There are three key questions.

One: is the planet undergoing an abnormal transformation in its climatic conditions or is it an explainable natural cyclic event?

Two: if the climate is changing adversely, what is really causing it? Is global warming the factual answer?

Three: if a climate crisis is legitimate, are humans actually acerbating the situation as claimed?

This is an investigation into perhaps the hottest topic in the world today – pun not intended – and regardless of the outcome, there is no doubting that humanity is ravaging the Earth as systematically as a virus attacks and destroys its host. 

Humankind acts as a veritable plague enveloping the planet with untold death and misery towards its myriad life forms. Unquestionably, the consequences to the world’s oceans and seas from pollution and aggressive fishing; the depletion of soil nutrients from the over use of land for crops and agriculture; destruction of flora and fauna through deforestation; and the proliferation of factory farming with its inherent abuse, cruelty and health ramifications are all enormous issues for concern. But, are they inferior to the wider issue of climate change or the truly pressing concerns escaping attention due to being relegated into the lengthening shadows cast by global warming? 

A survey was conducted online during December 12 to 16 in 2019, among 2,017 United States adults ages eighteen or older, by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association. More than half of American adults (56%) said climate change was the most important issue facing society today. Even so, four in ten had not made changes in their behaviour to reduce their contribution to climate change. Seven in ten people said they wished there was more they could do to combat climate change, with 51% of American adults saying they didn’t know where to start. 

Some people remain unwilling to make any changes in their behaviour to climate change. When asked if anything could persuade them to reduce their contribution to climate change, 29% said nothing would motivate them to do so. Conversely, the most common motivations for behaviour changes among those who have taken action to reduce their contribution to climate change are firstly: wanting to preserve the planet for future generations (52%) and secondly, by hearing about climate change and its impact in the news (43%). The results show that the warning message regarding climate change and global warming is getting through. 

Climate change and global warming are invariably used interchangeably, though they have distinct meanings – and the terms weather and climate can be confused, yet they refer to events with ‘broadly different spatial’ timescales. Weather refers to the atmospheric conditions occurring in local regions over short periods of time, whether minutes, hours or days and includes clouds, snow, rain, thunderstorms, winds and floods. Contrastingly, climate refers to long-term – at least over thirty years – regional or global average of temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns over seasons, years or decades. 

While Climate change includes global warming, it more accurately refers to the broad range of changes happening in recorded average weather patterns on the planet, which include: ‘rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower [and] plant blooming times.’ 

NASA – emphasis mine: 

‘Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning [such as coal, oil and gas to produce energy and for transport], which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. Natural processes, which have been overwhelmed by human activities, can also contribute to climate change, including internal variability (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and external forcings (e.g., volcanic activity, changes in the Sun’s energy output, variations in Earth’s orbit).

Scientists use observations from the ground, air, and space, along with computer models, to monitor and study past, present, and future climate change. Climate data records provide evidence of climate change key indicators, such as global land and ocean temperature increases; rising sea levels; ice loss at Earth’s poles and in mountain glaciers; frequency and severity changes in extreme weather such as hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and precipitation; and cloud and vegetation cover changes.’

Notice NASA claim humans are the main factor in Earth’s climate changes, yet in the same breath acknowledge volcanic activity, the Sun’s energy output and variations in the Earth’s orbit as contributing factors. Organisations such as NASA portray a stark picture. Are they telling the truth or pushing an agenda inspired propaganda? One would think NASA could be trusted in providing accurate, up-to-date and unbiased scientific data. 

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) confusingly state that: ‘Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.’ Then they state: ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization that includes 195 member countries and thousands of independent scientific experts, published a Synthesis Report in March 2023. It concluded that human activities, principally through greenhouse gas emissions, have unequivocally caused global warming. The main drivers of these emissions are energy use, land use, and the consumption and production of goods.’ 

Thus Human activities principally from greenhouse gas emissions, range from likely to unequivocally responsible for global warming. Which one is it? 

The principle activities producing greenhouse gases as outlined by Greenpeace, which are deemed damaging to the climate include the following:

• Generating energy – a lot of power generation for electricity and the vast majority of home heating are still done by burning fossil fuels, such as gas. In the UK, emissions from electricity have gone down rapidly in recent years, thanks to… reductions in burning coal for energy and dramatic increases in renewable energy generation. [Globally, about a quarter of electricity comes from wind, solar and other renewable sources]. 

• Transport – cars, buses, trains, trucks, ships and planes, (unless electric and charged with renewable energy), all produce emissions by burning fossil fuels. In the UK, transport is the biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for 27% of emissions in 2019, mostly from cars. International aviation and shipping will continue to be a significant contributor to climate change until demand reduces or alternatives to fossil fuels become available. [Transport accounts for nearly one quarter of global energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions].

• Food production – livestock reared for meat and dairy products emit methane, and agricultural soils emit gases like nitrous oxide, which is made from nitrogen in the soil through the use of fertiliser. As food production increases (with more fertilisers, more livestock, and the need for more crops to feed livestock), emissions will also increase.

• Deforestation – because trees store carbon as they grow, cutting or burning down trees releases that carbon into the atmosphere. [Also, cutting trees down means that carbon dioxide builds up quicker since there are less trees to absorb it.] Farmers may cut down trees or clear land using fire to produce soya for animal feed, such as in the Amazon. In other parts of the world, natural forests are cleared for timber, mining or palm oil. [Each year approximately 12 million hectares of forest are destroyed].

• Powering industry – since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century in the UK, humans have burned fuel such as coal, oil and gas in order to drive large-scale industries. Industrial emissions come from producing things like cement [2% of entire CO2 emissions], iron, steel, electronics, plastics and clothing. All countries are now largely dependent on fossil fuels to build and sustain their economies.

• Plastics and waste – plastics are made from fossil fuels, releasing emissions through their production. Globally, about 40% of plastics are used as packaging. Because so little is recycled (and it would be hard to recycle that much plastic anyway), dealing with waste releases emissions when incinerated (burned) or put into landfill – making it a bigger climate problem than it initially seems.

The United Nations provides a similar list, though they split powering industry into powering buildings and manufacturing goods. The UN added a further cause for climate change:

Consuming too much: ‘Your home and use of power, how you move around, what you eat and how much you throw away all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. A large chunk of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked to private households. Our lifestyles have a profound impact on our planet. The wealthiest bear the greatest responsibility: the richest 1 per cent of the global population combined account for more greenhouse gas emissions than the poorest 50 per cent.’

The United Nations include a comprehensive list of the main effects of climate change:

Hotter temperatures: As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so does the global surface temperature. The last decade, 2011-2020, is the warmest on record. Since the 1980s, each decade has been warmer than the previous one. Nearly all land areas are seeing more hot days and heat waves. Higher temperatures increase heat-related illnesses and make working outdoors more difficult. Wildfires start more easily and spread more rapidly when conditions are hotter. Temperatures in the Arctic have warmed at least twice as fast as the global average.

More severe storms: Destructive storms have become more intense and more frequent in many regions. As temperatures rise, more moisture evaporates, which exacerbates extreme rainfall and flooding, causing more destructive storms. The frequency and extent of tropical storms is also affected by the warming ocean. Cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons feed on warm waters at the ocean surface. Such storms often destroy homes and communities, causing deaths and huge economic losses.

