Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

Global Warming Crisis?

March 2, 2009

Hundreds protest Global Warming

Pic was found at Asia Academy

Advertisements

Global Warming Fears Fading

February 3, 2009

Fast Forward 2019 The New York Times February 2, 2019 Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading February 2, 2009

Posted by honestclimate

Fast Forward 2019 The New York Times February 2, 2019 Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading

By Andrew Revko – New York Times Environmental Reporter

As the Earth continues to cool, UN scientists now concede that CO2 was never the climate driver many made it out to be. The entire multi-trillion dollar global warming movement now appears to have been a result of massive funding, media hype and group think. The UN IPCC claims it never really promoted man-made climate fears and instead urged media outlets to cover its new environmental claim, the scarcity of oxygen on Earth.

The UN issued a warning last week declaring it was “immoral” to question the new consensus that the Earth was fast running out of oxygen. “As citizens of the world prepare to take their last gasps of air, they have no one to blame for our continued inaction but the well-funded oxygen denial industry,” said UN chief Al Gone. [Note: There are actually people warning about the ”oxygen crisis” in 2008.] Researcher Naomi Oresko, echoed Gore, declaring that her analysis of 55,000 studies proved that all scientists agree the Earth is running out of oxygen.

Andrew Dresslear of Gripe Magazine noted that there were only two dozen scientists who are not part of the new consensus regarding the “oxygen crisis.” Many scientists now deny ever being worried about CO2 emissioms. Gavin Schmite maintains he and his colleagues at Wishful Climate never promoted man-made global warming fears. “This is simply the deniers inventing history,” Schmite said. “First the deniers claimed that some scientists hyped a coming ice age in the 1970’s and now they are claiming we hyped warming in the latter part of 20th century and the first decade of the 21th century. What the world needs to understand is Wishfull Climate has never and can never be wrong because all weather and climate are perfectly consistent with all of our models. There has never been a climatic event that was not predicted by our models,” a red-faced Schmite insisted.

Read the Full Report Here

Global Warming? No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

November 26, 2008

Editor: The IPCC was and is being used to push an agenda. Agenda 21.
How do I know Man Made Global Warming is a scam? All one has to do is open the mind and read a few passages.

Read the two quotes below. The first from the Club of Rome says they came up with the idea of global warming. The second shows the IPCC would make the science fit the idea.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports

More Mind Opening Green Agenda Quotes

Now lets take a trip back in time!

November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

Global Warming Video 1958

No consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance

John Christy
VIEWPOINT
By John Christy
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.

AFP/Getty

Politicians wave goodbye to the IPCC’s objectivity, argues Dr Christy

The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth’s climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.

While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

  • this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
  • scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead

The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.

Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.

But, it may go further.

Unsound bites

At an IPCC Lead Authors’ meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: “We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.”

Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.

Follow the herd

As I said above – and this may come as a surprise – scientists are mere mortals.

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).

A scientist launches a weather balloon (copyright John Turner)

The Alabama team produces data on atmospheric temperatures collected by weather balloons

You dare not be thought of as “one who does not know”; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as “one who knows”.

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

Full article BBC

Emissions up in developed nations

November 19, 2008

Editor:

When did the UN become the rulers of Canada? or anywhere else for that matter. The UN and the madcaps that dwell there, want to rule the world. What does the UN offer? nothing of any value. They offer us phony global warming via the IPCC, brainwashing of the children in the schools via UNESCO, internationalization of our electrical systems via the IEA, internationalization of our water via the IWRM. The UN owns nothing and offers nothing – yet they want us to allow them to set the important policy of our countries.

If you want One World Govt. and One World Religion, jump on the UN bandwagon. If you still believe in your Nation State  and Democracy, then it’s time to roll up your “Freedom Sleeves”  and get to work.

Democracy is not a right and it can be lost, especially when our own governments are working to undermine it via the UN.

.

Emissions up in developed nations

By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Smoke billows from Germany's Frimmersdorf power plant on 25 February 2008

Industrialised nations’ emissions are up since 2000, despite promised cuts

Emissions of greenhouse gases by industrialised nations rose 2.3% from 2000 to 2006, according to new figures from the UN’s climate change agency.

The biggest increases were in the former Soviet bloc – and Canada.

A UN spokesman said countries had to work much faster to avoid the possibility of dangerous climate change.

