Climate Change > WaPo publishes new theory on why the earth is warming

 

But, there is an old theory that is being ignored!

Global Warming and Air Pollution

I guess "The Science" (tm) isn’t so settled after all.

Robert W Malone MD, MS

Feb 15, 2025

471

89

47

Share

“The Science is Settled”

The Washington Post ran a story today, which calls into question whether global warming is man-made.

Two new studies offer a potential explanation: fewer clouds. And the decline in cloud cover, researchers say, could signal the start of a feedback loop that leads to more warming.

Researchers are still unsure exactly what accounts for this decrease. Some believe that it could be due to less air pollution: When particulates are in the air, it can make it easier for water droplets to stick to them and form clouds.

Another possibility, Goessling said, is a feedback loop from warming temperatures. Clouds require moisture to form, and moist stratocumulus clouds sit just underneath a dry layer of air about one mile high. If temperatures warm, hot air from below can disturb that dry layer, mixing with it and making it harder for wet clouds to form.

But those changes are difficult to predict — and not all climate models show the same changes. “It’s really tricky,” Goessling said.

The scientific papers cited in this article document that reduced aerosol particulates in the sky appear to be causing a decrease in low-cloud cover. This is because water surrounds such particulates and causes cloud formation. So the decreasing cloud cover, particularly in warmer regions, is causing temperatures worldwide to increase.

There is much more to this story on Who is Robert Malone?

But before you go there, please check out this post from 2019 in which scientists have related cloud cover to sunspot activity. The theory is that sunspot activity interferes with cosmic rays from elsewhere in the universe which causes increased cloud cover. 

We are supposed to enter a period of low sunspot activity around 2030, which may result in actual cooling of the earth.

The Other Side of the Solar Activity/Climate Change Debate

=============================================================================================

NASA Pulls Climate Data Out of Hats Like Rabbits

Historical temperature data post 2015 look very different from pre-2015 data

By Dr. Jay Lehr 

Late last year NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak, announced that the Earth may be cooling. It was surprise because data manipulation has been going on for many years at both NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency) and NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Agency).

The most current temperature curves produced by these agencies track well with the increases in man’s carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades. However a few years earlier the data presented looked nothing like that of more recent times.

For years Climate activists in charge of NOAA and NASA were surprised that their own data and satellite measurements had been showing the climate to be stable or cooling since 1998 while CO2 levels had continued to rise. They were under intense pressure to explain how this could be in the face of all the alarmist reports put out by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

It was time to resort to the strategy that progressives use in times of crisis. If you do not like the facts, ignore them. 

The publication Frontiers of Freedom in their February 23, 2016 issue documented what has been done in an article by T. Richard titled “How NOAA Rewrote Climate Data to Hide Global Warming Pause”.

The falsification of climate data by NOAA and NASA covers more than just the past decade. The U.S. has published temperature data beginning in 1880 up to the present. Tony Heller shows how their data has been tinkered with many times in past years, in The History of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption.

The graph of the NASA data from 1880 to the year 2000 (below) was posted in 1999. On the same chart is the data NASA posted for the very same years in 2016. This obvious alteration of reality should be an embarrassment to NASA, but it appears not to be.NASA pulls climate data out of hats like rabbits

Representative Lamar Smith former chair of the House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee demanded that NOAA and NASA produce their data for independent analysis. NOAA refused to release the subpoenaed documents. Judicial Watch has sued NOAA under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to their data. So far nothing has been turned over.

The climate curve recalculated in 2016 is now in complete agreement with the global warming movement. The cooling trend between 1940 and 1970 has been eliminated. 

Remember my article revealing 30 year temperature cycles? This cooling trend roughly lines up with the one I pointed out in 2015. To be followed by a warming period of 30 years through to near the end of the century, then another cooling (or non-warming) cycle which we are in now. it should last until about 2030 whereupon, the cooling temperatures of the upper atmosphere may well reach the earths surface. The greenhouse effect may temper the cooling trend along with the 30 year cycle, but many scientists around the world are more concerned about global cooling than global warming. Certainly, if the sun-spot minimum lasts more than 30 or 40 years, the latter part of this century may be much cooler than most people expect.