Increased drought: Climate change is changing water availability, making it scarcer in more regions. Global warming exacerbates water shortages in already water-stressed regions and is leading to an increased risk of agricultural droughts affecting crops, and ecological droughts increasing the vulnerability of ecosystems. Droughts can also stir destructive sand and dust storms that can move billions of tons of sand across continents. Deserts are expanding, reducing land for growing food. Many people now face the threat of not having enough water on a regular basis [refer article: Wonder of Water].

A warming, rising ocean: The ocean soaks up most of the heat from global warming. The rate at which the ocean is warming strongly increased over the past two decades, across all depths of the ocean. As the ocean warms, its volume increases since water expands as it gets warmer. Melting ice sheets also cause sea levels to rise, threatening coastal and island communities. In addition, the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, keeping it from the atmosphere. But more carbon dioxide makes the ocean more acidic, which endangers marine life and coral reefs.

Loss of species: Climate change poses risks to the survival of species on land and in the ocean. These risks increase as temperatures climb. Exacerbated by climate change, the world is losing species at a rate 1,000 times greater than at any other time in recorded human history. One million species are at risk of becoming extinct within the next few decades. Forest fires, extreme weather, and invasive pests and diseases are among many threats related to climate change. Some species will be able to relocate and survive, but others will not.

Not enough food: Changes in the climate and increases in extreme weather events are among the reasons behind a global rise in hunger and poor nutrition. Fisheries, crops, and livestock may be destroyed or become less productive. With the ocean becoming more acidic, marine resources that feed billions of people are at risk. Changes in snow and ice cover in many Arctic regions have disrupted food supplies from herding, hunting, and fishing. Heat stress can diminish water and grasslands for grazing, causing declining crop yields and affecting livestock.

More health risks: Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity. Climate impacts are already harming health, through air pollution, disease, extreme weather events, forced displacement, pressures on mental health, and increased hunger and poor nutrition in places where people cannot grow or find sufficient food. Every year, environmental factors take the lives of around 13 million people. Changing weather patterns are expanding diseases, and extreme weather events increase deaths and make it difficult for health care systems to keep up.

Poverty and displacement: Climate change increases the factors that put and keep people in poverty. Floods may sweep away urban slums, destroying homes and livelihoods. Heat can make it difficult to work in outdoor jobs. Water scarcity may affect crops. Over the past decade (2010–2019), weather-related events displaced an estimated 23.1 million people on average each year, leaving many more vulnerable to poverty. Most refugees come from countries that are most vulnerable and least ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

As with NASA and Greenpeace, the Met Office advocates that human activity is the prime cause of climate change. They likewise acknowledge natural cycles as well as natural factors known as forcings, do contribute to climate change and list the following two cycles and two forcings:

• Milankovitch cycles – As Earth travels around the sun, its path and the tilt of its axis can change slightly. These changes, called Milankovitch cycles, affect the amount of sunlight that falls on Earth. This can cause the temperature of Earth to change. However, these cycles take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years…

• El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – ENSO is a pattern of changing water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. In an ‘El Niño’ year, the global temperature warms up, and in a ‘La Niña’ year, it cools down. These patterns can affect the global temperature for a short amount of time (months or years)…

• Solar irradiance – Changing energy from the sun has affected the temperature of Earth in the past. However, we have not seen anything strong enough to change our climate. Any increase in solar energy would make the entire atmosphere of Earth warm, but we can only see warming in the bottom layer.

• Volcanic eruptions – Volcanoes have a mixed effect on our climate. Eruptions produce aerosol particles that cool Earth, but they also release carbon dioxide, which warms it. Volcanoes produce 50 times less carbon dioxide than humans do… On top of this, cooling is the dominant effect of volcanic eruptions, not warming.

Global warming on the other hand refers to the long-term warming of the planet. The long-term heating of the Earth’s surface has been observed since the period beginning in 1850 during the industrial revolution. The inference is that human activity is the precipitating cause for increasing Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)… ‘a number that is currently increasing by more than 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade’ as reported by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021. The global average temperature is predicted to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (about 3 degrees Fahrenheit) within the next few decades and possibly up to 5.8 °C by the year 2100, ‘affecting all life on Earth’ with ‘catastrophic consequences.’

The IPCC warned that the tipping point would be reached if humanity allowed global temperatures to warm over 2ºC, which was the ultimate limit set by the Paris Agreement – agreed in 2015 and enforced on November 4, 2016. 

By what reasoning has the IPCC reached this conclusion? Why 2 degrees and not 2.5 degrees? It was in the 1970s that William Nordhaus, ‘an economist at Yale, suggested in several papers that if global warming were to exceed 2° C on average, it would push global conditions past any point that any human civilization had experienced… based on the historical record of past average temperatures…’ It remains a somewhat arbitrary figure chosen by an economist and not a scientist. Yet it has been adopted by the IPCC as gospel and subsequently written into the Paris Agreement in 2015. 

Greenpeace add: ‘A climate tipping point is when small changes combine to become significant enough to cause larger, more critical changes to our climate and our planet, which are likely to be irreversible.’

These are the major tipping points scientists warn governments about:

• Polar ice sheets collapsing in Greenland and Antarctica – while it is melting slowly, the eventual collapse of the Greenland ice sheet would be irreversible, and sea levels around the world would rise by up to seven metres, leaving cities like Miami and Mumbai underwater. Scientists are also now concerned about the potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would also have extreme effects on the coastlines around the world.

• Arctic permafrost melt – as the atmosphere heats up, the Arctic permafrost is melting, releasing greenhouse gases stored underneath it, such as methane.

• Changing oceans are shifting weather patterns – fresh water from the Greenland ice sheet is melting into the Atlantic ocean, causing the Gulf Stream to slow, leading to extreme cold snaps and colder winters in the US and Europe. The oceans are also absorbing heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions, affecting wildlife and livelihoods around the world, including strengthening El Nino and La Nina weather patterns around the Pacific Ocean.

Amazon rainforest collapse – the Amazon rainforest is being destroyed and burned to make way for farming, and now produces more than a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is now more than it absorbs. If it dries up, billions more tonnes of carbon dioxide would be emitted into the atmosphere, disrupting rainfall across South America and altering climate patterns in other parts of the world.

The UN warns that every fraction of a degree of warming matters and state: ‘With every increment of global warming, extreme heat and rainfall events become more frequent and more intense.’

‘If global warming exceeds 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, there will be more heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons.’

‘At 2°C of global warming, extreme heat would more often cross critical tolerance thresholds with devastating impacts on agriculture and human health. Increasing changes to wetness and dryness, to winds, snow and ice, coastal areas and oceans, will affect different regions in different ways.’

A NASA graph illustrates the change in global surface average temperatures, with the year 2020 statistically tying with 2016 for hottest on record

Granted, the effects from continued unrestrained warming would be profound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change somberly state: “The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing [the] window to secure a liveable future.” Continued global warming, would mean further loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, ocean temperatures rising and ocean acidification. While on land, expect intense heat waves, frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in certain regions, an increase in the wind intensity as well as rainfall from tropical cyclones. 

