Global Cooling; Are we headed for a new Ice Age?

The whole topic of global warming is one that I am very interested in, yet have remained very skeptical of.   I think the reason I am so interested in it is because it appears to be difficult to get clear unbiased information. 

It occurred to me early on that there was something fishy about this whole global warming movement.  It just did not fit with the other major real concerns that we face as a planet.  The first red flag that went up was that the theory was accepted as fact from nearly the first time it was announced, despite the fact that 20 years earlier many were fearing global cooling.  

The second red flag was that all of the reports the media released about global warming were supporting the theory.  It appeared (and still does) that any reports questioning the theory or outright disagreeing with it was not only pushed under the rug, but the scientists whom produced the studies were immediately castigated and dismissed as cronies for corporate America and laughed off the stage, while the proponents of global warming were always presented as purer than freshly fallen snow. 

However, my take regarding this issue (after having been bashed over the head with the dangers of global warming) evolved from outright denial that it is actually occurring to accepting the fact that the earth was getting warmer, but that human activity had little to do with it.  Up to that point, I actually did very little research into the issue, so my opinions were questionable at best.

Now, while far from an expert, I am back to a full and outright denial that there is any major change in our climate.  It appears to me that certainly things are different now than 50 years ago, but so what?  The earth throughout its history fluctuates in temperature and climate, and the biggest reason for that fluctuation is activity of the Sun. 

This past week another study was released that is very interesting (of course, I don’t claim it to be the end all be all, science is an evolving study) and I find it important to get it out there if only to try to provide another voice to those whom disagree that man-made global warming is actually occurring.  Some researchers in Canada’s National Research Council have been studying the temperature of the sun and how it correlates to climate on the earth. 

Back in 1991, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

There are two initial thoughts I get from these introductory paragraphs in the article: 1. Of course the Sun is going to have a more significant impact than anything else.  2. If journalists and media did not have an agenda, they would promote these findings as much as they do supporting global warming.  Here is more from the article:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that 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.

Certainly, this one study (though there are many like it) does not disprove or prove anything, it is just one study that happens to be contrary to what the media, many activists, and many scientists want us to believe.  

This current winter that we are in seems to be one of the coldest that I can remember, some family members in Utah reported to me that many of the ski resorts there were already at about 120% snowpack for the entire season, and that was at the end of January; they still have February and March left to go.  Granted, this is all circumstantial and not scientific evidence, but it is telling none the less. 

Now I wonder if eventually the discourse within the environemental movement will move from global warming back to global cooling over the next 25-50 years, here is betting they do.  You see, the environmental movement is only relevant and continues to receive funding when the common man is kept in a state of fear.  The same holds true with many other organizations, we are kept in a similar state of fear from terrorist attacks so that the government can spend more money and keep control; Thus, bringing it back to the environmental movement, environmentalists will do whatever necessary to promote the studies that support what they want to be true.  Does that mean the findings are not true?  No, it just means that the movement is being selective and pushing an agenda.

I would, therefore, argue that a study loses much of its lustre after it has been pushed and promoted too much by the environmentalists (and the same can be said for any study that is overly pushed by anyone).   So my basic point in writing this was to encourage the reader to question the common wisdom and always look for alternative theories.   I used this particular study here to demonstrate that there is conflicting evidence, evidence that I find to be more convincing than claims made by hollywood, but I also recognize that this study is not gospel.  However, it does provide an alternate look into climate change, one that should not be ignored by the media or anyone who honestly is seeking to understand what is really going on as opposed to pushing an agenda.

(May I add an interesting observation?  It seems to me that the environmental movement is already moving away from global warming as the key phrase and are moving to “global climate change.”   Do you see the significance of this change?  Basically, anytime any significant climate event occurs, either in support of warming or cooling, they will be able to claim they were right and, thus, can continue to push their agenda, no matter how radical it may be.   This change also demonstrates that there are cracks in the armor of the warming movement and more and more studies are being released that refute their claim.)


Filed under Climate, Conservative, Democrats, Earth, Environment, Global Warming, Media, Meteorology, Outdoors, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Republicans, Science

4 responses to “Global Cooling; Are we headed for a new Ice Age?

  1. environmentalchristian

    I like the fact that you are skeptical but trying to keep an even keel. The majority of posts about climate change have already made up their minds. I would say a few things though.

    First, I would not put ANY stock in media outlets. They do not add anything to the discussion, and should not be used as representative of either viewpoint.

    Second, I would be careful with the label ‘environmentalist’. Perhaps there are people on the dissenters side who unfairly label some and therefore cause their contributions to seem biased.

    Third, it has been seen (No mainstream scientist argues with this) that an increase in greenhouse gases would cause a net increase in temperature. I am not a Physicist, so I wont discuss the Sun, but lets say that the sun does cause a decrease or a cooling trend. Greenhouse gases would then not magically start becoming cooling gases.