The data now show that temperatures are increasing along with our rising carbon dioxide. The new curve shows the Earth’s temperature increased 1.4 degrees C since 1880. Temperatures that are out of line with the prediction of alarmists are gradually and systematically adjusted and replaced by corrected computer generated temperatures. Children who are fed this new data are being recruited to beg us to save their futures.

Children are also being stressed out that the world will come to an end if they don't act now. What kind of evil craziness is that? Major media outlets and governments are deliberately raising the panic level among children. It is extremely irresponsible.

The truth seeping out from NASA was first reported in the New American magazine by James Murphy in October of 2018 where he quoted Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center saying “High above Earths’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold”. 

Major media outlets completely ignored this information.

This new revelation comes from NASA’s SABER instrument aboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. In plain talk SABER stands for Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry and TIMED stands for the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics.

SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide which are two of the gases that play a major role in releasing energy from the thermosphere at the top of our atmosphere which encapsulates our planets heat. Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER said “the thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimums. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle effects our planet”. Solar Minimums as the words would indicate are periods of less activity spawning a decrease in radiation launched toward the Earth.

While pondering this surprise comment from NASA in a January 30, 2019 post, author Michael Sherlock said “all any of this proves is that we have at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s alright to step back, take a deep breadth, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.”

Author
Dr. Jay Lehr
Jay Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

Peter Ferrara
Contributor, Forbes

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.  That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago.  I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations.  See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data.  In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.  With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC.  You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered.  If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

In 2015, I discussed a 30 year temperature cycle that I had read about in the 1970's. It would appear that this is the cause and confirmation of that cycle.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1960s.  The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age.  Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen.  The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010.  Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer.  He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010.  He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook.  Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?”  Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.  All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening.  That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future.  Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase.  Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically.  You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so.  Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years.  He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

But that is not all.  We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity.  That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures.  The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).

Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times.  The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850.  The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death.

Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun.

Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get.  Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s?  Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum?  He says it is impossible to know now.  But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.

The Real Science and Politics Behind Climate Change

The chart above clearly shows a weakening trend of sunspots in solar cycles 22, 23 and 24. These are the latest in a sequence dating from 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Note that the peak of solar cycle 24, which occurred in 2014, is only about half that of solar cycle 22, which peaked about 1989.

This portends global cooling—not global warming. Sunspots are dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years. In 2008, during the solar minimum of cycle 23, there were 266 days with no sunspots. This is considered a very deep solar minimum. You can check out pictures of sunspots—or their absence—day after day for recent years at http://tinyurl.com/6zck4x.

At right is a recent picture of the sun with a single sunspot region as the sun marches toward a cyclical low expected in 2019 or 2020. 

Sunspots have been observed for millennia, first in China and with a telescope for the first time by Galileo in 1610. We now have a 400-year record of sunspot cycle observations, from which we can see a cycle length of about 11 years. Combining this fact with the discovery of a strong correlation between solar activity and radioactive carbon 14 in tree rings, it has been possible to backdate sunspot cycles from the sun’s magnetic cycles for a thousand years, back to the Oort Minimum in the year 1010.

Sunspots occur when magnetic fields rip through the sun’s surface, producing holes in the sun’s corona, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and changes in the solar wind, the stream of charged particles emanating from the sun. The solar wind, by modulating the galactic cosmic rays which reach the earth, determines both the formation of clouds and the carbon dioxide level in the earth’s atmosphere—which has nothing to do with emissions from factories or automobiles! This is why in the 15 years prior to 2013, when humans produced 461 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide—compared to only 302 billion tonnes in the preceding 15 years—there was no global warming; in fact, the earth actually cooled despite the massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The fear mongers claim a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce catastrophic global warming. But Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as a doubling of carbon dioxide.”

After about 210 years, sunspot cycles “crash” or almost entirely die out, and the earth can cool dramatically. These unusually cold periods last several decades. Of greatest concern to us is the Maunder Minimum, which ran from 1645 to 1715. Below is a chart that shows the paucity of sunspots during this time. Some years had no sunspots at all.

The astronomer Sporer reported only 50 sunspots during a 30-year period, compared to 40,000 to 50,000 typical for that length of time.