The alarm vocalised by scientists is that the effects of ‘human-caused’ global warming are happening now and are irreversible for people alive today; only worsening as long as humanity continues adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thus the global population is not being blamed entirely for climate change, they are accused of being guilty for warming the planet. The good news for our Sun, is that ‘solar irradiance’ is not responsible for global warming. Thus the Sun has been cleared of any culpability for increases in Earth’s temperature, even though the Sun has played a role in past climate changes.

The graph above compares global surface temperature changes on the red line and the Sun’s energy that Earth receives on the yellow line in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious. The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since 1880. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century – NASA.

The abrupt end of the last ice age approximately 13,000 years ago and the advent about 11,700 years ago of the beginning of the Holocene epoch, marked the beginning of the modern climate era and of human civilisation – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla; Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega; Appendix IV: An Unconventional Chronology; and article, The Younger Dryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World. 

Climate changes prior and following this event are according to Caltech, ‘attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that alter the amount of energy our planet receives from the sun. But the warming… seen over the past few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.’ 

Supporting data includes: ‘ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks… paleoclimate evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.’ 

‘Today’s global warming is an unprecedented type of climate change, and it is driving a cascade of side effects in our climate system. It’s these side effects, such as changes in sea level along heavily populated coastlines and the worldwide retreat of mountain glaciers that millions of people depend on for drinking water and agriculture, that are likely to have a much greater impact on society than temperature change alone’ – What’s the difference between global warming and climate change? Caitlyn Kennedy & Rebecca Lindsey, June 17, 2015.

The Earth’s surface remains temperate and thus provides an environment suitable for sustaining life. This is achieved by gases in the Earth’s lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere trapping heat from the Sun, otherwise known as the Greenhouse Effect. The greenhouse gases act as a ‘cozy blanket enveloping our planet’ and maintain a warmer temperature than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth.

In recent decades, it is claimed human-made emissions in the atmosphere are trapping and slowing down heat loss to space. There are five main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide; methane; chlorofluorocarbons; and water vapour, which is the most influential of the five. 

Carbon dioxide (or CO2) is released through natural processes such as volcanic eruptions, through human breathing as well as activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation. NASA claim ‘human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50% since the Industrial Revolution began…’ and that the ‘sharp rise in CO2 is the most important climate change driver over the last century.’

Caltech report: ‘CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) [prior to the industrial era] to 414 ppm in the past 150 years [hitting 415 ppm in May 2021]. Scientists use ppm to measure what fraction of the air is made up of a certain molecule, in this case CO2. One ppm of CO2 would mean that for every 1 million air molecules you breathe in, one would be CO2.’ Also claimed is that ‘carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last ice age.’

Similarly ‘a potent greenhouse gas produced by farming practices, nitrous oxide is released during commercial and organic fertilizer production and use. Nitrous oxide also comes from burning fossil fuels and burning vegetation and has increased by 18% in the last 100 years.’ 

Methane derives from natural sources like ‘plant-matter breakdown in wetlands… from landfills and rice farming… Livestock animals emit methane from their digestion and manure.’ Human sources include ‘leaks from fossil fuel production and transportation…’ The Met Office: ‘… methane… is 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The nitrous oxide used for fertilisers is ten times worse and is nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide!’

Natural gas comprises 70% to 90% methane. A single molecule, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and while less common in the atmosphere, ‘the amount of methane in our atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times.’ 

Chlorofluorocarbons are chemical compounds that do not exist in nature and are entirely of industrial origin. ‘They were used as refrigerants, solvents (a substance that dissolves others), and spray-can propellants. An international agreement [made in 1987 and enforced on January 1, 1989], known as the Montreal Protocol, now regulates CFCs because they damage the ozone layer. Despite this, emissions of some types of CFCs spiked for about five years due to violations of the international agreement. Once members of the agreement called for immediate action and better enforcement, emissions dropped sharply starting in 2018.’ 

A growing concern amongst climate change advocates is that while the troposphere is growing warmer, the outer layers of our atmosphere are cooling. The potential issues include, an adverse effect on the ozone layer, the Earth’s weather and orbiting satellites. Fred Pearce writes: ‘A new study published… in the journal PNAS by veteran climate modeler Ben Santer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that [recent data] increased the strength of the “signal” of the human fingerprint of climate change fivefold, by reducing the interference “noise” from background natural variability. Sander says the finding is “incontrovertible” – The Upper Atmosphere Is Cooling, Prompting New Climate Concerns, May 18, 2023.’

‘Increases in CO2 are now “manifest throughout the entire perceptible atmosphere,” a physicist says.’ The multiple layers of the atmosphere reaching hundreds of miles into space ‘appear as placid and pristine blue sky’ to us below. Though they are in fact ‘buffeted by high winds and huge tides of rising and descending air that occasionally invade our troposphere.’ The infiltration by CO2 and other human made chemicals will allegedly impact ‘the temperature, density, and chemistry of the air aloft.’

Pearce continues: 

‘The story of changing temperatures in the atmosphere at all levels is largely the story of CO2… emissions of more than 40 billion tons of the gas annually are warming the troposphere… the gas absorbs and re-emits solar radiation, heating other molecules in the dense air and raising temperatures overall. But the gas does not all stay in the troposphere. It also spreads upward through the entire atmosphere… [and] the rate of increase in its concentration at the top of the atmosphere is as great as at the bottom. But its effect on temperature aloft is very different. In the thinner air aloft, most of the heat re-emitted by the CO2 does not bump into other molecules. It escapes to space. Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling of the surrounding atmosphere.’

Satellite data reveals the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.1 Fahrenheit) between 2002 and 2019. Projections in line with the doubling of CO2 levels towards the end of this century indicate a cooling in these zones of about 7.5 degrees Celsius (13.5 Fahrenheit), which is ‘between two and three times faster than the average warming expected at ground level.’ 

Climate models in the 1960s predicted the combination of tropospheric warming and strong cooling in the layers higher up was the likely result of increasing CO2 in the air and atmosphere. The upper air cooling also causes it to contract, which apparently concerns NASA. ‘The sky is falling – literally.’ 

Another major concern cited is the fragile state of the ozone layer in the lower stratosphere. This layer protects life on Earth from harmful solar radiation, which can cause skin cancer. During the 20th century, the ‘ozone layer thinned under assault from industrial emissions of ozone-eating chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Outright ozone holes formed each spring over Antarctica… But it is now clear that another factor is undermining this effort: stratospheric cooling.’ 

Fred Pearce -emphasis mine: 

‘Ozone destruction operates in overdrive in polar stratospheric clouds, which only form at very low temperatures, particularly over polar regions in winter. But the cooler stratosphere has meant more occasions when such clouds can form. While the ozone layer over the Antarctic is slowly reforming as CFCs disappear, the Arctic is proving different, says Peter von der Gathen of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany. In the Arctic, the cooling is worsening ozone loss. Von der Gathen says the reason for this difference is not clear.

