by Peter Holleran
"I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we cause global warming or that we can fix it."
- climate researcher
Be afraid, be very afraid:
”The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface. Expeditions have sailed as far as 81 degrees 29 minutes north in ice-free water. The eastern Arctic has steadily gotten warmer, and today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of about 50 years ago. Many old landmarks have changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. Formerly the waters around Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15 degrees, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the arctic.”
- Washington Post
Seems like a slam dunk for global warming, doesn’t it? Only thing is, this was 1922, not now! Apparently the Arctic has melted and re-frozen throughout history. And, as of 2007, a report (1) showed that the northern ice has returned to within 1% of normal, while the Southern ice has increased overall. Yet since then, remarkably, we have been bombarded with new information declaring a dramatic and shocking increase in warming in just the past few years - supposedly due to man-made CO2 gases alone. One must ask and investigate, is this believable? Perhaps it is time to slow down and take a broad look at the evidence, as well as the long view, rather than shout, "the time for talk is over, we must do something now!," as some top climate change promoters have been doing, in classic crisis-reaction-solution fashion.
Just by way of introduction, NASA findings covering the years 1975-2000 showed the ice at the poles of Mars decreasing by hundreds of miles a year - and there are no SUV's on Mars. NASA said that this 'global warming' was in fact happening in every
planet of the solar system - due to the highest solar activity in 8000 years. They found that three ice spots on Jupiter had disappeared, and that the atmospheric pressure as far out as Pluto had increased by 500%. So might any concurrent Earth warming also be due to 'solar system warming'? As we shall see later, Richard Hoagland, based on these NASA findings, argued for this very thing. Further, many while not necessarily going this far do maintain that solar cycles due to sun spot activity are the major cause of changes in earth temperatures - and fairly predictable. Further, there are changes happening on earth that are not in line with normal or man-made climate changes, such as a 500% increase in volcanic activity since 1875, and a significant increase in warming on the bottom
of the oceans. (Hint: heat rises, so it can't be coming from the top). Therefore, let us now reason together.
The issue is, do we really face global warming, and if there is, is it abnormal, and caused by man-made CO2 emissions? Or is that a scare story to herd us further into a globally controlled and heavily taxed society, partly via a process affectionately called by some, the ‘greening of the reds’? Let us consider the matter. No doubt there are plenty of heavily polluted cities, and air quality is important. We are all for cleaning up the environment - but not because it is caused by man-made global warming. Yes, no good at all in chopping down the CO2-eating and O2-producing rain forests for disposable chop sticks or McDonald’s grazing land, or disrespecting natural earth-grids and sacred sites (and their role in the health of the planet's own magnetic field, and hence free energy potential), or littering the land and sea with plastic bags, but is the entire globe in grave danger of over-heating from man's carbon imprint? We will first enter at length, albeit barely dipping our toes, into the 'Matrix' of conflicting views via a synopsis of several recent articles, then delve deeper, as few have done, into examining the more 'esoteric' dimensions of the issue, and finally summarize key points. While on the surface appearing as in part as a political-scientific analysis, this essay may more rightly be thought of as "a perspective on the World-Idea, or the manifest intelligence of the One Great Mind behind all things, in relation to an important concern for the times we live in." We realize the issue is a sensitive one, yet the reader is kindly asked to hold his opinions until the end, after all arguments are laid bare, especially as this kind of information is often suppressed and rarely if ever debated in a balanced, open forum.
To be somewhat blunt, there is so much misleading and in some cases just plain dumb politicized
(don't miss this one minute video) and monetized ($$) climate science out there (Over $2 billion a year, a huge increase over previous decades), and inasmuch as we have been lied to about many other things by professionals with their bread and butter tied to confirming the conclusions of their funders, it is not unreasonable to suspect the same holds true for the 97% or whatever is put forth as the number of similar global warming ‘experts’, or rather scientists, whip support the thesis of man-made global warming. Who pays the climatologists’ salaries? How many would remain employed if they published contrary information of their employer’s agenda/philosophy? Forget that after the last major conference on the Kyoto Protocols 4000 world-reknown scientists signed a petition declaring that the science did not back up the global warming claims, in 1998 17,000 signed the Oregon petition denouncing the same, while in 2008 an even larger number - 31,000, including 9000 PhD's - threatened to sue in a court of law over climate fraud. All such groups have been marginalized and refused a chance for debate, with repeated assertions that there is near unanimous agreement among climate scientists, and the "time for debate is over." But in fact, the claim about "97% of scientists" is a fraud; even the Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” A Forbes headline read “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.” It started with one man’s review of climate articles in which he found few mentioning warming and none mentioning man as a cause. Somehow NASA spun that into “97% of scientists agree.” Totally false. First, 97% or more scientists were never polled about their opinion, but even they were, thousands disagreed on the theory.
A new analysis came out today (10-28-20) by two prominent scientists, one a physicist, comparing the pressures between water vapor and CO2 and concluding there can be no more CO2 warming. Of course this paper was not accepted by any establishment climate publications.
Just consider. In a second article called “The Hungry Sea
” from the San Francisco Chronical dated Jan. 20, 2013, we read:
“The rate of sea-level rise has doubled since 1990; it is expected to accelerate with the rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets. Greenland set a record for melting in July. Arctic Sea ice has reached a record low in September.”
[Is this true? A real record low would be zero ice, and the Arctic Ice has melted many many times throughout history, as recent as the 1920’s, as we have seen. Could this be a problem for those who have built on the coastline? Probably. But is it all on account of CO2 emissions? Not likely, as will be shown. For that matter, in the 1970’s scientists were seriously worried about global cooling
, and auto emissions and factory pollution are a lot cleaner now than they were then. Remember the threat of ‘acid rain’? Even that is less of a problem. The Hudson River and Lake Erie are being cleaned up. Furthermore, a report in 2010 had shown that melting of Greenland glacier ice had returned to a level of a decade before, and, even more importantly, it should be noted that the eastern Antarctica ice (90% of the world's total ice) is four times larger than that of the west - the highest on record - and is increasing, more than making up for any melting there. Moreover, the continent overall is experiencing a decades long cooling. Al Gore warned in 2007 that the Arctic ice would be totally gone in seven years; the truth is that the ice sheets are 43%-63% greater since then. This ‘authoritative’ article continues:
“Carbon Dioxide concentrations are the highest they’ve been in 15 million years
[Is that so? 15 million years? how do they know that?], according to a World Bank report
[a credible source of course], “Turn Down the Heat,” that last month summarized research. At today’s emisions rate, the planet could
[Notice, ‘could’ - a lot of things could
happen] warm by 4 degrees centigrade by the end of the century, an event “unknown in human experience, the report said.”
[Is that so? says who? how do they know that? how far back are they analyzing?] "The coolest months of the year will be “much warmer” than the warmer months now.”
Now, 4 degrees Celsius would be significant, but global temperature, according to NASA's own statistics from its Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), has increased only 0.36 degree Fahrenheit since 1979 - with the majority of that between 1979 and 1998! Temperatures have actually decreased
by 1.08 degrees. There has been cooling for seventeen years, with many sources predicting more of the same for the foreseeable future - as had happened many times in the past.
Continuing with the article, the writer warns of ‘increasing heat waves’ (as opposed to actual record cold in 2010, and as currently predicted for 2014-2015) - as well as ‘superstorms’, citing hurricane Sandy in 2012 as 'conclusive' proof. Moreover, we are warned that there is another ‘threat’ of mass ‘species extinction’ because of the rising temperature - when we were told for years that it was sudden Ice Age that flash-froze Wooly Mammoths, etc., or that a comet destroyed the dinosaurs. Man certainly didn't do it. Many forces were responsible for these species disappearing. Compared to ages past, the Earth is relatively stable now. To send SWAT teams to confiscate a farmer's land because of the discovery of an endangered newt on a patch of wetland on his property does not seem warranted! Yet this kind of thing has happened more often than one may imagine.
How very convenient to extrapolate new models from just a few years data. Or to do as the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has been doing: substituting actual temperature readings with those fabricated by computer models.
By the way, the UN’s IPCC was caught presenting the data for the 16 years approximately 2000-2016, which had showed global temperatures FLAT, so they shipped the ‘problem’ out to the NOAA which recalculated them with ‘computer modeling‘ to show an increase. Real data shows a slight warming trend the past few years, but nothing major.
The table below reports the average mean temperature in the continental U.S. for the years 1998 through 2019*:
1998 54.6 degrees
1999 54.5 degrees
2000 54.0 degrees
2001 54.3 degrees
2002 53.9 degrees
2003 53.7 degrees
2004 53.5 degrees
2005 54 degrees
2006 54.9 degrees
2007 54.2 degrees
2008 53.0 degrees
2009 53.1 degrees
2010 53.8 degrees
2011 53.8 degrees
2012 55.3 degrees
2013 52.4 degrees
2014 52.6 degrees
2015 54.4 degrees
2016 54.9 degrees
2017 54.6 degrees
2018 53.5 degrees
2019 52.7 degrees
*National Climate Report – Annual 2019
Let us state flat out that even the W.H.O. is on record recently in 2020 as stating that Covid is mainly about a global reset based on climate change. This is also discussed in the book Watermelon (“red on the inside, green on the inside.” A couple of decades earlier there was a similar warning in a book called The Greening of the Reds.