Since the Maunder Minimum, a less extreme but still significantly below-average period of cooler temperatures occurred during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830), also shown on the graph.

Deep-freeze predicted by mid-century

At least as far back as 2007—before Cycle 23 had bottomed—a Russian solar physicist, predicted what we are seeing now. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, noting that solar irradiance had already begun to fall, said a slow decline in temperatures would begin as early as 2012-2015 and lead to a deep freeze in 2050-2060 that will last about fifty years. He said the warming we’ve been witnessing was caused by increased solar irradiance, not CO2 emissions:

It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then 

triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global 

warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.

Further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect, the renowned scientist said:

Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically

substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion,

ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.

In a paper published in 2009, Abdussamatov wrote that there have been 18 Maunder-type minima of deep temperature drops in the last 7,500 years, “which without fail follow after natural warming.” And, correspondingly,

while in the periods of high sunspot maxima, there have been periods of global warming.

Such changes in the climate of the Earth could be caused only by lasting and significant 

changes in the Sun, because there was absolutely no industrial effect on nature in those times.

We would expect the onset of the phase of deep minimum in the present 200-year cycle of 

cyclic activity of the Sun to occur at the beginning of solar cycle 27; i.e., tentatively in the 

year 2042 plus or minus 11 years, and potentially lasting 45-65 years.

CO2 maxima always follow temperature maxima by 200-800 years

Regarding analyses of ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, Abdussamatov wrote:

It has been seen that substantial increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in 

the atmosphere and global climate warming have occurred cyclically, even when there 

was as yet no industrial action on nature. It has also been established that periodic, 

very substantial increases in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere for a period 

of 420 thousand years never preceded warming, but, on the contrary, always followed an

increase in the temperature with a delay of 200-800 years, i.e., they were its consequence.

In an update in October 2013, Abdussamatov warned, “We are now on an unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.”

Ocean currents reveal similar pattern

Abdussamatov’s conclusions about global cooling came from his studies of the sun, but another scientist came to a similar conclusion by studying ocean currents. This should not be surprising because, as NASA has stated, “uneven heating from the sun drives the air and ocean currents that produce the Earth’s climate”. Don Easterbrook, a geology professor and climate scientist, correctly predicted back in 2000 that the earth was entering a cooling phase. He made his prediction by tracing a “consistently recurring pattern” of alternating warm and cool ocean cycles known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). He found this cycle recurring every 25 to 30 years for almost 500 years. Projecting this forward, he concluded “the PDO said we’re due for a change,” and that happened.

This 25 to 30 year cycle fits well with the 30 year cycle I reported more than a year ago from the temperature pattern of the past 135 years. See below:

IPCC agenda driven political panel, not scientific

Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they:

“ignored all the data I gave them…every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause…I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever….These people are simply ignoring real-time data that has been substantiated and can be replicated and are simply making stuff up….What they’re doing in the U.S. is using CO2 to impose all kinds of restrictions to push a socialist government.”

Is it true that the global-warming issue has become a front for a political ideology? Has it become a tool for increasing government control over our lives, not just in the U.S. but all over the globe? In 2010 a leading member of the United Nation’s IPCC said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Now it’s not about saving the environment but about redistributing wealth, said Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007). “We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Edenhofer told a German news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag ): “Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

The Cancun agreement set up a “Green Climate Fund” to administer assistance to poor nations suffering from floods and drought due to global warming. The European Union, Japan and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion per year for poor nations up to 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate assistance.

One might think this redistribution of wealth is a good thing, and in an ideal world it would be. But this is not an ideal world and any new scheme invented by the world's oligarchs has only one objective, to migrate money and power from ordinary people to the already wealthy and powerful. Very little, if any, of this money will make it to improving lives in poorer countries. In industrialized countries middle classes will slowly disappear as their money gets sucked away by higher taxes and prices for fuel and power and everything else. 

The IPCC regularly submits its reports to its Expert Reviewers Panel. As you might expect, most of its appointments to this panel have been supporters of global warming. A few nonbelievers have been included to give the appearance of balance, but their comments and questions have been routinely ignored as the IPCC focuses on what it claims to be the “consensus” view.

