Scientists and laymen who follow the Ice Age cycles have been warning that a Little Ice Age comparable to one that lasted from 1300 to around 1850 is on its way.
There’s a wonderful irony in the fact that, back in the 1970s, the Greens were issuing warnings and even writing books about the coming Ice Age. They would abandon this issue, based in well-known and accepted solar science, in favor of a vast international hoax alleging man-made global warming.
As the global warming hoax begins to lose its power to influence public opinion and policy, the Greens are not likely to be heeded for a long time to come because they were right about an Ice Age and lying through their teeth about global warming.
Scientists and laymen who follow the Ice Age cycles have been warning that, if not a full-fledged Ice Age, at the very least a Little Ice Age comparable to one that lasted from 1300 to around 1850 is on its way.
Amidst all the media coverage of Hurricane Gustav and the Republican Convention, a report in DailyTech.com was not likely to get much attention, but it forecast a very cold world in the years to come. The Earth has already started to cool and scientists date the change from 1998.
Headlined, “Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on Earth,” the news is that, for the first time in 100 years, “an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.” The author, Michael Asher, noted that, “The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity — which determines the number of sunspots — is an influencing factor for climate on Earth.”
My friend, Robert W. Felix, wrote an excellent book on this titled Not by Fire, but by Ice ($15.00, Sugarhouse Publishing, softcover, second edition) which can be purchased from his website at IceAgeNow.com.
“We’re beginning to realize that Earth is a violent and dangerous place to live,” wrote Felix. “We’re beginning to realize that mass extinctions have been the rule, rather than the exception, for the 3.5 billion years that life has existed on Earth.”
Felix has a new book soon to be published that addresses magnetic reversals, another cyclical factor affecting life on Earth. “During the last 4.5 million years, at least six out of nine radiolarian extinctions occurred at magnetic reversals.” They appear to be a factor in the sudden emergence of new species so Darwin’s theory is likely to be reexamined.
As the DailyTech report notes, “In the past 1000 years, three previous such events, the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer Minimums,” of reduced sunspot activity, “have all led to rapid cooling,” adding that, “For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.”
An article by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, “Sunspots May Vanish by 2015,” predicts that sunspots will disappear completely. “Such an event would not be unprecedented, since during a famous episode from 1645-1715, known as the Maunder Minimum . . .” the solar cycle “was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth.” In other words, it’s going to get COLD.
The Little Ice Age had an effect on history as you might imagine. The French Revolution is attributed to it insofar as the cost of bread rose as wheat crops failed. Riots followed. Similarly, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia met with defeat thanks to a winter that killed thousands of his troops. In America, it was reflected in the travails of Valley Forge.
Over at IceAgeNow.com, Felix posts the latest news from around the world that tells of anomalous events ranging from freak early snow storms to expanding glaciers. Soon enough, those living in the northern hemisphere will become more aware as winters lengthen and become more severe. After that, the scenarios grow quite serious.
Even the venerable Old Farmers Almanac is making news these days forecasting a far cooler winter and suggesting that the Earth is already in a cooling cycle.
No doubt some diehard Greens like Al Gore will continue to spout nonsense that the cold weather is due to global warming, but it has to do with the Sun that’s gone quiet. It’s not myth. It’s reality.
A curiousity is that in 2000 the IPCC cut out, silently, its own previous account of the temperature of the previous millennium – an account that agreed with almost all historical understanding of temperature in populated areas of the world for the last 1000 years.
Our planet is just starting to climb back to something like the temperature of the medieval period – not there yet, after the “mini-ice age” (probably a result of cosmic activity, including sunspots) from around 1500 to the nineteenth century. You cannot say that 2000 was the warmest year for the last millennium with THAT graph knocking around!
To quote W.K. Clifford, a 19th cent. Cambridge mathematician: “ It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
As Dr. Jackson observed in his series, “Loony Liberal Chronicles,” you have to determine what the liberal is really saying before you go off and do a lot of useless research to disprove his claim. I made that mistake in a similar exchange with a flaming liberal over the very issue of global warming. No matter how much scientific evidence I produced to show that man-made global warming has not been proven, he had some cockamamie response that made no sense scientifically. His response to my last e-mail was shockingly revealing: “I really don’t care if there is global warming or not, if this is the flag that must be waved to clean up our filthy environment, then I am for it.” I almost fell over backwards in my chair.
Here he was admitting he didn’t even care about the issue being debated; he was debating an entirely different issue heretofore unmentioned. He didn’t even say how solving a global warming “problem” was going to help clean up the environment; but then again, he probably has no idea how it would. Needless to say, I could see no reason to continue a debate that could go nowhere.
I then recalled the maxim from one of the ‘60s counter-culture revolutionists: “The issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue.” The conclusion is that when debating a liberal, especially a flaming one, the first thing to ask yourself [besides Dr. Jackson’s “Is this person an a**hole?”] is, “How does what he is proposing further the Leftist revolution?” This is critical. To realize how critical, do a simple mind experiment. Imagine that someone made a scientific breakthrough that enabled an affordable automobile to run for a year on a gallon of water, emit no harmful gasses, and be available within a year. Would your liberal be in favor of it? The odds are he wouldn’t because his real goal is more government control of the people, which this solution doesn’t produce. In fact, it would produce the exact opposite.
Applying my mind experiment to what my flaming liberal friend said, I also concluded that cleaning up our “filthy environment” was also probably not his real aim.
“To realize how critical, do a simple mind experiment. Imagine that someone made a scientific breakthrough that enabled an affordable automobile to run for a year on a gallon of water, emit no harmful gasses, and be available within a year. Would your liberal be in favor of it? The odds are he wouldn’t because his real goal is more government control of the people, which this solution doesn’t produce. In fact, it would produce the exact opposite.”
Great point, sedonaman. It’s true across the board, I’ve found. Anyone who is advocating that the government “do something” (which something usually involves anything other than defense against those who initiate force) is interested not in the stated aim, but in being the one calling the shots. In other words, in having power over others to force them to do his (or her) bidding.