As the average global temperature has remained steady for more than 15 years, climate-change alarmists have been found exchanging emails questioning where the warming has gone and strategizing how to shape their message in light of the facts.
Now another obstacle has surfaced with a report that European scientists have unveiled a new scientific model based on solar cycles that shows a “mini ice age” is on the way, due to decreased solar activity.
So, finally, can the dire predictions of life-destroying “climate change” and “global warming” be put to rest?
No, said Marc Morano of Climate Depot, a leading expert on the topic. Morano contends the “global warming” movement was never about the science behind the issue; it was always about creating a global system of controlling energy production and consumption.
A London Daily Mail report on the prediction said the model suggests solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the mini ‘”ice age” from 1645 to about 1715. During that period, known as the “Maunder Minimum,” London’s River Thames froze over and snow fields remained year-round even at lower elevations.
The results of the study were presented by Prof. Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy meeting in Llandudno, Wales.
Zharkova noted in the report that in the nearly two centuries since a scientist first spotted changes in the sun’s activity, there have been cycles of 10 to 12 years.
WND reported Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has pointed out that for more than 100 years, “journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”
The Daily Mail report noted that over the last century, America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times. Each prediction warned entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions” would die.
In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. In the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat ‚Äì global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, a New York Times headline blared “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” In 1981, it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
The term of choice later evolved to “climate change” to cover the changing circumstances.
Morano told WND on Monday that the facts don’t seem to matter to the activists.
“They don’t need no stinkin’ science,” he said. “They have an agenda.”
He pointed to a number of comments from the global warming community that appeared to support that belief.
For example, he noted, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard once said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
Then there was ex-Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Morano, whose coming movie, “Climate Hustle,” will address the issue, said the global warming agenda isn’t about the science.
He said that’s why, despite the facts, America is on the verge of cap and trade, carbon taxes, renewable energy mandates and more.
President Obama’s agenda on renewable energy has been aggressive, often times at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers.
“We’re being imposed the same regulations [as global warming legislation would] through the EPA. These regulations will be codified and solidified into law,” he said.
He said even now, the agenda essentially is in place and, like other government programs, nearly impossible to remove.
The ultimate goal is centralized planning, he said.
And it’s under the banner of global warming, even though a number of experts have predicted just the opposite.
For example, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology said just two years ago, referencing a well-documented “pause” in global warming over the last decade or so: “This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause.'”
Prof. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of math at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said in a research paper that the world could be in a cooling spell that could last up to 50 years ‚Äì and he was targeted with hate mail for it.
The Daily Mail reported noted the “ice age” forecast is based on the study of a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the sun in combination with a second dynamo, close to the surface.
Zharkova said the predictions have been accurate 97 percent of the time.
Climate Depot reported Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner for physics in 1973 who supported Obama, said “basically global warming is a non-problem.”
Giaever now mocks Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
The scientist called it a “ridiculous statement.”
WND columnist Christophe Monckton of Brenchley has noted that for “222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all.”
“This month’s RSS temperature ‚Äì still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Ni√±o, which will eventually cause temporary warming ‚Äì passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.”
The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes reached a pinnacle with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
And his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.
Scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”
The scientists agree: “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.”
Robinson has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cal Tech, where he served on the faculty. He co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-winner Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
He told WND that weather does change over time and that the global system goes through cycles, some slightly warmer and some slightly cooler than others.