The oceans aren’t warming, they aren’t getting more acidic - still basic in pH and salty. Yes, they are rising, and have been rising 3mm (~0.12 inch) a year since the last ice age. That’s about an inch every ten years, or a foot every hundred years. Hardly enough to justify headlines saying we only have twelve years until doomsday. Certain land masses like New City are sinking, moreover, accounting for some apparent rise in specific locations. And polar bears are doing fine according to the polar bear experts. They should be, having adapting to climate for several million years.
Let us put on our thinking caps and look at some contrary information. Firstly, is CO2 as big of a problem as they are maintaining? Repeat something often enough and authoritatively and the average person will believe. Thinking hard is painful. So first we will look at a few more summary articles. Here is a recent one (2), introduced at the outset, outlining the mathematical signifance of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, called "The Arctic Seems To Be Warming Up
", by Brian Maher:
”The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.....There they go again. Hasn’t the bien-pensant crowd at the Post heard of Climategate or the Himalayan glacier row or the admission by Phil Jones that there has been no statistical global warming since 1995? But wait, let’s check the date on that article. Hmmm, the above passage appeared in the Post – on November 2, 1922! Yes, that’s right, 1922, long before any gas-guzzling SUV roamed the earth. How can that be? Wasn’t the Arctic gliding along in a perpetual state of cryogenic bliss until man turned up the thermostat in the mid to late twentieth-century? Isn’t the late twentieth century warming unprecedented?”
“No, not quite. The Arctic is apparently highly sensitive to changing climatic conditions, regardless of their origin. Scientists know the region was toastier from 1920 - 1940 than it is now. They also know it was significantly warmer in the more distant past. Blaming any of these past warmings on man would strain the very limits of credulity. These changes are cyclical, and often pronounced, as the introductory passage strongly suggests. The point being, the late twentieth century warming was in no way a singular event worthy of mass hysterics.”
“The science is extraordinarily recondite and quite beyond my grasp. Unless you have an advanced degree in physics or chemistry, it’s probably beyond yours as well. It is with a layman’s ear that I have followed the global-warming debate. I base my skepticism on some basic premises.”
“Foremost among these is the fact that carbon dioxide is but a trace gas representing a vanishingly small 0.04% part of the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide man adds to the atmosphere each year is a small fraction of that, about 3%. Nature cycles nearly twenty times as much into and out of the oceans each year. We only add one molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere every five years. A doubling of CO2 would only increase the greenhouse effect by about one percent. One percent. Imagine if you will the atmosphere as one hundred cases of one-liter bottles, or 2,400 one-liter bottles. Out of those one hundred cases, ninety-nine aren’t even greenhouse gases and are therefore irrelevant to our purposes. Just one case out of one hundred actually represents greenhouse gases. Out of that one case that represents greenhouse gases, only one bottle out of twenty-four represents carbon dioxide – the other twenty-three are mostly water vapor. Out of that one bottle that represents carbon dioxide, only about fifty ml represents mankind’s annual contribution, about a shot glass worth. So out of our theoretical atmosphere of 2,400 liters, we’re responsible for about a shot glass worth of CO2 emissions. Or if you imagine the atmosphere as a 100-story building, man’s CO2 concentration amounts to the linoleum on the first floor.”
“Yet this piddling amount is predicted to send this lugubrious ball on a gadarene rush towards a runaway global warming that will bring industrial man to his condign ruination.Color me skeptical. I contend that if the climate was that sensitive to moderate increases in a trace gas essential to life, we probably would not be here today. The whole darn thing probably would have jumped the rails long ago. Yet here we are. I simply do not believe we stand so precariously on the devil’s shovel.”
“I believe that the climate system is extraordinarily resilient and perfectly capable of accommodating modest increases in a trace greenhouse gas. We’re currently at about 388 ppm. Plants shut down at about 150 ppm. They thrive at 1,000 or more ppm. This planet has sustained CO2 levels twenty-five times or greater than we experience today. Historically, CO2 levels appear to share very little correlation with temperature
[Note: historically, they follow
upon periods of global warming, not preceding or causing it; i.e., the oceans warm, and like a soda bottle release CO2 into the atmosphere]. I do not think that CO2 levels of 500 or 600 ppm have ever posed, or are capable of posing, any credible threat to the environment. I believe the burden rests on those who disagree to demonstrate otherwise. To date they have failed to do so.”
“It is important to first note that CO2’s effect on temperature is logarithmic. It is counterintuitive, but its effect on temperature actually decreases with increasing amounts. The chart below illustrates the relationship between CO2 and temperature. If we assume pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to be about 280 parts per million, then the first 20 ppm produced half of that warming, while the second half required an additional 260ppm. Most of the warming potential of carbon dioxide had already been realized when its level in the atmosphere reached about 280 ppm. As you can observe, doubling or even tripling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have little effect on future temperature by itself. SUV drivers, take heart! Your emissions are destroying the environment at a decreasing rate.”
“Even strident AGW proponents agree that doubling CO2 levels by itself would only lead to a temperature increase of about one degree or so. This is not generally disputed. What is hotly disputed – pun intended – is how earth’s feedback mechanisms have been reacting to the initial CO2 warming. Therein lay the great controversy at the heart of the scientific debate, which does assuredly exist despite some rather self-serving claims to the contrary. Those in the alarmist camp believe CO2’s initial warming impetus has been producing greater water evaporation from the surface, which is accumulating in the atmosphere since warmer air can hold more water vapor. This is no small matter since water vapor is about one hundred times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide in the altogether. It is theorized that this increase in water vapor has resulted in more warming, which has lead to the release of more water vapor, which will lead to more warming, etc., which will ultimately lead to all species of environmental calamity.”
“This is the central thrust of the alarmist argument. Virtually all working IPCC models assume a net positive feedback from CO2, which is why most produce a strong warming bias. Yet surprisingly there are no real-world observations to support this assumption. Positive feedbacks no doubt exist. But the thing is, so must negative feedbacks, and it is these that the models – or their tendentious programmers – tend to pooh-pooh. Apparently, a one percent change in cloudiness can account for the entire warming of the twentieth century. A ten percent increase in low-level clouds could completely negate the warming effects of a doubling of CO2. Even such seeming minutiae as the width of water droplets in clouds can evidently influence climate. Smaller droplets that reflect more solar radiation can reduce warming estimates dramatically. Models can’t begin to represent this sort of complexity.”
“Some studies suggest that an enhanced greenhouse effect will result in a more efficient rain cycle with decreased precipitation, ironically. And lower temperatures. But these conclusions are admittedly theoretical. What is not theoretical is that the climate is a system of gothic complexity that we’re only beginning to understand.”
“More importantly, the observational record has proven rather unkind to the alarmist cause. Earth should be experiencing much greater warming if the climate was as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models suggest. In point of fact, temperatures have been flat or falling for over a decade despite steadily rising CO2 levels, which would imply an overmastering negative feedback. There’s almost no correlation since 1998. A nice point to put somewhere.”
“Once again I am not a scientist, but I believe that natural forces, especially solar cycles and oceanic circulation cycles, likely account for most of the twentieth century’s climatic variation. Alarmists have attempted to absolve the great fireball in the sky but many scientists contend that these critics have underestimated the sun’s role by at least a factor of two. Maybe even ten.
Does this explain everything? No, probably not. There are myriad factors at play, many of unknown strength. The role of aerosols is apparently a great uncertainty, for example. Methane is another, although atmospheric levels appear to be relatively stable. A weak anthropogenic CO2 signal is probably hidden somewhere in the noise, as well. Few claim that CO2 plays no role whatsoever.”
“But Occam’s Razor suggests that the natural combination of solar activity and changing oceanic circulation patterns have been the primary factors driving climate over decadal scales at least. This theory should have been the working hypothesis for any serious inquiry. In a violent wrench of logic the IPCC alighted upon CO2.”
“The very name IPCC is highly instructive. If the objective of that august body was merely to understand climate it would have been named the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Studies, or some such, not the ideologically freighted International Panel on Climate Change. Its mandate was clear from the outset. The culprit was immediately fingered – mankind. A show trial ensured his guilt.”
“Urgent action was of course necessary. By happy coincidence, the weaponry required to slay the multi-headed hydra of climate change were readily available... centralized economic planning, taxation, wealth redistribution. All on a global scale, no less.”
"Wouldn’t prudence demand a cautious approach to determine the scientific validity of these claims before committing the nation to an irreversible loss of economic sovereignty and a whopper of a tax increase that may prove completely unnecessary?”
“I close with an oft-cited but highly apropos gem from the great Mencken. You’re probably familiar with it but I think it’s just so fitting: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Few things alarm more than environmental catastrophe.”
In front of me now is the current (April 2013) special edition of Time magazine called "100 New Scientific Discoveries", and a section entitled, "Last Days of the North Pole?"
"...the estimated minimum extent of summer ice was reached on Sept. 16, 2012...continuing a long term trend dating back at least until satellite records of the Arctic began to be kept in 1979."