Next month the nations of the world meet in Poland for the annual negotiations on climate change.

The new figures do not offer a great deal of optimism.

They show that in 2006 emissions did actually fall by 0.1%, but the UN’s climate change secretariat said that this tiny dip was statistically insignificant.

The overall underlying trend since 2000 is up, even though the countries in question had promised to cut their emissions.

The worst culprit has been Canada. Its emissions since 1990 have shot up 21.3% – they should have fallen 6%.

Full story BBC

How to grow your own wheat

March 10, 2008
Editor
As more cracks appear in the global warming scam, the very news agencies that people look to for truth continue to ramp up the rhetoric. The UN has decided it is a good idea to grow crops but instead of using those crops for their intended use – food, they have decided that burning your food for fuel is a better use of crops.
So, as they burn your food and drive prices ever higher, they want you to grow your own.
In the near future you won’t be able to afford food or electricity.
But then again that is the plan of the UN, isn’t it.
How do I know Global Warming is a FRAUD? They said it not me. They came up with the idea of global warming and then fit the science to  their needs. Anyone who disagreed  with their science was shunned and belittled. 

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

And from the father of Kyoto, Maurice Strong

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

How to grow your own wheat

Field

Your garden will probably not look like this

By Finlo Rohrer
BBC News Magazine

Global stocks of wheat are plummeting and people are starting to worry about the price of staples like bread. But can you beat the commodity market by growing your own?Look out your back window. How’s the grass?

If you’ve got a garden at all, it might be that the grass is an unloved scrub as sparse as Elton John’s hair used to be. Or it could be a lush strip of glorious verdure.

HOW TO GROW WHEAT

infographic

Prepare the ground by finely raking the soil as you would to plant grass.

infographic

Scatter the wheat seed evenly by hand and rake over. Consider a bird-scaring device.

infographic

Harvest with sickle or scythe. Leave 2-3 inches of stubble. Tie stalks into sheaves.

infographic

Thresh by placing sheaves into pillow cases and hitting against brick wall.

infographic

Winnow by throwing wheat and chaff up into breeze from fan. Chaff should blow away.

Either way, the odds are you’re not getting much use out of it. Wouldn’t it be great if you could improve your health, help the environment and at the same time do your part to fight inflation?

The world is running dangerously low on wheat, one of civilisation’s original staple foods. Drought in Australia and China and a switch to meat in the newly prosperous parts of the world are putting the squeeze on wheat. Prices are at a record high.

EU/UK POLITICS

LATEST SCIENCE

IPCC ASSESSMENT

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

February 25, 2008

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC – not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.

It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report’s Forward:

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The report is highly critical of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(…)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.

Source: A Dog Named Kyoto

Global Warming – Settled Science?

February 24, 2008

Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’. Al Gore often says “Climate change is a moral issue.” In other words it is all about you, and your destructive behaviour.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.

However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.” – MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

Asserting ‘the science is settled’ ignores the debate that still rages, and the constant shrieking by alarmists like Al Gore reveals that Global Warming is being used to push a hidden agenda. They are not really interested in the science at all. Proclaiming that “climate change is real” ignores the Earth’s constant, natural warming and cooling cycles.

Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

Full Article 

Science does not support the Greens, Global Warming Hoax

February 21, 2008

Science does not support the Greens, Global Warming Hoax

Calm Sun, Cold Earth

By Alan Caruba  Sunday, February 17, 2008

I can understand why people believe that global warming is real and that all the things Greens say are true. One cannot read a newspaper or magazine, turn on the television or radio, without getting the Green message.

Since switching their message in the 1970s that an Ice Age was coming to the complete fiction of a massive, dramatic global warming due to greenhouse gases, the Greens have been able to influence policy at the international and national level. They have been utterly relentless, a modern version of the Mongols on horseback who swept out of the East to conquer everything before them until they reached the gates of Europe. These days the Greens have long since conquered Europe.

One thing alone stands against the Greens. The SCIENCE does not support them. Their sense of moral superiority, their contempt for all things modern, their resistance to all forms of energy except the weakest—wind and solar, and at the very heart of the Greens’ message is a contempt and hatred for the human race.