In the spring of 2020, the Arctic had its first full-blown ozone hole with more than half the ozone layer lost in places, which von der Gathen blames on rising CO2 concentrations. This is made more concerning because, while the regions beneath previous Antarctic holes have been largely devoid of people, the regions beneath future Arctic ozone holes are potentially some of the more densely populated on the planet, including Central and Western Europe. If we thought the thinning ozone layer was a 20th century worry, we may have to think again.’

This article raises significant points, yet did not mention how much CO2 has increased. We learned from Caltech that CO2 has increased from ‘280 parts per million (ppm) to 414 ppm in the past 150 years.’ This is a seemingly minute increase over a lengthy period. What danger does it really portend? The article does not delineate what the optimum CO2 level is or how far current levels are from the optimum. What for instance, would be the impact on plant life if the current CO2 levels were actually decreased? 

It is important to realise that scientists, politicians and others who have been predicting doom and gloom from climate change and global warming (or cooling) for over fifty years, have not had any of their predictions come to pass. 

An online comment mentioned Richard Siegmund Lindzen, a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P Sloan, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.’

Richard Lindzen states:

“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”

Is carbon dioxide the enemy? If the acceleration of CO2 emissions in the industrial era has abetted rising temperatures, is this as dire a consequence as the scientific community maintains? For instance, climate scientist Benjamin Cook, at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said when researchers began to look for answers to explain the warming trend, they examined various factors including ‘greenhouse gases, solar energy, ocean circulation and volcanic activity’ and “Only the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and industrialization gave us a prediction that lines up with the warming we’re seeing,” He claimed the ‘scientific community is as confident in human-caused climate change today as in the understanding of the theory of gravity.’ 

“There are uncertainties and nuances to discuss in climate science… but the one thing pretty much every scientist agrees upon today is that the warming we’re seeing is driven by burning fossil fuels.” Cook continued: “If an alternative theory of what is driving climate change rather than greenhouse gases would be supported by research and evidence, such work would be groundbreaking. It would be [a] Nobel Prize-level study. But we do not see this research.” 

This is a confident stance now reflected by a majority of scientists, or is it? The data we have studied thus far is very convincing, or is it? It has not always been this way. In fact, how much support it really has is open to question, as is whether the evidence has been skewed to support a global warming agenda. In 2013, a widely discussed analysis of the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (generated by humans) global warming was published. It was led by another Cook, this time John Cook, a researcher with the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Australia’s Monash University. 

‘American, British and Canadian researchers examined 11,944 climate abstracts published in peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011.’ While only less than 1% of the research papers they reviewed rejected the idea of human influence on our climate, 66.4% of the abstracts expressed no position on the anthropogenic factor. It was 32.6% of the abstracts which endorsed it. ‘Further analysis of the latter figure revealed a 97.1% consensus on human-caused climate change.’ But critics ‘slammed the findings on the basis that the 97.1% consensus was derived from less than a third of all papers reviewed. Most, they argued, had not expressed a view.’ 

Prior to this period as shown above, papers written on climate change between 1965 and 1979 had mixed views.

Even early in the twentieth century, some recognised that carbon emissions could effect temperatures. Yet is this actually what has happened over the past one hundred years; is it global warming; has it been accelerated by humankind; and finally is it as detrimental as claimed?

A complication in the global warming argument is the contrary view that the Earth is actually undergoing a global cooling. Claims of global cooling leading to an ice age were proposed before the switch in ideology to global warming.

At the end of the nineteenth century, global cooling was the pressing concern as explained by Steven Gollmer PhD in, The End of Global Warming, April 1, 2016: 

‘Global cooling is the talk of the town. “Will we slip into another Ice Age?” “Will the earth be able to support its population if the global temperatures continue to drop?” “Could increasing carbon dioxide emissions save the day by offsetting the cooling?” You might think this is a parody of the current global warming discussion. However, global cooling truly was a serious concern at the end of the 1800s. The figure at the center of the controversy was Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist who was the first to investigate the effects of carbon dioxide (CO₂) on climate.

In a famous 1896 paper, he proposed that increasing CO₂ gas in the atmosphere would increase surface temperatures (now called the greenhouse effect). The gas absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the earth and redirects it back to the surface, adding to the earth’s heat. Arrhenius’ opponents claimed that CO₂ has already reached its maximum impact (called a saturation point), and any increase would have no significant impact. The difference between the earth’s annual temperature and the average for the past century has been documented.’

‘We can see why Arrhenius’ contemporaries were worried about global cooling. If the trend between 1880 and 1910 had continued, by 1980 global temperatures would have plummeted to values not seen since the Little Ice Age (1300–1850), which wreaked havoc on Europe’s growing seasons and caused the river Thames in England to freeze over. Fortunately, a warming trend began. In the last two decades this trend has flattened out, worrying some that global cooling may be on the horizon once again. Although Arrhenius’ theory seems to explain the warming trend for most of the twentieth century, why have the temperatures plateaued if CO₂ levels continue to go up?’

Gollmer summarises cause, such as Volcanoes, Sunspot Activity and Natural Cycles, yet all are deemed minimal in impact on temperature. 

‘It is well established that volcanic eruptions send aerosols into the atmosphere, and these cause cooling. In 1815 Tambora provided the largest eruption on record and led to the Year Without a Summer. However, eruptions have a short-term impact, and no significant eruptions have occurred in the last two decades. During the coldest portion of the Little Ice Age, sunspots were missing for a long period, called the Maunder Minimum. In recent decades sunspot activity has declined, suggesting that the plateau in global temperatures is tied to sunspots. If true, this connection is somewhat mysterious because the sun’s energy output changes less than 0.1% (one tenth of one percent).

Sunspot activity has been connected to changes in the earth’s cloudiness, but additional studies have shown that this could affect global warming by at most 10%. Ocean and air currents, which distribute heat around the earth, can shift direction over the years. The overall effect can combine to give abnormally cold winters or hot summers. The best-known cycle is El Niño, which is a shift in the position of the Pacific Ocean’s warmest water near the equator. El Niño has a significant impact on temperature, which led to the record global high in 1998. (If the temperature for 1998 were removed… it is not clear that a temperature plateau exists over the past two decades.)’

Gollmer then discusses carbon dioxide based on, ‘If CO₂ is causing global warming, it will eventually reach a saturation point, and temperatures will level off at a new equilibrium.’

He says:

‘The last point needs more explanation. The earth is a system of complex interactions that tend to balance out (called equilibrium). Suppose water is flowing into a plastic bottle with different holes punched around the sides. If the amount of water increases, the level of water will rise, but the water will also stream out the holes faster. The level of water will rise until it reaches a new, stable level where the amount of water entering the bottle equals that which is leaving. In a similar manner energy enters the earth through sunlight and leaves through infrared radiation from the earth. Adding CO2 traps some energy, but more energy also begins leaking out of the earth’s atmosphere through radiation as the temperature rises.

Eventually the temperature will stabilize at a new equilibrium. Could the temperatures over the past decades indicate that the earth has reached a new equilibrium? Possibly, but then maybe not. El Niño is strengthening, and the measurements for 2014 and 2015 indicate that temperatures may resume the warming trend. Is the world cooling? We will be sure only after it has occurred as the years pass. Even if we can hope for a new equilibrium, will we be happy with the new setting of the earth’s thermostat? It may not be good for everyone. If the new temperature proves to be harmful and we can affect it, then we have other political and social factors to consider.’