A 'long term trend'? Since 1979?! Excuse me if I am stupid, but also note the journalistic exploitation of the terms "the last days" so commonly bandied about recently by those in love with the Mayan calendar or the Book of Revelation. The article continues"
"Melting Arctic ice doesn't add to the global sea level (it's already floating
- duh!), but it's a sign that climate change is accelerating."
Arctic sea ice melts every summer and refreezes every winter, but the fear now is that the sea will be ice-free in the summer by the end of the decade. Even if it happens, is there any good reason to assume it will be that way forever? But couple such a scare with a photo of a polar bear floating on a patch of ice, and our heart strings are touched at the seeming tragedy. "Save the bears!," the cry goes out. Except that the number of polar bears today (25,000) is far greater than there were in 1973 (only 5000), and they apparently are intelligent and adaptable also: the majority live on and around Hudson's Bay, where they hunt seals in the winter when the ice there freezes, and are frequently seen walking the streets of Churchill in upper Manitoba during the summer (which is far below
the Arctic Circle), where residents place nails in front of their shops and houses for protection, and school children receive “Let’s All Be Bear Aware” booklets to bring home (see Never Look a Polar Bear in the Eye
, by Zac Unger). Which would we value more worth saving anyway: the polar bears, or the seals? Quite a dilemma, when we dare to meddle.
Further, if Arctic sea ice melting doesn't add to the global sea level, Antarctica sea ice won't either. So then the fear is posed that, not melting Antarctica sea ice, but the melting of the Antarctica ice sheet itself will cause global sea levels to rise. The figure given is that such melting is responsible for 10% of the global rise in sea levels. If that is in fact true (which it isn't - the ice sheet on the shelf itself is about the same if not a bit more than before), a new finding, however, sheds possible light on man not being the only cause of said melting: a 'Grand Canyon' of Antarctica has purportedly been discovered, but caused by continental rifting
, not man, which it is feared opens a path for warmer sea water to seep into the center of the Antarctica ice sheet between the bedrock and the ice, possibly causing an increasing rate of melting. This is a geological change, however, so how then to judge man's imprint there?
Another fear expressed is that man-made CO2 emissions, when absorbed into the oceans where they form carbonic acid, are causing a rise in the acidity of the oceans, which may eventually present a danger to important species in the food-chain such as plankton and coral, causing their carbonate shells to dissolve. This one is really mind-boggling.
"Scientists now believe that the rate of change in ocean acidity is occuring faster than it has for 300 million years
[picking a nice round number we can all understand]. And the pace of acidification will likely only accelerate in the next century....and we have a word for what happens when species can't keep pace with environmental change: extinction."
As usual, the devil is in the details. I am not a professional scientist, but I have had high school biology and chemistry, which may be enough. Were not we taught that sea water - i.e., salt water - is basic
on the pH scale, and not anywhere near acidic
? Yes. In fact:
"The normal present day pH of seawater is more on the basic side between 7.9 – 9.0. At this pH the HCO3 ions predominate. Carbonate ion concentrations increase with increasing pH
and when more CO2 dissolves in seawater it becomes more acidic. When CO2 from the atmosphere reacts with seawater, it immediately forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), which in itself is unstable. This further dissociates to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The bicarbonate and carbonate ions are responsible for the buffering capacity of seawater, i.e. seawater can resist drastic pH changes even after the addition of weak bases and acids. The carbonate ion can react with calcium ions (Ca), which are in excess in seawater, to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the material out of which the shells of mussels, the skeleton of corals and the exoskeleton of some microalgae is made of."
If I read this correctly, not only is the carbonate ion not
a cause of acidity, but it is needed to build the carbonate shells of sea creatures! This information raises several important questions. One, exactly what is the purported 'accelerated rate of change in ocean acidity'? If it is slight that is important to know, for perhaps it is a normal variant. Two, how do we know it is due solely to man-made CO2 absorption? Three, how do we know it is 'likely only to accelerate in the next century'? And last but not least, does anybody have the slightest idea what kind of catastrophic atmospheric changes would be required to neutralize the pH of the ocean to make it acidic (under 7.0) ? Armageddon most likely!! Here we see fear once again: "Species extinction". Yet Australian paleontology research has shown that coral, etc., was very abundant in ages past when the Earth's atmosphere had 2-7 times as much CO2 as now, and temperatures 10-15 degrees higher.
Interestingly, there seems to be a hidden circularity here: an increase in global warming would actually lead to a release
of absorbed CO2 from the oceans - which is the historic pattern, warming having preceded CO2 increases - and thus reduce
the ocean's 'increased acidity'. Fortunately, green plants of all kinds love CO2 as well as warm temperatures. And as for question number three above, the authors of this piece state that birthrates and fertility are dramatically decreasing worldwide, which should decrease energy usage and its attendant CO2 emissions, thus helping to eliminate the perils of 'likely accelerated climate change in the next century'!
So the hue and cry for global cap and trade laws, carbon taxes (especially onerous for developing nations), fall to a large extent on deaf ears. And what about methane? Is that harmless? No. Then why is there not a protest against huge factory farms and cattle feedlots, a source of both significant air and ground water pollution? In fact, there is. While admitting that CO2 emissions at present are not a cause of global warming at all
, due to their simultaneously emitting aerosols which have a compensatory cooling effect - but not
willing to go out on a limb and forego saying that they might
be a cause in the future, nor apparently willing to reject the idea of policing CO2 with global laws and taxes - a pro-vegetarian group
"Earthsave" argues that methane is
a many times greater green-house gas pound for pound than CO2 (also threatening us with species extinction), and presumably would like to tax meat-eaters. This is still hard to justify as a cause of dire global warming: it seems that fewer people are eating as much beef in the developed nations today as a few decades ago, and again we would face an end-run around national sovereignty that risks a greater evil of tyranny. This was probably on the mind of the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, author of Compassionate Capitalism
, who recently said in a conference on that very theme (and was condemned for doing so) that "global warming is not significant." A better course might be to find a way to harness methane for energy use while people slowly transition to vegetarianism by free choice. Then we can figure a way around the not insignificant problem of what to do with the billions of farm animals that have been under domestication for 10,000 years. Sterilize them all and thus breed them out of existence? That would be what? - species extinction. But that's one of the things we were trying to prevent!
, however, an important methane connection. It is paradoxical, but recent research argues forcefully for a return to large numbers of free grazing herds of cows, cattle, and sheep, which, contrary to huge confined and cruel factory farm lots for meat and dairy production (“which release more amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire global transportation industry
"), lead to the breakdown of methane and the absorption of carbon by the animals trampling of the grasslands and also fertilizing it, as well as the prevention of desertification due to the increase in moisture that brings, and less ground water pollution from viruses as well as antibiotics and hormones used in commercial meat production. Along with this is a need to do away with the subsidizing of corn and soy bean crops, which are a large culprit in destruction of the native grasslands, as well as poor health (corn leading to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes via the tremendously increased use of fructose in the diet since the 1980's). "According to estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world’s barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels.
" The humane thing to do, then, would be to free large numbers of animals, which have general protection from predators due to the size of the herds, and let them live their natural lives. This might mean restoring the buffalo, and reducing cattle less adapted for cold winters on the plains. A fascinating article
tells the story.
Strong arguments have been made that the factory-farm mass-feedlot system of animal raising is responsible for the majority of both our water usage as well as energy consumption. It has been estimated that a person eating a veggie burger and driving a Hummer will use less fossil fuel than someone eating a BigMac and driving a Prius. And that not showering for SIX MONTHS would only save the same amount of water as would be saved by not eating one pound of beef. Check out this data
and make up your own mind whether it is fact or factoid.
As William Bendix from the 1950’s TV show The Life of Reilly used to quip, “My mind’s made up - don’t confuse me with the facts!” Therefore, none of the contrary arguments is likely to change the minds of those who feel that man is a cancer on the planet, and that we are much worse off than we were 200 years ago. But for those who suspect that things are really better than they have ever been in the history of this planet, despite our problems, read on. Here is an article by Matt Ridley, entitled Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
, on the ins and outs of the IPCC debate:
“Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.”
“The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.”
“He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.”
“Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.”
“In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity. The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F). This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F). Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.”
“Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."
“A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.”
“Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C. The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2°-4.5°C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization's record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.”
“How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.”
“There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all other things being equal: about 1.1°-1.2°C for a doubling from preindustrial levels. The way warming from CO2 becomes really dangerous is through amplification by positive feedbacks—principally from water vapor and the clouds this vapor produces.”
“It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.”
“That assumption lies at the heart of every model used by the IPCC, but not even the most zealous climate scientist would claim that this trebling is an established fact. For a start, water vapor may not be increasing. A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that "we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." And then, as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: "We don't even know the sign" of water vapor's effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere. Climate models are known to poorly simulate clouds, and given clouds' very strong effect on the climate system—some types cooling the Earth either by shading it or by transporting heat up and cold down in thunderstorms, and others warming the Earth by blocking outgoing radiation—it remains highly plausible that there is no net positive feedback from water vapor.”
“If this is indeed the case, then we would have seen about 0.6°C of warming so far, and our observational data would be pointing at about 1.2°C of warming for the end of the century. And this is, to repeat, roughly where we are.”