Humans have come to dominate life on Earth because we know how to adapt to the planet. We know how to use its minerals, the riches of its plant life, the domestication of its animals, and its reserves of energy in the form of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fission, to fuel the creation of great cities, farms and ranches, and everything that passes for modern civilization.

Long ago humans conquered the continents of the Earth and its great oceans to spread everywhere. Humans now fly between continents in hours. Everywhere on the face of the Earth humans now communicate with one another via the Internet.

For billions of years the Earth existed without humans and it will do so again when we cease to inhabit it. As a species, we are newcomers, but like every other species that lived on planet Earth—95% of which are extinct—we are subject to forces far greater than anything we possess.

To suggest that humans actually cause climate change is such idiocy that the Earth itself reminds us daily of our vulnerabilities. The news is full of tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and wildfires.

On February 7, Investors Business Daily had an editorial titled “The Sun Also Sets” in which it cited the views of Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council. In essence, Tapping wants people to know that solar activity such as sunspots, i.e., magnetic storms, “has been disturbingly quiet.”

It’s useful to know that global temperatures and events closely reflect solar cycles.

The lack of activity “could signal the beginning of what is known as the Maunder Minimum.” While solar cycles tend to last about 11 years, the lack of normal or increased activity can trigger the Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every few centuries, can last as long as a century, and causes a colder earth.

The most recent such event was the mini-Ice Age that climatologists date from around 1300 to 1850. In the midst of this there was a distinct solar hibernation from around 1650 to 1715.

“Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.”

If these events continue and become a cycle of cooling, it represents a major threat to the Earth’s population because it means that food crops will fail and, with them, the means to feed livestock, and the rest of us.

If you have been paying attention to global weather reports, you know that China has had the heaviest snowfall in at least three decades. David Deming, a geophysicist, in a December 19, 2007 article in The Washington Times, noted that, “South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918.” This occurred across the entire Southern Hemisphere. “Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever.”

It must be said that one big blizzard does not an Ice Age make, but a whole series of events that suggest a cooling cycle may well be the warning that is being ignored in the midst of the vast global warming hoax.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. He recently published a commentary asserting that a global cold spell could replace global warming. Note that the Earth has been warming—about one degree Fahrenheit—since the last mini-Ice Age ended around 1850. “The real reasons for climate change are uneven solar radiation”, said Dr. Sorokhtin, while citing others that include the Earth’s axis gyration and instability of oceanic currents.

“Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface.” Yes, the Sun itself goes through periods of change. Dr. Sorokhtin believes that “Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”

There is a reason scientists refer to our current era as an “interglacial period”, i.e., a time between Ice Ages.

Up to now, the mainstream media has ignored the cold reality of the Earth’s known cooling cycles. They have been in complete thrall to the howling of Al Gore with his endless lies about an imminent warming. Given the accolade of a Nobel Prize and even a Hollywood Oscar, why should people unschooled in science believe otherwise?

The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change whose reports have been based, not on hard science such as observations of solar activity, but on flawed, often deliberately false computer models, has been the driving factor behind the global warming hoax. What better way to assert political and economic control over the Earth than to create a global crisis? To their credit, many participants in the IPCC have protested these reports.

Large numbers of scientists have sold their soul to the global warming lies in order to receive millions in research grants, but increasingly other scientists have been coming forth to tell the truth. On March 2-4, several hundred will convene in New York for the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to offer papers and serve on panels disputing and debunking the global warming hoax.

Beyond the climatic threat of a cooling planet is the one posed by U.S. politicians and their counterparts in Europe who are seeking to impose all manner of regulation and limits on energy use based on the false assertion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

They want to mandate a “cap-and-trade” scheme that will make some people and industries wealthy selling credits that will permit greenhouse gas emissions. But it is not greenhouse gases we need to fear, it is the action or, in this case, the inaction of the Sun.

At the very moment the Earth is on the cusp of what is likely to be a very long cooling and possibly a full scale repeat of the last Ice Age, all the engines of government, nationally and internationally, are trying to inhibit the discovery, extraction, and use of energy reserves that will be needed to cope with climate changes that will impact millions and, ultimately, billions of people.

All the wind turbines and solar panels in the world will not keep you warm in your home or apartment when a short or long term cooling of the Earth occurs. Ironically, as the Greens rant about so-called endangered polar bears in the Arctic, the bears are far more likely to survive than humans.

What controls the Earth’s climate? The Sun!

Source