Hence climate changes and temperature shifts may be just as much nature resetting. Whether the escalation of mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions is an uncanny coincidence of no bearing or an event of monumental consequence will become clear as the decades of this century pass. Granted, this is a daunting gamble if wrong, so can we know for sure? 

The BBC news item above, reported this prediction in 2007. The report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, ‘who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that [he used] “a high-resolution regional model for the Artic Ocean and sea ice”. He was confident his results were “much more realistic” than other projections, which “underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice”. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was “more efficient” than others because it “takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice”.’ Wadhams stated: “This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.” 

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has previously been challenged by governments which support and finance the IPCC, who demanded more than 1,500 changes to their report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. At the heart of the contentions were two key questions: ‘the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.’ 

The IPCC grow evermore confident and insistent in their reports about climate change, though their claims are hotly disputed. United States climate expert Professor Judith Curry said: “In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.” Curry relies on long-term cycles in ocean temperature and which have a significant influence on the climate. She suggested the world may be approaching a period similar to that experienced during the decade of 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led to some scientists forecasting an imminent ice age. 

‘Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped. The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.” The proposition that summer Artic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, even though there is mounting evidence revealing Arctic ice levels are cyclical. ‘Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.’ Judith Curry reminds that “Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch.”

So it is interesting to note as shown on the photos below that in August 2012 a NASA satellite photograph shows the Artic ice sheet at its smallest extent on record, yet one year later it had grown by a staggering 60%, completely contrary to the predictions of global warming advocates and more in line with global cooling. 

Similarly, while the world is in the apparent grip of global warming, the sea ice surrounding Antartica is expanding in the winter months. ‘This paradox has stumped scientists, who have struggled to understand why the ice is growing… In fact, ice in the Antarctic reached an all-time high in 2010 despite that year being one of the hottest ever.’ 

A study published in Nature Geoscience, found that every year the ‘edges of the Antarctic thaw, sending more and more melting ice out into the ocean. That melted water forms large cold-water plumes in the ocean, which… “shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves.” As temperatures drop in the winter, these cold-water plumes refreeze, adding to the ice in the Antarctic.

Of course while the ice formation in the Antarctic seems to be increasing, the ice below the surface in the Antarctic is still melting quickly, leading to a reduction in total mass overall. The Antarctic is losing about 250 billion tons of ice a year. How long these separate yet related actions in Antarctica continue will also indicate whether global warming or global cooling is transpiring. Like wise, should it stabilise it would lend credence to a new equilibrium and not a climate crisis.’

Another anomaly worth noting is a thin stretch of the eastern Pacific Ocean which has been growing colder for the past three decades, in defiance of the broad global trend and at the same time baffling scientists. It is known as the ‘equatorial cold tongue’ and affects an area that extends west from the coast of Ecuador for thousands of miles. The region has cooled by approximately half a degree and it ‘has scientists wondering how long that will hold’, according to The Atlantic. For as Newsweek wrote: Scientists are puzzled, ‘because advanced climate computer models suggest that the waters should have been warming for decades at a faster rate than the rest of the Pacific due to rising greenhouse gas emissions.’

New Scientist: ‘Something strange is happening in the Pacific and we must find out why. Unexpectedly, the eastern Pacific Ocean is cooling. If this “cold tongue” continues, it could reduce greenhouse gas warming by 30 per cent – but also bring [a mega-drought] to the US.’ 

‘This isn’t just an academic puzzle. Pedro DiNezio at the University of Colorado Boulder calls it “the most important unanswered question in climate science”. The trouble is that not knowing why this cooling is happening means we also don’t know when it will stop, or whether it will suddenly flip over into warming. This has global implications. The future of the cold tongue could determine whether California is gripped by permanent drought or Australia by ever-deadlier wildfires. It influences the intensity of monsoon season in India and the chances of famine in the Horn of Africa. It could even alter the extent of climate change globally by tweaking how sensitive Earth’s atmosphere is to rising greenhouse gas emissions’ – Madeleine Cuff, August 1, 2023.

This does not sit well with an entirely global warming hypothesis. An example of how convoluted the subject of climate change has become is the issue of factory farming. The raising of animals for consumption has degenerated into a wicked process of barbarity and cruelty driven by the greed of those who own and run the systems for meat and dairy production and fed by the blood lust of a public indoctrinated to eat meat from early infancy – refer article: Red or Green?

The real issue is the raising of livestock, how they are kept, fed, drugged and medicated, transported and slaughtered. 

These reasons, with the serious dangers to health in eating this contaminated meat is reason enough to either stop or reduce factory farming as well as legislating changes in its harmful processes. Somehow though, factory farming has become a climate change issue instead, with a sizeable methane byproduct being released into the atmosphere as a ‘harmful’ greenhouse gas becoming the centre of attention. Factory farming accounts with agriculture, forestry and land use, for a quarter of all greenhouse emissions globally. 

There was grim irony when hundreds, perhaps thousands of Climate March participants in New York city in 2014 wearing t-shirts with slogans like “Climate Justice Starts Here”, proceeded to line up at food trucks at the street fair after the parade, to buy, you guessed it, meat, fish and dairy products. Thereby demonstrating a lack of awareness or disregard for what the United Nations stated as the ‘number one contributor of climate change and the planet’s biggest polluter, animal agriculture.’ 

How could the United States leading environmental groups convince the general public to make eco-friendly choices if their own members participate in the most “environmentally destructive activity” and don’t promote a plant-based diet? And, why would world leaders take drastic measures to reverse climate change if environmentalists can’t take the most basic one in their diet? 

There are numerous people who oppose climate change activists and the global warming agenda. One such spokesman is Christopher Walter Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He is a British public speaker, hereditary peer and is known for his work as a journalist, as a Conservative political advisor, a UKIP political candidate and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity. Monckton is a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Borderers, an Officer of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, as well as a member of the Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission.

Notably, Monckton’s public speaking has garnered attention due to his denial of climate change. As a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, Monckton has stated that those who warn of the dangers of climate change should be jailed, calling them ‘bogus’. He does concede a greenhouse effect exists and that while carbon dioxide contributes to it, claims there is no ‘causative link’ from CO2 concentration to global average temperature. 

Lord Monckton claims computer models used to calculate the world’s temperatures and how they have increased are built on a mistake. He and a team of top scientists studied the way computer models predict how much the planet should be warming and believe they found a ‘fatal flaw in calculations which proves global warming is a hoax.’ Christopher Monckton, known for his crusade against the climate change ‘myth’, has dismissed figures which show a temperature increase due to manmade global warming, stating there is no problem. 

Monckton has said: “You might get one or two celsius of warming by the doubling of Co2 concentration but you won’t get much more than that. All these suggestions that  [we are] facing some tipping point… [and] the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers we might get, are based on an error of mathematics. Correct the error and we’re back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two-and-a-half per doubling of Co2.” 