“The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.”
(Mr. Ridley writes the Mind and Matter column in The Wall Street Journal and has written on climate issues for various publications for 25 years. His family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years. A version of this article appeared December 19, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal).
Hot Off The Press
New figures released by the IPCC's Met Office as of 2013 - based on actual temperature sampling from 30,000 measuring posts, and not computer models - when overlayed on a graph to be included in this year's IPCC Fifth Assessment report, show no significant temperature change in the past 15 years. See this article
for details. As a result, even scientists within the IPCC are stating that their previous dire warnings were premature, and that in fact global temperatures will stay the same or even decrease at least until 2017, with other prominent climatologists giving a figure of one or two decades! Even so, the same graph (easily recognized) was still deceptively used in the April 2013 issue of the Scientific American to lend authority to an article called Deep Heat Threatens Marine Life
As if that were not enough, President Bill Clinton has been hawking an urgent Yale University report that says we only have 8 years left before the permafrost in the arctic tundra will have melted beyond control, releasing too much trapped methane. Oh my armageddon! Just who said the permafrost was supposed to be permanently frozen?! Was that god's gift to man to keep methane sealed up to permit our survival here? Didn't scientists used to report that the Polar regions were tropical ages ago? Who says ice caps are necessities anyway - if they are permanently melting, which is arguable. Or that we can somehow keep everything from changing, as it has always done before? And also, the navy oceanographers now predict that the North Sea will be free of ice for one month in the summer
by 2035 (delayed from a scary, more immanent 2020), and they feel the U.S. Coast Guard should take on the role of managing the seaway. Maybe not a bad idea, and also maybe they forget it was free of ice in the 1920's, and that situation didn't last.
Not enough? Here is one more that should raise a question of drastic climate change due chiefly to man-made causes:
NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Event: Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead?
“All climate scientists agree that the sun affects Earth’s climate to some extent. They only disagree about whether or not the effect form the sun is minor compared to man-made causes. We noted in 2011:
“This week, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory have discovered – to their great surprise – that the sun’s activity is declining, and that we might experience the lowest solar output we’ve seen since 1645-1715. The Register describes it in dramatic tones:
"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening.”
“Scientists who are convinced that global warming is a serious threat to our planet say that such a reduced solar output would simply buy us more time…delaying the warming trend, but not stopping or reversing it. On the other hand, scientists who are skeptical about global warming say that the threat is a new mini ice age. (Remember that scientists have been convinced in the past that we would have a new ice age, and even considered pouring soot over the arctic in the 1970s to help melt the ice – in order to prevent another ice age.
[Note: by this logic, any ‘green house emissions’ would be accomplishing that right now, wouldn’t they?!] Obama’s top science advisor was one of those warning of a new ice age in the 1970s)."
“NASA reports this week that we may be on the verge of another Maunder Minimum (a period with an unusually low number of sunspots, leading to colder temperatures):
“Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.”
“The sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”
“NASA explains that interactions between the sun, sources of cosmic radiation and the Earth are very complicated, and it takes an interdisciplinary team of heliophysicists, chemists and others to quantify what is really going on. And the Earth’s climate is also affected by cosmic radiation.”
“So – even if NASA’s prediction of a period of an unusually low amount of sun spots is proven correct – it is hard to know whether that will lead to a large or small reduction in temperature trends.”
[This appears in contradiction to the NASA reports from the early 2000's noted in the beginning of this paper indicating extensive solar system warming on every planet. Seems like at no one at NASA knows exactly what is happening, other than it is solar-based to a large degree]. To top it all off, the latest consensus of the experts in cosmological astronomy (a field with small monetary gain involved), as evidenced by the WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) satellite, lasers, gravity wave detectors, X-ray telescopes, and high-speed supercomputers, shows the universe expanding and cooling (eventually towards absolute zero) more rapidly than previously thought. (4) This will takes billions if not trillions of years to completion, but it is now accepted fact in this part of the scientific community (subject to change, no doubt, as all theories are). Amazingly, physicists are not only thinking of the possibilities for mankind's escape into a black hole and out of a white hole into another solar system when this one burns out, but also the theoretical possibilities of escaping into a parallel universe
when this universe itself reaches its end. While we have nothing against long-term planning per se, in this case it seems like the mindset of fear-based scientific materialists is in serious denial of reality.
But with the 'universe cooling' and the 'solar system warming', volcanos active, comets blazing and solar radiation pulsating, it kind of makes it hard to predict climate change, doesn't it?
Great Cycles in Traditional Cosmology and Religion
This brings us to ancient spiritual/religious views on the subject of cosmic cycles. For after the ultimate expansion of the universe is said to come a contraction, followed by another ‘birth’ or 'Big Bang', expansion, and eventual contraction. This view is not in vogue in astronomy right now, but has been entertained in the past, to be then superceded by the ‘steady state’ view, and now the ‘expanding faster' view. The quantum revolution has spawned talk of multiple spontaneous Big Bangs and multiple universes as well, with possible interaction between them. (Interestingly, this also correlates with some of the newer 'channeled' information, such as the Seth material, as well as older sources such as theosophy). The reader can only imagine how this further complicates any form of prediction. To better understand the scope and concept of a recurring, 'spiralling' cosmic evolution as mentioned in many scriptural sources worldwide, especially Hindu scripture, and how it itself may affect global climates, it is necessary to overlay on the so-called Great Year of Plato - the 'precession of the equinoxes', a 25,920-year astronomical/astrological cycle divided into zodiacal ages of 2160 years (figures not widely known in ancient times) - a 24,000 year ascending and descending cycle of Yugas as given in the ancient Vedas. The following information has been gleaned from the book, Lost Star of Myth and Time
, by Walter Cruttenden. The author explains that, according to the findings of Sri Yukteswar, in his own book, , history is composed of repeating cycles of four yugas which correspond to one-half of a great year. For instance, we descend from a Golden Age (Satya Yuga) of 4800 years to a Silver Age (Treta Yuga) of 3600 years to a Bronze Age (Dwapara Yuga) of 2400 years and finally to an Iron Age (Kali Yuga) of 1200 years. Then follows an ascending cycle of a Kali Yuga or Iron Age, followed by Bronze, Silver, and Golden Ages, which repeats indefinitely. Thus as the astronomical/astrological cycles unfold the Yugas create positive and negative phases within them. These lengths for the yugas differs greatly with the traditional Hindu cosmology in two respects: one, the traditional cycle is circular, not phasing; in other words, Hinduism teaches that we proceed from the Golden to Silver to Copper to Iron and then directly to Golden again, whereas Yukteswar said this was not correct, that there are equal descending and ascending phases of yugas; and secondly, in Hinduism, according to Yukteswar due to an error, there was proposed a Maha-Yuga cycle, based on a multiple of the equivalent number of days in a year, that is 360 times longer than what Yukteswar's research told him was the valid yuga cycle of 24000 years. (5) The overlapping of the astrological ages and the yuga cycles creates a spiral, or as Cruttenden theorizes (to support his conjecture that our genetic structure may be coded to respond to astronomical/astrological influences), maybe even a double-helix.
Sant Kirpal Singh startlingly prophecied in 1974 that we were about to enter directly into a Golden Age, 'with no more yugas', but Sri Yukteswar, as mentioned, calculated that we have been in the ascending phase of the Dwapar Yuga since 1699 A.D.. As such, while good things are ahead, we are yet a long way from the greater Golden Age as defined by the ancient Hindu sages, which will not begin until 7699 A.D.. However, that we are in the ascending Dwapara Yuga is good, as it has already been characterized by advances in general intelligence as well as both theoretical and practical knowledge and the sciences, and in the future will be further marked by new forms of electro-magnetic technologies, such as already evidenced in mag-lev trains, as well as anti-gravity, and perhaps a return of lost knowledge about the earth's own electro-magnetic fields and their potential for natural energy potential, and so forth. These advances will solve many of our problems - even if, like global warming, they are not really great problems. We will have “skyfarming”, i.e., high-rise farms (already in the planning process), eliminating the need for vast acreage devoted to crop growing, as well as many forms of nano-technology, tetrapod quantum dots for super-efficient solar energy (***very important - please read**), Tesla technology - suppressed by the authorities and corporate interests for over a hundred years, who wedded us to the internal combustion engine - which will finally allow ‘free energy’ (6) to come into prominence. This may take many decades, even hundreds of years, but it will happen. Just look at how many great unimaginable inventions have transformed our world in even the past 40 years: space travel, microprocessors, the internet, smart phones, etc., etc.!
Confusion over the length of the yugas arises because in the longer cycle of the Maha-Yugas, the descending phase ended in 3102 B.C., a traditional date for both the death of the avatar Krishna and the start of the Kali Yuga, due to last for hundreds of thousands of years more. According to Yukteswar, as mentioned, however, this was really the start of the descending copper age or Dwapara Yuga. He argued that his research found that a misunderstanding was created in the dark ages of the current Kali Yuga over the dating of the cycles that led to the notion of the longer Maha Yuga cycles of millions of years each.