    No, they would still cause an increase in temperature. The point I am making is that we should cut our greenhouse emissions globally despite what either side says. This, I believe, should be the starting point of agreement between all parties.

  2. rationalzen


    Regarding point number three. I think it’s a safe bet that you won’t find one mainstream scientist that argues that C02 emissions would cause a net increase.

    Our world is well equipped to deal with carbon emissions, lots of media to absorb it, or convert it into useful gases without having any effect on our temperature, or climate.

    What we don’t know, are two major things.
    1) Where the threshold is where our planet can no longer deal with the emissions in an efficient manner.

    2) What will happen when we cross that threshold.

    It’s scientifically incorrect to say that C02 emissions would/will increase temperature, it’s correct to say that it could. We are still in the middle of the experiments, and any scientist worth his salt will tell you that it’s folly to draw conclusions before the experiment has completed.

  3. rationalzen

    I’ve taken something from the cartoonist Scott Adams. It’s called the sniff test. Basically, if there’s something out there that doesn’t “smell right” it’s not.

    Here’s how I know that both the doomsdayers proponents of man-made global warming are just as full of it as those that categorically deny that it is or could be happening:

    Nobody is doing anything about it. What’s worse is the why behind the inaction. This global warming debate is just globothurmonuclear war all over again, for those not in tune with the movie War Games it’s about the stress of building up your attack scenario before you actually move.

    If the man-made camp is correct and we’re currently melting our polar ice caps, then our coastal cities will flood. The damage that will ensue will make most of the US coastline look and feel like New Orleans after Katrina. Potentially worse. That’s pretty bad. Have we stopped developing our coastal cities and tried to move inland? Have we started posturing levees and other counter measures that will help stave off the destruction? No. Why?

    The reason why is because if we take preventative measures, that would mean that both sides of the extreme have to admit on some level that the other side was right. The big problem is that the global warming debate isn’t a scientific one, it’s emotional. And just like any other emotional decision we make in life, whether it be regarding God’s existence, global warming or other, human nature doesn’t allow us to concede the other side might be right and we might be wrong.

    If we build levees and the like then the man-made proponents have accepted the fact that climate change is inevitable. If the change is inevitable, then why worry about changing our life styles right? It’s going to happen regardless, it’s not worth the investment of change. The man-made opponents can’t push towards preventative measures because that means that climate change is likely to happen and it is our fault, the human race.

    There’s a great book written by the former head of Greenpeace, before it was hijacked by the environmental movement. (That’s paraphrasing the author’s words, not my own sentiments) It’s called Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer.

    It’s a provocative read for anyone that can find it at a local library, or I think it sells for 20 bucks or so. It will give you a view on global climate catastrophes that’s a little more driven by logic and reason than emotion.

  4. rationalzen

    One last thing:

    The real tragedy behind this topic is the fact that we still have as high of levels of Carbon emissions as we do as a country. Yes we’re better than most of the world, but is there any rational reason why most of our nation’s delivery trucks are being powered by a technology that was invented in the early 1890’s?

    There’s no excuse for that in this country. We’re figuring out how to clone human embryos, we can transplant live organs from one person to another to save lives, we can print the text of the Bible on the head of a pin, but we can’t figure out how to make a cost effective efficient vehicle alternative to the combustible engine:? It’s a shame. This is a direct result of our policy makers not understanding the technical and scientific nature needed to produce such technology. They get lobbied by the auto industry into thinking that it’s too expensive to build an electric commuter car, whereas Ford is really only resisting the change because they’ll no longer be able to collect their patent royalties from auto makers that are using combustible engines with spark plugs and a combustion chamber.

    Here’s the solution to our carbon emission problem we have in the United States:

    Propose a $50,000,000 cash prize, yes fifty million, and a 5 year research grant contract, prize to the research team that comes up with a vehicle that has zero carbon emissions, has a commute range of 300 miles without any need of “re-fueling”, exceeds the current safety standards for all vehicles on the market, and at least a top speed of 80 mph. The only requirement aside from those specs, is that it must be something that can be mass produced and sold at a cost of less than 20,000 dollars.

    I guarantee that Stanford, MIT, Northern Iowa, Carnegie Mellon and others would have a prototype done and working within 3 months. It would be tested and on the market within one year, and those people like me that travel nearly a hundred miles a day to get to work would camp out in parking lots to buy one as soon as possible.

    Money is the only reason this hasn’t happened. The auto-industry has greased enough palms and provided enough “evidence”, very loose term there, that it’s not feasible and that it would be too draining on our economy. It’s absolutely false, but our policy makers that vote on these types of activities aren’t technical enough to apply a proper sniff test. They are left to make a decision and trust someone, the problem is as of now they have trusted those that are paying them off rather than those that are right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s