Monckton claims that climatologist’s fundamental error is reading data comparing temperatures, from a skewed perspective. “The nature of the error is they’re doing calculations at the wrong end of the curve, and are getting very silly, exaggerated results because of that.” Correcting the forecasting method, Lord Monckton estimates that the earth’s average temperature having risen by two degrees in the last one hundred and fifty years is no cause for concern. “Take that error away, and there is no longer any climate problem. I can now officially declare that the climate scare is over.” 

Also associated with the Heartland Institute is Peter Joseph Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy –  https://heartland.org – Ferrara is an American lawyer, policy analyst, columnist and a former general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, as well as a libertarian scholar. He is known for supporting privatisation of the Social Security program and also climate change ‘denialism’. Ferrara has written about climate change, ‘asserting that human activity is not the cause of climate change, that “manmade global warming” is political science rather than natural science, and that actual scientific evidence proves the earth is in a cooling cycle.’ 

An enlightening article of his was published in Forbes Magazine: To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here, May 26, 2013 – reproduced in entirety with emphasis mine.

‘Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through. Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin. 

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia. 

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem. 

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D. 

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time. Ice cores from the Andes mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century. 

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century. 

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity. 

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe. 

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago [1998], and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. 

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed.

NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, 

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 (the current short term 11 year cycle) 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.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement. But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide.

The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013, 

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.” 

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory (saying this) is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013, 

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.” 

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to -25° Celsius in central parts of the country and -45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century… Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.”

The news report summarized, 

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. 

China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.” Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.” 

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 (global temperature) forecasts (of the Met Office) were too high – and… none were colder than (resulted),” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January. 

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. 

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed’ – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla; and article: The Younger Dryas Stadial: End of the Earth… Beginning of the World. ‘Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity. 

Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming! 

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?” But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science.

The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.’

One commentator who is convinced global cooling will descend upon the Earth in the near future is Ron Fraser, Global Cooling is Coming! – 2008 – emphasis mine:

‘Though arguments rage over the issue of climate change, only one side is getting the lion’s share of the publicity. The global warmists win hands down on that score. The realists’ argument is plainly not fashionable. It does not win votes, it does not win business, and it’s certainly not appealing to the mass media! That the Earth’s climate is undergoing change is without question. As to its reasons and its history, they are the nubs of the arguments posed by both the short-term pro-global warming pundits and those who take a longer view. Take away the intense politics surrounding the global warming debate. Take away the self-interest groups, business interests, legal, bureaucratic and mass media influences that all seek to make… [money] out of driving public hysteria over the fads and fashions of the age. 

Pure science – given the history of cyclical changes in the Earth’s temperatures – reveals that man has little influence on the overall surface temperature of the Earth. Man’s influence on temperature is localized at best. [Honest] Scientists all agree that the greatest single driver of Earth’s climate is the sun, the source of our Earth’s energy. The problem with the global warmists is that the theories of their politicized pseudo-science do not match the more exact science of those responsible for accurate measurement of global temperatures. 

Ocean temperatures are… measured by 3,000 automated Argos buoys deployed in the seas. These buoys present a challenge to global warmers. “The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for nasa in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, ‘there has been a very slight cooling’ over the buoys’ five years of observation, but that drop was ‘not anything really significant.’ Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream” (Brookesnews.com, March 31). Added to this challenge to the global warming theorists is the evidence produced by nasa’s eight weather satellites. 

“In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14 degrees Celsius – well within the range of normal variations” (ibid.). 

In a widely publicized – and criticized – interview… Michael Griffin, the administrator of nasa, in response to a question regarding the legitimacy of spending money on space projects rather than concentrating efforts on attending to global warming, stated, “I have no doubt that… a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take” (May 31, 2007). 

Suddenly, in the general absence of common sense prevalent in today’s society, the whole global warming nonsense has become a religion, and a very dangerous religion at that… millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money [is] going toward research intended to prove the global warming theory… Christine Stewart, a former Canadian environment minister… [said], “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” … [British political economist Rodney] Atkinson concluded, “There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional control over free nations. 

The quality of politicians in the rich Western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. Climate change seemed to them a gift from heaven – literally!” This commentator calls this man-made global warming craze a “modern equivalent of medieval religious hegemony” that “terrified the ignorant and uneducated into submission. The new enslavement may be reliant on the new gods of politically perverted science, but the effects of its myth-making and global costs are no less terrifying than the Inquisition.”

While Fraser considers a nuclear winter to be foretold in the Bible, albeit mis-quoting a verse in Matthew chapter twenty-four, he is not so far off the mark. Fraser’s article concludes with a point of wide reaching ramifications. The global warming ‘hoax’ has become a powerful snare in hoodwinking mankind in a. believing there is a legitimate climate emergency, b. that it is primarily caused through human activity – “bad humans!” – and c. like the potential threat of an impending nuclear holocaust during the delusive Cold War; humanity lives under another false cloud of control and oppression. This time a fanciful future affected by climate catastrophes, which is no less delusional than the existent notion of the supposed extinction of life on Earth at the hands of chimerical nuclear weaponry – refer article: Nuclear Nefariousness. 

The public have been manipulated through climate propaganda instigated by corrupt governments and promulgated by disingenuous scientists. While climate changes are occurring on Earth, there is no proof accept from biased figures and manipulated graphs, to accept that human activity is the cause of the erratic weather as evidenced by droughts, forest fires, flooding, melting ice and temperature fluctuations. The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels in industry, agriculture, farming, deforestation and transport have a marginal impact at best, if any at all and are literally in the shadow of the main cause, the Sun. 

Temperature cycles alternate between warm and cold periods. We have experienced a warm phase and are likely to enter a cold phase as a result. While carbon dioxide is used as the cause of fluctuations in the climate and for global warming, environmental activists continue setting the stage by claiming that any climate change is due to CO2, rather than solar minimums of the Sun.

It is a remarkable coincidence for those who give credence to an alien agenda, that they too maintain the twin lies of a nuclear and climate threat – when interacting with humans whether in the government or during abductions. Why would they do this? So they can profess to be our saviours and liberators – Article: Principalities & Potentates: What they want… Who they are. As contained in The Secret Covenant: “We will use FEAR as our weapon”. The global elite, the Establishment, are behind the Climate Change program, their twin motives will undoubtedly be those of power and money – refer article: The Establishment: Who are they… What do they want? 

This explains the relentless drive for alternatives to fossil fuels in renewable energy and particularly electricity. Someone stands to make a lot of money and in the meantime put people further into subjection. Consider transport, while electric trains and cars are feasible, will lorries, trucks, ships and planes ever all be electric? Electric cars are at the moment at least, designed to infuriate. The electric charge does not take you any further than three hundred miles at best and then interrupts a long journey with added wasted hours of charging. 

Added to this is the fact that electric vehicles (EV) are not Green by any measurement. The main concern is the batteries built to run them. The lithium-ion cells that power most batteries (similar to smart phones) are prone to overheating – such as a chemical reaction triggered from a fault in the battery from an internal short circuit – and can go into what is called thermal runaway, where toxic and flammable gases are vented. 