But who knows - perhaps there are no such thing as yugas at all, or past 'golden age's, and so forth, but rather 'planetary initiations' (but not like the Aquarian Agers babble about), and which may be closer to the meaning behind Sant Kirpal's prophecy. Such shifts are less deterministic or fatalistic than the static repetitive yugas in the traditional Hindu model. More subjective and unpredictable 'quantum' factors such the uncertainty principle, spiritually viewed, as well as collective need, intention, and aspiration, part evolutionary impulse or Idea, and part grace, may play a role in their genesis that do not confirm to rigid time cycles of any sort. We are here just barely getting our feet wet in the waters of metaphysics, and traditional considerations of the 'macrocosm' being in the 'microcosm', and their dynamic interplay. Physicists are still looking exclusively 'out there' for reality, in spite of the findings of Heisenberg, et. al., regarding the perceiver being an integral part of any perception and, indeed, affecting and altering it.
Either way - yugas, or shifts - it looks basically good, although we may be in the darkness before the dawn period right now, with entrenched interests resisting the change (see note 6). .
Another interesting theory of Yukteswar concerns the idea that the precession of equinoxes is due to the existence of a companion star to our Sun, that is, the existence of a binary star system, the other sun being either Sirius or Alcyone of the Pleiades, whose gravitational pull causes our Sun and solar system to revolve around the galaxy. This is not just speculation. NASA estimates that more than 80% of all stars may be part of a binary or multiple star system. Cruttenden gives many arguments for this based on mythologies and science. Yukteswar also posits a magnetic Great Center called Vishnunubhi which, when our Sun gets closer to it causes the Golden Ages and when it gets farthest away leads to the Dark Ages. Think of our Sun and Sirius (widely referred to by the ancients as a companion star to earth) connected by an elliptical fan-belt rotating around a cosmic center. This center may possibly be Alcyone of the Pleiades itself. “Canst though bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades?,” reads the book of Job. Cruttenden’s book emphasizes the important that both Sirius (the “Dog Star”) and the Pleiades had for the ancients. The entire binary system including our solar system and any planets connected to Alcyone would rotate around the Grand Central Sun or Center. This, not a real local “wobble” of the earth, is argued as the reason behind the precession of the equinoxes, but only an apparent one. As our Sun draws nearer to this magnetic center we approach a Golden Age and as it draws farthest away we enter the Iron Age, on a 24,000 cycle. [Note: according to author Lee Bladon, in The Science of Spirituality, all ancient systems of measuring cosmic energy cycles, including the Mayan Calendar, the Hindu Yuga cycle, and the Zodiacal cycle, were based on esoteric information made exoteric when released to the general public. As such the 'exoteric' timescales were purposely made inexact to prevent the uninitiated from using this information for personal gain].
To digress for a moment, this might also be an explanation behind the findings of "solar system warming", recently posited by Richard Hoagland and based on the NASA data. If these are true your little Toyota hybrid is not going to make much difference in counteracting what are essentially celestial forces. Our local "global warming" is also primarily driven by these determinants, as extensive research confirms. It turns out on this analysis that climate forecasters must juggle at least four primary cycles in attempting to interpret the alternate cooling and warming in the history of our planet. This has led one commentator to remark, "I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we cause global warming or that we can fix it." First, there is a 100,000 year cycle during which the elliptical orbit of the earth around the Sun varies by up to three degrees. This accounts for major (i.e., as in catastrophic) ice ages, as indicated by deep core drilling by Dansgaard and Oeschger in the Greenland ice cap, and other findings. For the past 2,000,000 years there have been major ice ages every 90,000 to 110,000 years follow by interglacial periods of 10,000-20,000 years (for the past 11,500 years we have been in the present interglacial period known as the Holocene). Second, there is a 41,000 year axial cycle of the Earth whereby the angle at which the sun's rays strike the Earth varies. Currently at 23 degrees, we are at about the middle of its range. This causes temperature variations much like what currently occurs every winter and summer but on a larger scale. Third, there is the aforementioned precessional cycle with the 'apparent' wobble of the Earth; at its epihelion when the North Pole is pointed towards the star Vega, there are harsh winters and hot summers, with the opposite at the perihelion.
Fourth, and most important for current discussions of global warming and 'immanent disaster', however, is the recent discovery of a 1500-year cycle (+/- 500 years) of warming and cooling occuring within these other much longer cycles. There have been nine such cycles in the last 12,000 years. This appears to be due to cycles of solar activity, and is fully detailed in the book, Unstoppable Global Warming - Every Fifteen Hundred Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. Bottom line, the temperature changes of the Earth are not directly linked primarily with rising or falling CO2 levels as environmentalists claim, but to solar and other celestial factors. Veizer and Shaviv, in fact, cite three different studies on CO2 levels that show that the rise and fall of CO2 is unrelated to the rise and fall of temperature, and the concentration of CO2 right now is at a historic low, in contrast with the newspaper article quoted at the beginning of this article. A study (the GEOCARB III, by Berner and Kothavala, 2001), furthermore, shows very high CO2 levels in a couple of the coldest periods, during the Ordovician and near the Jurassic Cretaceous boundary. Ice caps today may be thinning at the edges, but are thickening in the middle. This has been explained away by those proposing global warming, saying ocean warming causes more precipitation inland which cools the interior even as ice is melting at the coastline. This is possible, but as we have seen the eastern Antarctica ice build-up is more than making up for any melting in the much smaller western portion, as reported by Australian scientists. And let us not forget the stunning Piris Reis maps made in 1513, presumably based on ancient maps from antiquity, that showed an accurate outline of Antarctica bereft of the mile-thick ice sheet that exists there today, including the charting of the large bay covered by the Ross ice shelf. These early maps have been confirmed as accurate by modern scientific instrumentation. So apparently Antarctica wasn't always ice covered either, and the ancients knew it. Therefore, seems like dumb old us need to choose our data carefully. Core samples, report Avery and Singer, are often taken in cities where it is warmer than in the inland where it is cooler, to skew the results. It has been said, “figures lie, and liars figure.” So what is a laymen to do in the face of media and ‘expert’ pressure? Reason. Look at the big picture. Take the long view. Study well all sides. It isn’t that difficult on many of these issues to come to a common sense point of view.
“But what about the glaciers melting?!” There does seem to be a movie on everything, doesn’t there? A few years Dennis Quaid saved a remnant in New York in the midst of a rapid global freeze. Now there is an environmental feature out on the disappearance of the glaciers. (Odd, though, that 2010 saw record cold and snow in Europe). No one disputes that glaciers have been receding, the question is, why? Alpine glaciers in Europe expanded greatly during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850), crushing farms and villages, but then began to recede as a new warming trend began. The snows of Kilimanjaro have been receding since 1880 but actually receded the fastest during the cooling trend of 1953 to 1975, and the slowest during the warming trend. How to account for this apparent discrepency? It is not that difficult. Much of it appears to be attributable to the cutting down of the rain forests for miles around, causing less rainfall, and hence, less snow. As for the other glaciers, they have ebbed and flowed over the centuries. While currently Arctic ice IS melting, Antarctic ice overall is not, and inland temperatures there are cooling. In fact, snow fall increases four times over ice sheets during times of warming as contrasted with times of cooling. These findings are simply dismissed as accountable by global warming models. This seems to be bad news for the Green movement. The authors conclude that man's recent industrial contribution to global warming is at best extremely minimal, and that a much greater worry is a returning cooling period or ice age, which may yet be several hundred years away, but in the big picture, is long overdue.
A recent report in the Guardian (January, 2012) went so far as to dare projecting far into the future, claiming that current CO2 emissions will remain in the atmosphere for 100,000 years and result in permanent global warming. 100,000 years is a very long time!! Especially when our ordinary weather reports are barely reliable a week in advance. And especially when most of the predictions today are based on brand-new, government funded, computer models - not unbiased, raw data, which they often conflict with.
Radiation was supposed to last for thousands of years after the atomic blasts, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki came back. It is said that the soil in Germany has been regenerating since Chernobyl. The planet as a whole appears to be fairly resilient.
THE EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED
In 1975 a report from 'experts' at the National Academy of Sciences predicted 'serious worldwide cooling' over the next 100 years. It even contended that we might face a 100,000 year period of colder climate.
Other scientists have predicted that global warming would produce abrupt global cooling, similar to the Dryas period 12500 years ago, when the ice sheets melted and flooded the Atlantic with ice water and shutting down the oceanic conveyor belt. This was an argument used in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" promoted by Al Gore. The only problem with his logic is that the mile-deep ice sheets that covered the Northern Hemisphere melted long ago and all that water is already in the ocean! So scares of a catastrophic increase in ocean height of twenty feet suggested by Gore - at odds with the more modest 4-6 inches predicted by reputable 'experts', or even the 7-23 inches over 100 years predicted by the IPCC - is impossible. And, further, studies have so far shown an increase in the activity of the North Atlantic conveyor belt associated with warming, not a decrease as the fear-mongers predicted.