Only one person has been been on every IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel, dating back to 1990. That man is Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand. He submitted a very large number of comments to IPCC drafts. Here are some of his comments from a letter he wrote on March 9, 2008:

Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC

contributors throughout their whole study range….Right from the beginning I have had 

difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. 

Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to 

pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. …

I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, 

the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts 

to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific 

procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and 

was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC 

is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition. …

Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle. The IPCC from the beginning was 

given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that 

carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of 

dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable….

Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization, and the thinking 

behind it, is phony.  Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by 

its influence before that happens.

Patrick Moore, a co-founder and director of Greenpeace, resigned because of its “trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.” After the failure of communism, he says, there was little public support for collectivist ideology. In his view a “reason environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the [Berlin] wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalism than they do anything with ecology or science.”

Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic and a university professor before he became president, is the author of a book on global warming and has spoken often on the subject. He says , “What frustrates me is the feeling that everything has already been said and published, that all rational argument has been used, yet it does not help.”

It does not help because global warming alarmism is not based on rational argument. It is not based on science. It is not based on reality. It is based on political ideology. If rational argument doesn’t fit, then phony arguments must be invented: the spread of malaria, the loss of biological diversity, oceans flooding, polar bears disappearing, Himalayan glaciers vanishing, etc.

If global warming does not fit the observable temperature measurements, then a new “reality” must be invented to fit the ideology: actual temperature records must be altered or dismissed—hundreds of temperature-reporting stations in colder areas worldwide were eliminated from the global network so the average temperature is higher than when those stations were included.

There is an award on my wall, recognition of the fight I put up to save volunteer climate stations from extinction in western Canada. The award was given regionally - national office did not appreciate my interfering with their plans to close the stations and thereby destroy the integrity of the National Climatic database. 

I could never understand why they could not see what they were doing to the integrity and usefulness of Canadian climate data. It seems obvious now that they did not want to see it.

Presto! Global warming. Ditto for carbon dioxide measurements: 90,000 CO2 measurements in 175 research papers were dismissed because they showed higher CO2 levels than desired, and various other studies were selectively edited to eliminate “uncooperative” measurements while claiming the cherry-picked remaining ones showed global warming (link.) The global warming advocates are not disturbed by all this because, in their view, ideology trumps reality!

That might seem contradictory, but I believe he is referring to historical studies which might indicate CO2 levels too high, too early, therefore departing from the smooth pattern of increase the IPCC wants the world to believe.

Klaus states:

“We succeeded in getting rid of communism, but along with many others, we erroneously assumed that attempts to suppress freedom, and to centrally organize, mastermind, and control society and the economy, were matters of the past, an almost-forgotten relic. Unfortunately, those centralizing urges are still with us….

“Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior and our values….They don’t care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced….

“The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas. That is not only unfair but also extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous, in my view, is the quasi-scientific guise that their oft-refuted forecasts have taken on….Their recommendations would take us back to an era of statism and restricted freedom….The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical—the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of the proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality…. We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society….It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”

This brings us to my pet subject this week - the New World Order by virtue of something called 'astro-turfing'. Astro-turfing is the artificial creation of a 'grassroots' or populist movement. This is explained in the second video at Startling Comments on the New World Order (Astro-Turfing) from Putin as the efforts of pharmaceutical companies to create a need for their medication that didn't previously exist. The IPCC is using the same technique to sell climate change to the gullible masses and it is working with spectacular success.

Check out this post from Oct 2015 - One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor. What he predicted has happened in that most countries in the world have signed away their autonomy to the IPCC at Paris. Of all the disasters that have occurred in Paris in the past year and a half, climate change summit will stand through history as being the worst. We have opened the door to One-World government, and nothing good will come out of that.

Just one more teaser: if anthropogenic CO2 is contributing to global warming and if we reduce it significantly and then a cooling period begins as predicted above, we will require the use of more energy to heat our homes in the middle latitudes because we contributed to a cooler planet. That means more pollution! It also means obscenely high costs which will certainly be in place the way we are going. 

Happy New Year everyone! May God bless us all with wisdom and truth in 2017 for we sure did miss it in 2016.