One of two things occur: around ninety percent of the time, the gases ignite quickly but not explosively, sucking back the vapours as they burn – or the gases explode, ‘instantly propagating combustion at subsonic speeds, driven by heat transfer.’ The vapour cloud explosion carries considerable force and is potentially dangerous for anyone in the vehicle at the time. ‘These fires are not only intense, they are also long-lasting and potentially toxic.’ Depending on the size and power of a battery, it is often advised by the manufacturer to let the fire burn itself out as invariably fire fighting responders have difficulty in stopping them. 

After eight to ten years, EV batteries, larger and heavier than those in standard cars, and which comprise several hundred individual lithium-ion cells – all of which – require dismantling. The batteries contain hazardous materials and have an ‘inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.’ A study in 2021 ‘comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an [internal combustion engine] vehicle, they only account for 26%.’ The ‘inconvenient truth’ about an electric vehicle, is that making its battery has a bigger impact on the environment. Producing an EV generates more emissions than building a conventional car. The ‘benefits’ of going electric are only realised after a few thousand miles of driving. 

The Establishment are aware of this issue and choose to ignore it for two reasons. First, the profit they are making and two, here’s the clincher: it doesn’t matter if there are more carbon emissions because it isn’t CO2 that is causing climate change, nor are increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere a cause of legitimate concern. What does have an impact on the environment is the mining of the components needed for EV batteries. It is the continued excavation of these sometimes rare raw materials which will become problematic.

Environmental Impact of EV Batteries, Dave Nichols, June 2023 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘As the speed of EV adoption rapidly increases, concerns surrounding how we mine and process materials for batteries are being addressed. Electric Vehicles (EV) have become a catch-all solution for allegedly saving the planet from climate change. Buyers of hybrid electric (HEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) are looking to fend off the ever-rising prices of gasoline with a fuel-efficient alternative. Those who are purchasing all-electric vehicles (BEV) are looking to step away from gasoline consumption altogether. All of these consumers are also hoping to help stem the tide of climate change and reduce the degradation of the environment. But there is a devastating downside to the lithium-ion batteries that currently power electric cars.’ 

‘The International Energy Agency (IEA) tells us that an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. EV lithium-ion battery packs are made with materials that are expensive, and in some cases, toxic and flammable. Primary materials include lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper. 

The mining of these rare materials, their manufacturing processes, and their eventual disposal all pose very real environmental challenges. While 90 percent of average gasoline-powered vehicle batteries are recycled, only five percent of EV lithium-ion batteries are recycled. While oil is exclusively mined underground in specific areas, the components for lithium-ion batteries are obtained through open pit mining that damages wide areas of the natural environment. Let’s look at how these materials are collected. 

Nickel is a major component of EV batteries and is found in the Rainforests of Indonesia. It resides just below the topsoil and is extracted using a method of horizontal surface mining. Harmful effects include removal of topsoil, extreme environmental degradation, and deforestation. We’re not really saving the planet with this process. Since the Rainforests are the lungs of our planet, this is harming the process of removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere.’ 

Additionally, “the global demand for nickel to produce lithium-ion batteries was more than 150,000 t in 2019. This amounts to less than 5% of the world market volume of primary nickel. By 2025, the demand from the electric vehicle sector could increase to approximately 500,000 t per year, which would be the equivalent of 15% of the total global market. To increase the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, a much greater proportion of nickel is used in the cells. This means that demand will rise disproportionately to the increase in battery production.

Nickel sulfate is needed for lithium-ion batteries, which is a niche product produced from class-I nickel (over 99 % purity). To meet the growing demand in the future, new manufacturing methods for nickel sulfate need to be developed. The market is highly dependent on the supply of primary nickel from South East Asia and, in particular, from Indonesia, which is by far the biggest nickel mining country” – refer Chapter VIII Indonesia: Kittim, Khitai & Cathay.

“In 2020, Indonesia imposed a ban on exports of nickel ore to ensure that large parts of the value chain remained in the country. After China, it is now the world’s second largest nickel producer, but only of class-II nickel (less than 99 % purity). Many projects are underway in Indonesia with the aim of manufacturing higher-quality nickel products for battery production” – National Library of Medicine, Battery Raw Materials – Where from and Where to? Richard Backhaus, 2021. 

‘Lithium mining is also a major culprit. Over half of the world’s lithium is found in Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina, known as the “Lithium Triangle” – Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America. ‘The Institute for Energy Research tells us that lithium is found in salt flats in arid areas and the material has to be mined from under these salt flats. Lithium extraction can take 18 months through an evaporation process that uses enormous amounts of water. Each ton of refined lithium uses up 500,000 gallons of water. The results deplete the water table and cause soil contamination.’ 

“As the lithium market is relatively small, the expected increase in demand is particularly high in relation to current production levels. “Our calculations show that the supply needs to triple by 2026 simply to cover future demand,” says Michael Schmidt from Dera. The extraction of lithium is currently restricted to Australia (Chapter XXXII Issachar, Zebulun, Asher & Naphtali – the Antipodean Tribes), Chile and Argentina and to a few companies, with only four businesses controlling almost 60% of global production. However, the boom in lithium over recent years has demonstrated that the lithium market is facing major changes.

Alongside the expansion of existing facilities, large-scale projects are being planned and implemented in other countries, such as Canada, Mexico and Bolivia. Europe also has significant potential. Bottlenecks in the supply of lithium are currently unlikely, but experts have indicated that the concentration on just a few producer countries will remain unchanged. “In addition, Asian battery manufacturers in particular have secured large quotas by entering into long-term supply contracts and acquiring stakes in companies. This has reduced considerably the amount of lithium freely available on the world market,” says Schmidt” – National Library of Medicine, Battery Raw Materials – Where from and Where to? Richard Backhaus, 2021. 

‘Another major component of Electric Car batteries is cobalt and 70 percent of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo’ – Chapter XII Canaan & Africa. ‘While cobalt mining has a similar process as lithium mining, add to this a list of severe human rights violations for hazardous working conditions and child labor. Cobalt is a toxic metal. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of cobalt dust can lead to health issues related to the skin, eyes, and lungs.

Cobalt mining in the Congo involves workers of all ages. Of the 255,000 current workers, over 40,000 are children and some are as young as six-years-old. According to Amnesty International, “Thousands of children mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment.” The majority of these mines are owned by Chinese companies.’ 

“Like nickel and manganese, cobalt is required for battery cathodes. It currently presents the greatest procurement risks of all the battery raw materials. This is due in particular to the expected dynamic growth in demand and the resulting potential supply bottlenecks. “On the basis of current scenarios, the demand for cobalt for electric vehicles could increase to as much as 315,000 t by 2030, which is 20 times the current amount,” says Siyamend Al Barazi from Dera.

The ongoing development of low-cobalt or even cobalt-free cathodes could result in a considerable reduction in overall demand. The role of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is by far the largest producer, presents major risks for strategic planning. “Cobalt mining there has dominated the global market for more than ten years, with a current market share of 69%, and the country could increase its production considerably if demand continues to grow,” explains Al Barazi” – National Library of Medicine, Battery Raw Materials – Where from and Where to? Richard Backhaus, 2021. 