The IPCC report of 1996, used for years as convincing evidence of the need to 'do something right away!' about global warming, had significant sections of Chapter 8 removed by junior scientist Ben Santer, on pressure from government officials, which sections cited conclusions by scientists who affirmed that NO correlations with man-made warming were found. This was ignored and the paper has been repeated ad nauseum ever since as substantive proof by paid climatologists. Santer had said that he based his conclusions on 130 peer-reviewed articles, but the fact was that there were only two such articles. (7) Ironically, after the panel convened and issued their report, Santer went on to publish a report of his own in which he admitted that 'none of the three main estimates of climate variability agreed with each other, and until that was determined it was impossible to say whether an anthropogenic climate signal had been detected.'
In 2001, the American Association of State Climatologists stated that 'for time scales of a decade or more, empirical accuracy of such prediction is simply impossible.' The most recent scare about CO2 remaining the atmosphere for 100,000 years is based on fancy supercomputer modeling of samplings of data for impossible-to-verify predictions. Such, in fact, is the nature of much climate research. A few problems, however: supercomputer models cannot account for the abrupt changes in the past, nor predict long-range forecasts far into the future which may be affected by very minute factors beyond the ability of computers to foresee. Not the least which are cosmic forces and events. Also, both satellite and weather balloon data measure temperature change much more accurately than surface thermometers, and so far fail to show much if any climate change such has been forecast by GCM's (Global Computer Models) - complicated computer models that attempt to pull together all major causes of climate change, such as jet streams, deep ocean currents, solar radiation reflected by ice sheets, changes in vegetation, the sun's radiation itself, ocean eddies, naturally occuring greenhouse gases, cloud cover, and so on - a formidable task indeed. I still don't know why they can't be sure if it will rain next week.
There are many ways to measure ocean temperature, with no consensus on it yet. Therefore in carefully measured speech, not hysterics, one MIT professor says don't worry. (8) Nor is there as yet adequate knowledge of the impact of other factors, such as clouds and their climate effect. But this much is known: clouds are estimated to reflect 75 watts per square meter, while greenhouse gases are estimated to reflect 2 watts per square meter. Thus it appears that clouds could minimize the most drastic prediction of CO2 emissions. Further, and this is a bombshell that took the sails out of many climate change promoters, in 2001 NASA revealed the discovery of a massive planetary heat vent over the Pacific Ocean that they said could significantly reduce or erase any projected climate warming caused by a build-up of greenhouse gases. Importantly, this finding is not built into the GCM models!
On the other hand, we have already seen that to trust anything that NASA reports is a questionable proposition. As is the following, released on Feb.4, 2013, by the "Motley Fool" investing advisory group:
"The International Energy Agency, or IEA – model three possible scenarios for the future in terms of the number of degrees Celsius of average global warming by 2050."
"The six-degree scenario, or 6DS, is basically Armageddon. 6DS is the scenario we are expected to see if we continue on our current trajectory. The four-degree scenario, or 4DS, is certainly better, but the World Bank released a report in November 2012 emphasizing that 4DS must also be avoided. The bank projects "unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services." These effects would lead to spreading tropical diseases, crop failure, inundation of island nations, and more."
"World governments and institutions have repeatedly committed to staying below the two-degree scenario, or 2DS. To be clear, scientists still warn that a two-degree Celsius increase is the level at which atmospheric feedback loops could trigger dangerous climate change. Therefore, it is this scenario that HSBC used as the basis for its study."
Here we find the same scare stories based on governmental and supra-governmental computer models, spread to the media by dubious authorities. The World Bank? Let's get serious. These are super-banks of the elite who are a large part of the problem, and stand the most to gain by a world government. HSBC? - itself a major investment bank - is issuing its recommendations to pension funds to 'sell' oil companies, and buy its new offerings, while it makes money on both ends. The IEA, supposedly an independent organization that issues yearly predictions on world energy usage, currently is laying most of the blame for carbon imprint on China and India, two countries working their way out of poverty and said to account for 90% of the expected rise in coal use in the next 25 years (coal accounting for 40% of world energy use today and most of the CO2 emissions). Coal usage in the U.S., by comparison, is now down 10%, with the U.S. predicted to be energy independent in 10 years due to increased oil and natural gas discoveries, natural gas being much cleaner as long as certain safeguards are followed. China, India, and other developing nations plan to pursue nuclear relatively aggressively, as well as renewables, although currently coal is far cheaper. Clean technologies for its usage exist, but are difficult to implement in many of these countries. The problem is that just about every form of energy extraction or generation requires water: biofuels and hydropower among the renewables, nuclear and coal in generation, and fracking for oil and gas (oil sand extraction is also water intensive). Water is a scarce resource in many areas of the globe, and there are many other needs competing for its use. Future projects that aren't wind or solar thus may find their viability threatened by factors that have little to do with the energy economy. That is not stopping certain groups from asserting that it is necessary to keep 80% of carbon-based fuel in the ground to prevent a global meltdown.
GCM's also assume that the Earth's climate would be predictably stable without human CO2 emissions, but we know that this is false. The Earth's climate history (as well as our solar system's) has been anything but stable.
A Netherland's team fed their own data into the IPCC's 2001 computer model based on the Climate Change report and found that increasing CO2 levels would actually produce constant or decreasing temperatures in industrial areas. They also found a flaw in the IPCC's surface temperature records, in that It ignored the cooling of the Antarctica in recent decades. They estimated that this mistake alone may account for a global warming trend about one-third too high.
Another recent attempt at hyperbole blames 'climate deniers' for the catastrophic typhoon in the Philipines, despite research showing no accurate statistical correllations on major storms over the past century. Imbedded in this article is a link to a protest of 50,000 Poles over the U.N.'s attempts to remake the world and tell them what to do with their own resources.
A major scare tactic is the threat of species extinction. We have already shown the circularity in that argument posed by Earthsave vegetarians. They are so concerned with ecological balance yet do not seem to worry about cows or other farm animals going extinct. However, every species today is estimated to be at least one million years old, and has thus survived six hundred of the above-mentioned fifteen hundred year cycles. Does that not sound like significant adaptablity? Moreover, we are told that over 90% of the animal species that have lived on Earth are now extinct. Humans didn't kill them all, they just disappeared. Currently it is said that there are more species in one acre of the Amazon rain forest than in the entire western United States. Species are dying every day without human cause. Are we, then, truly able to claim that all of the approximately 8,400,000 species that Hindu scriptures say exist must continue to exist in physical form without the world facing extreme ecological imbalance and disaster? Might that not be a little presumptuous on our part? I guess the scientists do not have much faith in 'natural selection' as a cause of evolution after all! In spite of all that has been presented so far, the establishment press still cranks out scare story after scare story, speculating about mass species extinction, without solid evidence. The fact remains that many aspects of environmental change are too complex to predict or explain, as evidenced by this finding that too much deer pee is a primary factor responsible for the decline in hemlock trees in Michigan!
THE 'HOCKEY STICK' GRAPH
This is extremely important. The infamous 'hockey stick' is the 'lynchpin' of the entire public debate by politicians and the media, started by the IPCC over global warming in 2001. The IPCC's second assessment report (Climate Change), first agreed with the previous findings that there were both Roman and Medieval Warmings - much warmer than today - as well as a more recent Little Ice Age - with temperatures lower than today. However, Michael Mann from the University of Massachusetts concocted a graph based mostly on tree-ring findings that seemingly levelled out the global temperatures from 1000-1980. He then overlayed on this graph biased proxy surface temperature readings from the 20th century - mostly taken from urban 'heat islands' - onto the chart of the pre-1980 era. This produced a dramatic appearance of increased global temperatures rocketing out of control in the 20th century, with the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age virtually disappearing. The Mann study became the Bible of the climate control movement, contradicting hundreds of previous studies confirming the earlier changes. It ignored completely that the global mean temperature dropped by 1-2 degrees C from 1300-1850, or that most of the warming since 1850 occured before 1940, and not after.
A serious debunking of the Mann study, using corrected and updated source data based on Mann's study was published in 2003 by McIntyre and McKitrick, showing that the warming in the 15th century exceeds any warming in the 20th century. Thus, the 'hockey stick graph that showed the world drifted along at a stable temperature for 1000 years and then suddenly shot straight up in the 20th century was shown to be false. Still, the hockey stick is still repeated parrot-like in political circles and the press, if not much of academia.
Even more demolishing to this theory is that it was discovered that the majority of the tree-ring data Mann used came from California bristlecone pines, which at a high altitude had a great growth spurt due to CO2 increases, which (CO2) acts like fertilizer to such nutrient starved trees and plants. Eliminating the bristlecone pines from his study eliminates the hockey stick pattern completely! The growth spurt, moreover, according to many scientists, was far in excess of what would be expected from warmer temperatures, thus the conclusion is that it was simply due to the CO2 as the trees' food source. A similar ploy was used in another such study of tree-rings in Tasmania, comparing samples taken from the colder, wetter western side of the island with those from urban heat islands on the dryer eastern side (which are up to 5 degrees C higher than their surrounding areas). This blatant distortion was allowed to stand by the global warming establishment. Of course these findings have been rebutted as insignificant by plugging in other data. But this argument goes two ways. It has been argued by a host of sceptical scientists that almost any set of 'alternative' data plugged into the GCM's leaves the hockey stick graph intact. Thus, after a decade of refutation the hockey stick still remains the gold standard for climate change today.
