Alas Global cooling strikes

The topsy-turvy world of global temperature sparring is once again causing confusion and angst among scientists. After cleverly convincing millions of people around the world that global warming is going to "destroy life as we know it" by melting glaciers, creating floods (or droughts, depending on which group issues the scare), El Niños, destroying the economy, wiping out vast species of flora and fauna (and in all probability, humans), could global cooling be the next menace-du-jour to afflict the earth? Doubtful. When the pendulum of controversy stops swinging, perhaps mankind will just come to the eye-opening realization that temperature cycles are just part of God's grand design, and there was never any global warming danger in the first place.

Icing the global warming fears

The 3000 year temperature of the earth as measured by sedimentary evidence in the Sargasso Sea off the southeastern United States shows temperatures 2500 to 3000 years ago were much higher than today. Rising temperatures over the past 100 years blamed on global warming are in fact merely a recovery from the Little Ice Age in the 1700s when there was no solar activity. The global temperature is still over 1^oC cooler than it was in the 1200s during the Medieval Climate Optimum.

It is no wonder that people have been confused by all the conflicting reports on climate change. Even scientists can't seem to come to any consensus. Take, for instance, the vast array of news recently. On Tuesday January 23, The Age revealed that British researchers "have found evidence that the world has become 10 degrees Celsius chillier in the last 3.2 million years. The cooling off is five times greater than experts had previously believed." Enough, in fact, to cause humans to "evolve" in order to adapt to it.

Reuters on January 8 revealed that the United States experienced its coldest November and December on record last year with a bone-chilling average national temperature of only 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit which broke a record that had stood for over 100 years. A Miami Herald article on January 10 concurred with the Reuters story by stating that "Manatees and pelicans hit by frostbite, sea turtles nearly dead from the cold, fish and shrimp killed by plummeting water temperatures" were among the casualties of the severe cold. Curiously, many scientists, possibly through some type of evolutionary adaptation, are able to overlook news like this in their blind quest to form a doomsday crisis. (Maybe they just fall asleep during the evening weather report.)

On the same day, a BBC article told quite a different story. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been meeting in Shanghai, China, issued a report stating that "the world's leading climatologists say global warming is happening faster than previously predicted." The most accurate scientific information refutes this assertion, along with their argument that man is responsible for causing it. Discerning the Times does, however, agree with one aspect of the report regarding their uncertain observation techniques which notes that "there are still many gaps in information and understanding."

The ground based temperature measurements (red) show a rapid increase in earth's temperature compared to the far more accurate satellite temperature measurements (blue). It has long been known that ground based temperatures suffer from errors caused by the heat-Island effect, which occurs when the once rural meteorological station becomes surrounded by asphalt as the city expands around it. Just recently it was determined that the temperatures taken at sea were totally incorrect and skewed the ground based temperatures by as much as 40 percent too high. Factors like the solar activity and El Ninõs are far more important in determining earth's temperature than carbon dioxide emissions.

In the article, Dr. Robert Watson, who heads the panel of scientists advising the United Nations, paints a very bleak picture of the future by predicting water shortages, disease, and agricultural damage. As reported by the January 23 Washington Post, Watson claimed that "Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years" -- the most rapid change in 10 millennia and more than 60 percent higher than the same group predicted less than six years ago.

"The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community," said Klaus Topfler, head of the U.N. Environment Program. "We should start preparing ourselves."

Global warming a fraud to support a political agenda

Dr. Robert Watson, director of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made very misleading, even fraudulent claims at the January 22 IPCC meeting that global warming could heat the earth by 10oC in the next 100 years. Watson has a history of politicizing science to advance the UN drive for global governance.

This is not the first time Dr. Watson has been less than forthright. Watson chaired the writing of the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) in 1993-1994, and was scientific advisor to the president on biodiversity. At the very time Senate majority leader Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) was asking the UN for the draft version of the GBA, Watson had it on his desk. The UN said they had no idea what the Senate was asking for. Watson knew about the request, yet did not give the Senate or Democratic colleague George Mitchell a copy of the draft. Dr. Watson clearly has more up his sleeve than just a concern for the environment. The global warming "holocaust" is the ticket needed to launch the Biodiversity Treaty and other dangerous agendas all designed to give the UN control over humanity. In short, these ecological disasters are a fraud to perpetrate a political agenda.

