ’64, ScD ’65 ‘MIT News Magazine December 21, 2009.