In the meantime almost everything one can think of has been blamed on global warming. This extensive list, with links, complied by retired professor Dr. John Brignell, shows the absurdity of the alarmists' claims.
Dr. Nir Shariv, a top astrophysicist and professor at Hebrew University, estimates that even if CO2 increased by 50% the mean global temperature would decrease by less than 0.5 degree by 2100, several orders of magnitude less than announced by the alarmists. Other eminent scientists say whether CO2 increases or decreases by 50% it will make no difference at all, that the primary driver of climate change is solar radiation. Meanwhile, see this illuminating link for more articles by scientists exposing a wider agenda behind the 'global warming movement'. And CLICK HERE!! for three minutes of Bill Gates' outlandish lecturing about how we in fact need to get CO2 down to ZERO (of course no proof given) - and the way to do it is through population reduction. If you have the moral courage, or curiosity, listen to the way he plans to do it.
President Obama's Speech
Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama has just (6-25-13) proposed a comprehensive and economically program to reduce our 'carbon footprint', but analysts calculate the total effect (If man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming at all) to be only 0.0053 degree C by 2100! Hardly enough to make a difference. But the president's announcement was also accompanied by the release of a new poll showing that the U.S. has less fear of global warming than the rest of the world. While the U.S. has less than 50% of the people believing global warming to be the number one threat, representative countries across the globe place it number one - but only to the tune of 52%, versus 48% believing the economic instability to be the biggest danger. This poll basically shows us nothing, and is made to make Americans feel guilty for being so dense as not to get with the program. Of course, there are a number of things to consider when examining any 'official poll'. Such as: Who runs the poll? Who benefits from it? What segment of the population is selected for the poll? What questions are asked of those polled? And last, but certainly not least, what percentage of the population is well informed about the issues? Not likely even one percent, for the masses get their 'knowledge' almost entirely from a controlled media, essentially TV and newspapers who print the agenda of the elite. So much for polls.
Not content with their previous forecasts, the World Bank has just come out in time for the President's speech and said that now we have a catastrophic 7 degree C. temperature increase to look forward to in this century if something isn't done very fast. This, in the face of the aforementioned analysis showing no temperature increase for the last fifteen years (explained away as, "we don't know why this is so yet, but it just can't have anything to do with our predictions/calculations being wrong"):
"President Barack Obama on Tuesday (6-25-13) declared that the debate over climate change and its causes was over, and announced a wide-ranging plan to combat global warming. But despite the president's warnings about the dire consequences of failing to act against global warming, the fact is that the planet basically has not been warming for the past 15 years. Obama's plan includes regulations aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, vehicles, and buildings. Yet the Earth's temperature has not risen significantly of late even though human activities have pumped some 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past 15 years. As a result of these emissions, "we should have seen temperatures rise by around [0.45 degrees Fahrenheit]," German climate scientist Hans von Storch said in an interview with Spiegel Online. "That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the past 15 years was just [0.11 degrees] - a value very close to zero." Storch is a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany. He said: "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. "If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models." One explanation for the erroneous models could be that "greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed," he said. Another possibility is that scientists "have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes," he added. Obama, in his Tuesday speech, sought to debunk skepticism about man-made global warming by declaring: "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society." But skeptic Marc Morano, founder of the Climate Depot website, said: "President Obama is still parading his ignorance on climate science, linking bad weather to 'global warming,' claiming a mythical 97 percent consensus, and implying that his executive actions can alter the globe's temperature and lessen extreme weather events. "The president has descended into the realm of medieval witchcraft by claiming he can combat global temperature rises and weather patterns through administrative action." (Newsmax.com, 6-30-13)
For examples of the alternating climate history in the past 2600 years alone, from the book, Unstoppable Global Warming, see chart below:
Modern Climate History
600 to 200 B.C.: Unnamed cold period preceding the Roman Warming.
200 B.C. to about 600 A.D.: Roman Warming.
600 A.D. to 900 A.D.: Dark Ages cold period.
900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.: Medieval Warming.
1300 A.D. to 1850: Little Ice Age.
1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940.
1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.
1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt.
1979 to present: A moderate warming trend.
Dumb question: er, just one more thing....what exactly is ‘fossil fuel’? Does, and how does, anyone know there is even such a thing? Did anyone see, or has anyone proven, that dinosaur bones (and mammals if we believe current research which shows the two coexisting), turn into oil?!
Did all vertebrates simply and conveniently migrate and die in groups at places where there are now oils fields - including in the middle of the ocean?! (If the latter is true, maybe scientists should admit the existence of Atlantis as providing a means for them to relocate without swimming hundreds of miles). But, even that does not solve the problem, for how come we find intact fossils everywhere many millions of years old that haven’t even decayed, much less been transformed into crude?!
Or, if by ‘fossil fuel ’ scientists simply mean oil derived from vegetation, such as ferns and the like, existing during the era of fossils, and not fossils per se, where is the evidence that they do not just decay into the soil and get recycled like other plants? How do they become oil? Who started the idea of there being 'fossil fuels'? The case may be made that coal is a fossil fuel, unlike oil, but still no one has seen plant or animal matter transformed into coal, in the manner that carbon may be turned into a diamond under intense pressure in laboratory conditions. So then coal must also be considered as something that came into existence in a finite amount in that bygone era.
Maybe the argument of some scientists that oil production is not a soon-to-be-depleted fixed supply from fossils but rather a continuous natural process from deep within the earth has some merit worth exploring. And, if we do have a 'Maunder Minimum', as NASA suggests, might it not in that event be wise to have an oil, coal, and gas back-up plan in case solar output decreases? Just a thought. In the meantime, just contemplate our world with an rapid shutdown of fossil fuel use via the footnoted link. You may be shocked. (9)
In sum, CO2 follows global warming, it is not a significant cause of it. Species won't go into mass extinction (unless a comet hits us), oceans won't inundate us, nor will there be superstorms all because of global warming - and if there are super storms, they are currently unpredictable with causes unknown - WITH ONE NOTABLE FAR-REACHING EXCEPTION, whose discussion is currently off-limits in conventional scientific discourse, but we would be remiss in failing to include it here. Read this one to the end, with follow-up research, if you dare. If it is true, find out how deep the rabbit hole goes. (10)
So, there you have it.
OOPS, WAIT! - a new report just in portends the destruction of the universe:
" A subatomic particle discovered last year that may be the long-sought Higgs boson might doom our universe to an unfortunate end, researchers say. The mass of the particle, which was uncovered at the world's largest particle accelerator — the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva — is a key ingredient in a calculation that portends the future of space and time. "This calculation tells you that many tens of billions of years from now there'll be a catastrophe," Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., said Monday (Feb. 18) here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "It may be the universe we live in is inherently unstable, and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out," added Lykken, a collaborator on one of the LHC's experiments.
The Higgs boson particle is a manifestation of an energy field pervading the universe called the Higgs field, which is thought to explain why particles have mass. After searching for decades for proof that this field and particle existed, physicists at the LHC announced in July 2012 that they'd discovered a new particle whose properties strongly suggest it is the Higgs boson. To confirm the particle's identity for sure, more data are needed. But many scientists say they're betting it's the Higgs. "This discovery to me was personally astounding," said I. Joseph Kroll, a University of Pennsylvania physicist who also works at the LHC. "To me, the Higgs was sort of, it might be there, it might not. The fact that it's there is really a tremendous accomplishment."
"And finding the Higgs, if it's truly been found, not only confirms the theory about how particles get mass, but it allows scientists to make new calculations that weren't possible before the particle's properties were known. For example, the mass of the new particle is about 126 billion electron volts, or about 126 times the mass of the proton. If that particle really is the Higgs, its mass turns out to be just about what's needed to make the universe fundamentally unstable, in a way that would cause it to end catastrophically in the far future. That's because the Higgs field is thought to be everywhere, so it affects the vacuum of empty space-time in the universe."
"Strikingly, if the Higgs mass were just a few percent different, the universe wouldn't be doomed, the scientists said. But even if the universe is in for an unfortunate end, there is at least one reason for consolation. "You won't actually see it, because it will come at you at the speed of light," Lykken said. "So in that sense don't worry."
Maybe we should worry about some scientists.........
Update 2014: more green gurus reject global warming.
And for a clarifying response to the recent U.S. White House announcement of a goal for 30% reduction in industrial CO2 emissions at a cost of nearly one trillion dollars, see this article, which argues that the effort, even according to government statistics, will only reduce global mean temperature by 0.02 degrees!
For a break from all of this seriousness, here is the always irreverant master, George Carlin, on Saving the Planet, and a not-to-be-missed awesome Hitler parody. And click here for a (presumably) more serious but humorous approach.
