Climate Change Advocates Claim that it is starting to impact Polar Bear populations. Photo credit: Chief Yeoman Alphonso Braggs, US Navy (Public Domain)
Advocates claim that climate change impacts polar bear populations.
Photo credit: Chief Yeoman Alphonso Braggs, US Navy (Public Domain)

For almost a decade a small cadre of scientists have provided evidence that the fears about global warming are a vastly overblown horde of hot air. The real concern, they say, is that we may be entering another ice age.

The current furor about global warming really only began in the late 1980s, when there had been little over a decade of global warming. A decade was all that was needed as the pretext to spark a movement to “save the planet.”

Fueled by seemingly endless United Nations Eco-Summits, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rapid rise of dark green nature spirituality in the west, politicians and scientists warmed to the idea that humans are causing unprecedented heating of the planet. We hear, ad nauseam, that permanent hairshirts are in order for alleged climate transgressions, including things like flying in airplanes, eating meat, or having more than 2.1 children. If too late to stop catastrophic global warming (and that is the debate among wide- and wild-eyed true believers), then at least it is not too late to atone by the immediate surrender of the West’s 1000 year struggle toward inalienable human rights and freedom from state tyranny. Only totalitarian political micromanagement can save us; do it, do it now, or the planet fries.

The gaping crater in this fairytale is that, as of 2014, the planet has actually not warmed for over 16 years even while human caused CO2 emissions have soared—thank you, India and China. The alleged link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming is now as tenuous as a snowball in the Sahara. Indeed, the extended hiatus in warming, together with the unprecedented fall in solar activity, has furrowed the brows of not a few scientists, who have not as yet succumbed to the moral vanity of the global warming/climate crisis crowd.

How quickly we forget. During the 1960s it became apparent that some climate cooling had begun, and a much anticipated ice age was hailed as imminent. In the early 1970s, the United States Congress, exercised by the threat, held hearings where experts explained to politicians the dangers of the new age of global cooling, which, as Newsweek reported, would cause “droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons, and even local temperature increases….” Yes, Virginia, all this from global cooling. The New York Times chimed in with regular headlines such as, “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Even the Central Intelligence Agency got a piece of the action, with US News and World Report providing details from the CIA investigation: “the earth is heading into some sort of mini-ice age.”

What will we do if we are now finally heading into that ice age? We actually have experience of ice ages, the most recent “Little Ice Age” extending from the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries. It was terrible. During this time the River Thames regularly froze over, and harsh winters caused increased death and suffering. The cold weather that plagued the world coincided with an inactive sun, called the Maunder Minimum. Since then the planet has been clawing its way out of the Little Ice Age during a period of gentle global warming.

Decline in CMX class solar flares.

We live in interesting times. For five decades through the twentieth century solar activity rose steadily to rare heights. But now, in a new millennium, we encounter a sun weaker than ever in living history. Stanford physicist Leif Svalgaard said, “None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something.”

If the current pitiful solar activity continues, it may signal a future low period for the sun like what helped bring on the “Little Ice Age,” with its coldest periods characterized by the Maunder (about 1645–1715) and Dalton (about 1790–1830) minima. Global cooling could replace the modest warming that prevailed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s and the relatively stable global temperatures of about the last 16 years.

Global warming alarmists respond that solar cycles don’t involve enough change in energy output to account for the recent warming. But that response won’t do, for it’s not just changes in energy output that count. It’s also changes in the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field, which cycles along with energy output and shields the earth from galactic cosmic rays. The ‘stronger’ the wind, the fewer cosmic rays enter the atmosphere – the so-called Forbrush effect. The cosmic rays, in turn, affect low cloud formation—more rays, more clouds, fewer rays, fewer clouds. And the low clouds affect temperature: more clouds, lower temperatures, fewer clouds, higher temperatures. So, as solar energy output and magnetic fields decline, we get more cosmic rays and more low clouds and lower temperature. And right now the sun is well into a period of much lower activity, meaning it sure looks like we’re heading for lower temperatures for a period probably to last at least a few decades. I don’t have multibillion dollar computer models to ‘prove’ this. Perhaps if such existed it would be a hypothesis that is ‘too big to fail’, like the well-funded, but breathless, climate crisis crowd.

If current solar trends continue we may have in our future something resembling an ice age. In such a case present global warming policy, which intentionally raises energy prices, is suicidal. Is our culture so brain altered, so fixed and plugged into the lie of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, that we are unable en masse to assimilate the real data? In Europe and America wealthy green elites wage war on reliable and affordable energy options in favor of those that do not offend Mother Earth, or at least offer no threat to their comfortable pads in Davos. May God help us restore our native freedoms, for only a free people can reasonably hope to have the social and spiritual capital to survive on cold nights when the lights go dim.

Cross-post

2 comments
  1. A few thoughts on this article:

    1. Why does it always seem that every climate change denier seems to be affiliated with the church?

    2. Why does it always seem that every climate change denier is a conservative republican?

    3. Could question #2 and #3 be tied into the persons philosophical ideologies with no foundation otherwise? Is it possible that these people, like James Wanliss, have their answer before they ask the question? It seems as though they conform their opinion on matters such as these (along with creationism) to suit their philosophy rather than conform their conclusions based on the evidence.

    4. If James Wanliss is correct and he has evidence to support his claims then why doesn’t he submit his evidence and conclusion to a peer reviewed journal and collect his Nobel prize? Because be sure, that is exactly what he would receive if he could provide empirical evidence to support his idea that climate change is a myth. He would be submitting a paper that would disprove 97% of the scientist conclusions right now. He would quite literally change the climate science landscape.

    5. This article is based on information, scientific information supposedly, that James Wanliss has attained from peer reviewed independent studies. Where are the citations?

    6. Everything in this article is completely and utterly false. Mr. Wanliss has been totally fraudulent in his claims. He is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. Do not be fooled, his credentials as a associate physics professor do not lend him credence on this topic. You must ask yourself, does every medical doctor give you a 100% accurate assesment on your conditions? No? Why would you say that? That doctor went to school for more than a decade to learn his profession and knows more about you about medicine and the human anatomy. What’s that you say? A doctor is capable of giving you advice based on his or her own ideas? You mean its not always based on fact? Well then, how do you know what is a fact and what’s not? You mean to tell me that you have to have multiple lines of independent reviews on a premise then have that premise reviewed, tested and based a an explanation that best suits the observable facts? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the scientific method. Observe, predict, test and prove. If your premise can be observed, if you can make a prediction based on the observations and you can test these predictions and prove they are reliable over multiple lines of inquiry by dozens of independent fields of study then you have a fact.

    Don’t be afraid to question things such as what James Wanliss here is preaching. You will find yourself in a position where you are seated firmly in the dimension on reality and not outside of it.

    For those of you that are incapable of doing this, Im talking to you James Wanliss and Caffinated Thoughts staff, do everyone a favor and stop trying to convince the world that they need to view the world through your filter of religion and politics. That filter is not based on tangible evidence rather it is based on a belief system that does not support the mountain of evidence available to everyone that encounters it.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

The Folly of Idolatry (Isaiah 44:9-20)

9 All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight…

Christian Group: Climate Change Policy is Dead End for Poor

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation launched a campaign calling for an end of the fight against climate change for the sake of the poor.

Thank A Veteran Every Day

Congressman David Young (R-IA): On this Veterans Day, and every day, seek out those who have donned a uniform and served our country and say thank you.

CNN = Credibility Nullified Network

Shane Vander Hart: In the Trump era CNN needs to make a significant course correction, or it will forever be the Credibility Nullified Network.