Global Cooling And The Next Ice Age

John Casey discusses the cooling planet, natural cycles and the fraud of MMGW on Canada Live Radio. Science as a political tool and the indoctrination of children by the education system are also discussed. Global cooling expected to lead to food shortages.

Why Our Winters Are Getting Warmer…it’s not because of You or CO2

Rachel Carson: The Edge of the Sea, The Sea Ar...


David Suzuki and many in the environmental movement say Rachel Carson‘s book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, was a turning point in their lives.  Silent Spring warns of environmental damage caused by chemical spraying and the use of DDT.

Carson explores the causes of Climate Change in an earlier book called, The Sea Around Us, a book I’ve never heard an environmentalist endorse or acknowledge.  Carson lays out a much more plausible explanation for Global Warming/Climate Change than the IPCC. The earth has always warmed and cooled via the natural cycle, but the environmental movement is determined to blame man, as in “Man Made Global Warming.”  Why do you think that is?
Continue reading

see also



Heartland Institute-Second Annual

Editor: The global warming scam is so easy to figure out it borders on the ridiculous.

I’ve been posting about the scam for over two years now.

Here it is in a nut shell – the Club Of  Rome – “we came up with the idea”.

IPCC – produced models to fit the idea.

Not based on science – unless you call JUNK science, science.

I hope that helped you understand Global Warming.


The Heartland Institute has produced a short video to advertise the upcoming Second International Conference on Climate Change which takes place in New York in early March.

Fears winter death toll may rise

Editor: If you still think MMGW is a real and imminent danger – please give your head a shake. The warming cycle flat-lined in 1998 and we are now heading into a cooling cycle.

The global warming fear-mongers should be rounded up and jailed. The IPCC is a political body – not a scientific one.

If it were a scientific body, the IPCC would have been open to the input of the tens of thousands of scientists that are critiquing their conclusions.

Instead they refuse to accept any criticism or allow any debate on the subject. That refusal should set off alarm bells in the minds of all thinking people.

The IEA (International Energy Agency) via the UN wants to control and restrict the use of energy and through the IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) control and restrict the use of water.

They also want to control and restrict food via FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

They already control the minds of the children via UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)

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.

The enemy is not – global warming or C02 emissions – the real enemy is your govt., global corporations, the UN and their drive for total control over all commons, resources and people via the NWO.


Fears winter death toll may rise

Elderly man

The number of winter deaths rose last year

Fears are being raised there could be a jump in the winter death toll.

An Age Concern poll of 2,300 people found many over 60s were worried about being able to heat their homes because of soaring energy prices.

And with one of the coldest winters for some years predicted, the charity said the death toll could rise.

It comes after figures for England and Wales suggested there was a 7% jump in extra deaths last year despite a relatively mild winter.

The Office for National Statistics estimates said from December 2007 to March 2008 there were an extra 25,300 deaths in England and Wales compared to the average for non-winter months.

With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise
Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

However, the figure was still some way short of the extra deaths seen in the winters of the late 1990s when death tolls nearly hit 50,000 as flu swept around the country.

Nonetheless, the country still has one of the highest rates of winter deaths – ahead of the likes of Finland and Denmark which generally have colder winters.

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said this was a scandal.

He added: “With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise. Pensioners are clearly more worried about staying warm and well this year.

“Yet, the impact of increased energy bills is causing thousands to risk their health by cutting back on heating.”

Full article BBC

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

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
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.


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

Shun meat, says UN climate chief


Don’t sell you SUV just yet. According to IPCC cow farts and burps are a bigger threat to life on earth than vehicle emissions.

Global warming is a fabrication used as a means of control over you.

All the way through the story,the theme is for you to eat less meat.

In the end, Africa is to eat more meat.

Less gas? No.

More control over you by the UN is the goal.

SO……………………………………………… if you want a better world.


By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Cow road sign

Livestock production has a bigger climate impact than transport, the UN believes

People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN’s top climate scientist.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening.

UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.

But a spokeswoman for the UK’s National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.

People may not realise that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect
Joyce D’Silva
Compassion in World Farming

Dr Pachauri has just been re-appointed for a second six-year term as chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, the body that collates and evaluates climate data for the world’s governments.

“The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,” he told BBC News.

“So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider.”

Climate of persuasion

The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle – clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman

Dr Pachauri has chaired the Nobel Prize-winning body since 2002

The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.

Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind’s greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

Dr Pachauri will be speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), whose main reason for suggesting people lower their consumption of meat is to reduce the number of animals in factory farms.

CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.

“The climate change angle could be quite persuasive,” she said.

“Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realise that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”

Side benefits

Methane emissions from UK farms have fallen by 13% since 1990.

But the biggest source globally of carbon dioxide from meat production is land clearance, particularly of tropical forest, which is set to continue as long as demand for meat rises.

Ms D’Silva believes that governments negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol ought to take these factors into account.

“I would like governments to set targets for reduction in meat production and consumption,” she said.

“That’s something that should probably happen at a global level as part of a negotiated climate change treaty, and it would be done fairly, so that people with little meat at the moment such as in sub-Saharan Africa would be able to eat more, and we in the west would eat less.”

Full load of bullshit can by found at the BBC


The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

“The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.