The January 23 Washington Post article also reported that Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, called the new IPCC report "a political statement" based on theoretical models which do not conform to existing scientific data from thermometers at weather stations, earth-circling satellites and high-altitude balloons. Almost all instrumental data, he said, shows no warming trend in the past 60 years, and he called data that does "suspect."

Policy analyst David Wojick of Canada's National Post goes even further in a scathing analysis of the UN politics behind global warming:

"The hype is completely misleading, an accounting problem if you like. In its prior assessments, in 1990 and 1995, the IPCC used a narrow range of 'business as usual' scenarios of future human activity to estimate future greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the great scientific uncertainty involved in climate science, they then estimated a temperature rise of from one to 3.5 degrees in 100 years, not a lot to worry about even if it did occur. This time the IPCC scientists decided...that the future of mankind is not that predictable. So they looked at 40 different scenarios....

"These new, extreme scenarios assume rising levels of greenhouse gases that are far faster than what is actually happening, or could happen, combined with the most extreme worst-case science. The activist scientists who wrote the Summary for Policymakers simply chose to include the scariest scenario in their Summary, and to focus on it in their press conference.... The Summary for Policymakers is a stand-alone political document. It reads like a legal brief or a sales pitch, which it is. It presents only the strongest arguments for global warming without mentioning the equally strong counter arguments or profound uncertainties.... UNEP's IPCC is not about science, it is about politics, the politics of global governance."

Environmentalism 101: A course in the absurd

Regardless of the facts, environmentalists have not used up all their warming-scare mileage as evidenced by this amusing story from CBS News on January 16. A "huge problem" such as global warming, apparently warrants a mindless, large-scale solution like the one put forth recently by certain climatologists. They are considering the feasibility of constructing a giant sunshade made from 50,000 mirrors to reflect the sun's rays back into space. (To quote humorist Dave Barry, "We are not making this up.") Picture "mother earth" sporting a very large and expensive pair of mirrored sunglasses. Another remedy promotes blasting tiny particles into the atmosphere from the guns of battleships which could deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling. (One minor drawback: The sky would be white instead of blue.) Or in the simplest of scenarios, parking a satellite in front of the sun to shield the earth just a tad.

In a great example of circular reasoning, The New York Times on January 12 informed its readers that global warming is, in fact, contributing to global warming. The theory asserts that droughts caused by the increasing temperatures could set off a biochemical process in northern soils that would release vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the air which could speed up the global warming process itself. This creates an entirely new set of "problems", which without a doubt will keep the experts awake at night trying to see exactly how gullible people can be.

Based on a boo-boo

A politically incorrect story in NewsMax on January 15 stated that "Global warming fanatics have exaggerated the rate of temperature rise by a whopping 40 percent, casting even more doubt on the theory that the Earth is heating up to the danger point, new studies show. Proponents of the global warming theory have been citing temperature records going back over 100 years that seem to show that global warming is under way. But an international team of scientists has found serious discrepancies in these temperature measurements, suggesting that the amount of global warming is much less than previously believed." The teams had been erroneously basing their measurements on sea temperatures rather than the air above the sea. Whoops. (Don't look for this story to make the prime-time national news.)

If "cooling the planet" was really the driving force behind the environmentalists' agenda, then scientific research that discounts the global warming threat should be music to their ears. Unfortunately, it is swept under the rug as the myths are trumpeted. Much of the confusion surrounding the global warming theory stems from the fact that solid scientific evidence does not support it to begin with, and science has to compete in the liberal media with the exaggerations and lies that the environmental leaders want to perpetuate for the purpose of ratifying various U.N. treaties.

The devil is the deceiver who is masterminding this plot to unite the world for the coming antichrist's reign. "And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast- all whose names have not been written in the book of life..." (Rev. 13:7-8) Anyone whose trust is placed in the Lord, can face a future full of promise- no matter what the weather may bring. (bolding added for emphasis) V bm

Editor's note: For a detailed scientific look at the truth behind global warming, please visit our archives:
Where's the Warming?
Where's the Warming? There is no evidence for global warming (Members Only)
Global Warming Entering Realm of the Absurd (Members Only)
Global Warming: A Fairy Tale for Adults (Members Only)
Global Warming Treaty Suffering from Meltdown (Members Only)