1. 2007 report about polar ice (one minute YouTube)
2. The Arctic Seems To Be Warming Up
3. NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Event (Posted on January 13, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog)
4. According to eminent physicist Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), p. xvi)
5. In Hindu scripture, Being moves eternally through great cycles of creation and dissolution called kalpas, manvantaras, and yugas. From the web: “According to the Puranas, the Kali Yuga covers a span of 432,000 human years. The four yugas together cover 4,320,000 years and this is one cycle. Seventy-one such cycles form one manvantara, and age of man. This works out to 306,720,000 years. Six such manvantaras have so far elapsed from the beginning of this epoch (kalpa) and the seventh manvantara, that of the Vaivasvata, has begun, and seven more such manvantaras have yet to come. These fourteen manvantaras constitute one day of Brahma- the Creator Brahma's life of 100 years. Fifty such years have elapsed. We are now in the first day of the fifty-first year. In figures, that means 306,720,000 (one manvantara) x 14 manvantaras (this is the day of Brahman) x 14 (his night) x 365 (days of the year) x 100 (years). This is the life of the Brahma.”
After calculating that totals 2,194,274,880,000,000 human years. Theosophy (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-2-07.htm) suggests 311,040,000,000,000 years for what may be the same period. Need it be said that this is a very long time. The latest WAMP satellite findings show the universe has been around for 14 billion years. That would imply a lot more expansion still to go. However, as stated above, these fourteen manvantaras constitute one day of Brahma - the Creator Brahma's life of 100 years. Fifty such years have elapsed. We are now in the first day of the fifty-first year: the first day of the fifty-first of 100 cosmic years. If true, that means this particular moment in human history is at exactly the midway point in the current great cycle of creation. Thus, this, if true, is evidence in favor of suggesting that this particular Big Bang is no longer expanding. Some physicists have in the past argued with various cyclical theories of creation either that this is indeed the case, or could become the case (which contrast with both the big-bang or steady-state theories). However, the current consensus view is that the universe is expanding at an ever faster rate, and the faster it expands, the more spread out it gets, and the cooler it gets also, until it reaches absolute zero and the (current) game is over.
As we mentioned, Sri Yukteswar extensively studied the yuga science and came to the conclusion that the conventional way of calculating yugas was due to an error in the 'dark age' that confused human or solar years with 'Divine years' consisting of 360 human years each, leading to an immensely longer time span for each yuga, such as in the above. This error or reinterpretation occured in the reign of Raja Parikshit in 721 B.C.. Yukteswar said that based on the Laws of Manu and other sources, the yugas were based on the precession of the equinoxes, or the Great Year of 24,000 years, as found in all cultures worldwide, and consisting of an ascending and descending cycle of 12,000 years each of four yugas in a 4:3:2:1 ratio of length. Thus while traditional Hinduism holds that the Mahayuga cycle is 4,320,000,000 years in total, with a Kali Yuga that began in 3102 B.C. (traditional date for the death of the avatar Krishna), and lasting for 432,000 years, which means 427,000 years into the future - a dismal prospect - Yukteswar found that 3102 B.C. actually was the start of the descending phase of the Dwapara yuga. The Dark or Iron Age, Kali yuga, began in 701 B.C., reaching its nadir in 499 A.D. (about the time of the end of the Roman Empire), and transitioned to the ascending phase of Dwapara Yuga in 1699 A.D., shortly after the time of the Rennaissance. His schema is as follows:
Satya   Golden Age    11501-6701 B.C.
Treta    Silver Age       6701-3101 B.C.
Dwapara Bronze Age   3102-701 B.C.
Kali        Iron Age         701 B.C.-499 A.D. [low point - decline of civilizations worldwide]
Kali        Iron Age         499-1699 A.D.
Dwapara Bronze Age 1699-4099 A.D.
Treta     Silver Age     4099-7699 A.D.
Satya   Golden Age    7699-12499 A.D.
Also as mentioned, he based his theory of the precession on that of a binary star system where our sun with its solar system and another star(s) rotated around each other. "The Great Central Sun' mentioned in various cosmologies would be the center of this binary orbit itself. [It has been argued that our binary star is Sirius, a double star]. This binary star view accounted for a discrepency in the precession that current lunar and solar theories alone, such as that of a 'wobble' of the earth', could not justify. Crittenden argues that one of these discrepencies is that as each sun or star gets closer in its orbit to the other, the precession speeds up. Currently, the rate of precession is accelerating and is calculated at 25,770 years, not 24,000. Because of this change in speed some have estimate the great year to be up to 25,920 years, but over the entire cycle it evens out to 24,000. Each succeeding yuga or period in the cycle purportedly affects the earth itself and its inhabitants differently due to changes in cosmic electro-magnetic forces. It is also possible that the much longer yuga time periods are valid, such as 'Maha-Yugas', and perhaps due to other, longer cosmic cycles, such as that of our solar system rotating around the center of the galaxy.
6. excerpted from "The Common Ground Interview with Foster Gamble: The Blue-Blood Whistle-Blower by Rob Sidon, Common Ground, Nov. 2012:
"Energy itself is virtually infinite; we’re completely
embedded in it. Like free air, we don’t
talk much about it because we can just breathe,
since we have a nose and a mouth. So in that
regard, we are all free air devices. Free energy
is the same way. It turns out you don’t have to
burn things or fuse things or crush or explode
things to access the energy of the universe. The
entire space, the so-called empty space that
we’re embedded in, as well as matter itself, is
full of virtually infinite energy at every point.
So the question is, How can we access that
boundless energy in a way that is safe, clean,
There are a number of inventors at least as
far back as Nikola Tesla over 100 years ago
who have accessed this energy. But like Tesla,
virtually all these inventors have been suppressed.
Now, I’ve been blessed to visit numerous
laboratories over a 15-year involvement
where I’ve gotten to see a lot of the devices that
don’t work, but also a few that do. And it just
brings you to tears when you see it because
you realize once you see a device whirling on
a bench, not even plugged in, that’s just pouring
out clean electricity, you realize we don’t
have to fight over oil. We don’t need to cause
asthma, we don’t have to pollute our skies. So
that’s really what free energy is—it’s the abundant
energy, the life force itself. Some people
have figured out how to put a straw into that
cup, so to speak, and draw out the energy that
is in space itself."
"There are vested interests that stand to lose a
lot of money and (their illusion of ultimate)
control if this free energy becomes widely available.
In addition to Tesla, Adam Trombley is in
the film (Thrive). He and David Farnsworth, a coinventor,
came up with a homopolar generator and
were invited to demonstrate what they called
overunity capacity (what makes more energy
than it takes to run) at the UN and the US Senate.
They were shut down. John Bedini created
a number of devices, but two thugs came into
his lab and threw him up against the wall, saying,
“You will not continue to live if you try to
market overunity energy.” John Hutchinson, a
Canadian, had his lab raided three times and all
of his equipment stolen. He’s got not only free
energy batteries but also antigravity devices
that make even cannonballs float. Gene Mallove,
a Harvard and MIT physicist and engineer,
was editing his magazine Infinite Energy, and
the day before he was to go on a nationwide
radio program to announce a breakthrough in
overunity energy, he was bludgeoned to death
outside his mother’s home. So these are a few
examples, and if anybody does a search on
their computer for suppression of free energy,
they’ll find a truly sad and tragic legacy of brilliant
inventors who have been squashed in the
process of doing this."
"I will tell you one other thing. I am in the
middle of an event right now where I’ve been
contacted by an inventor in the Midwest who
built a successful device for $117. It’s very
small, weighing seven pounds, and it’s been
running his house with overunity energy for
3 1/2 months. He also built three replicas and
shares them with acquaintances. That’s
the good news. The bad news is he
put it on YouTube and within a few
hours received 800,000 hits, and
within a few hours after that,
Homeland Security pulled into
his driveway. They’ve been harassing
him for the last three
days. I’m in the midst of trying
to work this out with some
top-level First Amendment freespeech
lawyers to protect him—
lawyers who were involved
in protecting Daniel Ellsberg
and Karen Silkwood and other
major cases. So this is ongoing
as we speak. It’s a dangerous
challenge for these inventors
to get their devices out to humanity,
even for the benefit of
7. Peer review deception - how data is manipulated
8. MIT prof says don't worry
9. What our world would be like without fossil fuels - must read
10. The real elephant in the room - global weather modification? Even if one has doubts, he owes it to himself to ask, "why are there no official answers to this," and, "who would benefits thereby?"
So by now the reader should have enough material to answer the leader of the free world who recently said, with urgency, pathos, and in a mode of immanent crisis, "We've had Katrina and Sandy, and twelve of the hottest years on record in just the last fifteen years, and you think that is just a coincidence?" What...on record? - records that have been kept only since 1979? This 'long-term' temperature trend (of how many degrees - or fraction of a degree - change has it been really?) proves a connection with such storms, or of man's primary role in global warming? We've never had unstable weather or super-storms, glacial advance and retreat, earthquake induced tsunamis, tectonic plate movement, dramatic changes in O2 and CO2 levels due to massive volcanic activity, magnetic reversals, and variations in solar and cosmic radiation, in the past? What does a larger sampling of data from history show about the planet's climate and geology? According to a new book by Carnegie Institute researcher, Walter Hazen, PhD, The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet, we should dispel ourselves of the notion that we need to "save the planet". Whatever the impacts of climate change are, the fact is that earth has always been in flux and the changes it has undergone have been so massive that although humans can affect its makeup to some extent, our planet will go on cycling between these gargantuan alterations with or without our intervention.
And finally, er, what about HAARP and Agenda 21, hhmm?.............