Global mined cobalt production in 2015, plus reserves (the color of the countries indicates the reserves; the data in the countries represent the annual production) 

‘Copper is also used in EV batteries and most of it comes from open-pit strip mines in Chile. This sort of mining negatively impacts topsoil, vegetation, wildlife habitats, and groundwater.’ 

Richard Backhaus adds two additional materials: 

“Graphite is used as the anode material in lithium-ion batteries. It has the highest proportion by volume of all the battery raw materials and also represents a significant percentage of the costs of cell production. China has played a dominant role in almost the entire supply chain for several years and produces almost 50% of the world’s synthetic graphite and 70% of the flake graphite, which requires pre-treatment before being used in batteries. Over the last few years, increasing exploration has been taking place, in particular in Africa. New extraction sites in Mozambique, Tanzania and Madagascar could relieve the pressure on the highly concentrated world market.

However, the risks involved in the processing of flake graphite also present a problem for the security of supply, because this is carried out almost entirely in China, together with the production of anodes” – Chapter X China: Magog, Tubal & Meshech. “Research is currently underway into new anode materials, which if they were used in mass-produced batteries could have an impact on the future demand for graphite.

Battery applications make up only a small part of the manganese market. The main customer for manganese is the steel industry, which uses around 90% of the global supply. Currently only approximately 0.2% of the manganese extracted throughout the world is used in lithium-ion batteries. In the future, this figure will only increase to around 1%.” 

Most Manganese production in 2015 was from Australia, Chile, Argentina and China. The highest reserves in the world are held in Chile, China, Australia and Argentina. Dave Nichols continues regarding Lithium:

‘According to IHS Markit, in the year 2000, nine percent of lithium produced was used for EV batteries. By 2020, this share rose to 66 percent and will reach over 90 percent by 2030. An electric vehicle such as a Tesla Model S contains 63kg of lithium. As mentioned… lithium mining uses a lot of water. Mining companies in Chile’s Salar de Atacama, one of the driest places on Earth uses 65 percent of the region’s water. Plus, the process of lithium mining uses toxic chemicals which can contaminate streams, crops, and wildlife, adding to the decline of endangered species such as flamingos. Lithium mining also creates what researchers call “the colonial shadow of green electromobility.” This is the impact that lithium mining has on the local environment and inhabitants in Latin America. The assertion indicates that lithium mining replicates the historical inequities between the Northern and Southern hemispheres in regard to impacting indigenous Andean territories.’

It would be enlightening to learn what the Establishment and their governments think about these contradictory effects on the environment and the people who mine these substances, all in the name of lessening global warming and decreasing adverse climate change. One would imagine that the thought processes of these leaders are along the line of the ‘end justifies the means.’ Except not quite in the way the general populace thinks. For these people know already that there is no contradiction, just added abuse towards the natural resources and people of this planet, who are expendable for their own pleasure and entertainment.

‘As the push for an all-EV future drives the production of batteries out of sight, the challenge is to make the extraction of component ingredients sustainable. We must also create ways to reuse and recycle old battery packs in ways that will not negatively impact the planet. But will we be too late to change the tide of climate change?’

More critical than this is the real issue of what happens when some of these raw materials become so scarce? Will alternative battery components be found? A different battery type be invented?

Revolutionized state: ‘Removing cobalt from EV batteries could help create a clean battery supply chain. Cobalt and lithium play core roles in the chemistry of batteries, but it’s possible to substitute different elements. Scientists and engineers are focusing on inventing new types of battery cathodes, the part of the battery that usually contains cobalt. For example, in 2021, researchers at the University of California, Irvine developed a cobalt-free battery cathode that is safer and more durable. This new nickel-based cathode uses innovative metal treatments to improve heat tolerance, stability and energy capacity.’ 

Yes, but is it cheaper? If not, then don’t expect to see it on the market anytime soon. Or will electric vehicles have only a temporary role to play in transportation? Are they doomed before they start? Is the long term plan for electric vehicles, for them to grind to a halt. This way, humanities movements become curbed or restricted. Reliance on public transport is enforced and the once freedom of peoples movement, curtailed – refer article: The Great Reset & the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 

Rather than global warming, global cooling may be the reality staring us in the face. The following article is fake news and an April fools joke. Though within its sentiments may lay a more accurate picture of the next few hundred years. It is included as the constant reader will discern the ironic significance of the time frames provided – either inspired from perceptive insight or coincidental blind luck. 

Global Cooling Threatens Earth! April 1, 2019, Frank Lake – emphasis mine: 

‘Shocked scientists told reporters that the Earth is cooling at a dramatic and alarming rate. Global warming has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, but scientists now say that the world is not warming, but instead is becoming cooler – by the day! According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is decreasing significantly, so the average yearly temperature will decline at a rapid rate. 

Scientists from Britain and the US are forecasting a 5-10 degree (Fahrenheit) drop in global temperatures – over the next five years! “This is catastrophic for the planet,” said Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100.” 

Scientists predict that most major cities that are on the coast, will be frozen over in the next thirty years. “There’s nothing we can do to stop it. The sun is just not as powerful as it used to be,” said Dr. Malley. Experts say that the Arctic ice is getting thicker by the day. “Even places like Jamaica will have an average daily temperature of only 40 degrees (Fahrenheit) within five years.” 

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Scientists predict that this “cold spell” will last 200-250 years and by that time, all life on earth will have been extinguished. “We are in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity won’t end until about 2275.” Bundle up!!’

The scriptures, for those interested and who are not prejudiced against them, hint at the time before the end of this age, of a world which is perhaps cooler as opposed to being warmer. 

‘Pray God that you may not have to make your escape in the winter… for then there will be great misery, such as has never happened from the beginning of the world until now, and will never happen again! Yes, if those days had not been cut short no human being would survive…’ – Matthew 24:20-22 JBP.

The time of the end will be a momentous period of cataclysms taking many human lives. A third of the world’s population will die, resulting from warfare, famine, disease and natural as well as supernatural disasters – Revelation 6:1-17. 

‘… a great earthquake shook the earth and the sun grew dark and became black (like mourning sackcloth) and the full moon became red like blood. The stars of heaven fell to earth as a fig tree drops its fruit during a winter storm’ – Revelation 6:12-13 The Voice.

The insinuation of increased darkness and a loss of daylight would lend weight to an Earth afflicted with prolonged winters and the cold that would be associated with such a circumstance. This is reiterated again in the Book of Revelation.

‘… a third-part of the sun, a third-part of the moon and a third of the stars were struck. A third-part of the light of each of them was darkened, so that light by day and light by night were both diminished by a third-part’ – Revelation 8:12 JBP.

Yes, we are certainly experiencing climate change, but not in an alarmist or out of the ordinary way as proclaimed by the apocalypse agenda driven scientific community would have us believe. Cycles of temperature increases and decreases are normal, producing periods of warming, eras of cooling, as well as ice ages of varying severity. Gases are enveloped by the layers of the atmosphere so as to protect life on Earth.

The Bible confirms the cyclical nature of all things in Ecclesiastes 1:9, The Voice:

“What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun; the future only repeats the past.”

“The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth” – Edith Sitwell

© Orion Gold 2023 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com