2009-10 Record Cold Stumps Environmentalists

Compiled by Lewis Loflin


In light of events in 2014 with ships stranded in ice and record cold slamming the US we must remember some people saw this coming.

Europe, in Grip of Low Temperatures, Faces Flaring Tempers and Disrupted Travel New York Times January 11, 2010:

Weeks of wintry weather have left Britons bickering over dwindling salt supplies, Germans worrying over the economic costs of a ferocious start to winter, and residents in the usually warmer corners like Spain and the south of France struggling with rare accumulations of snow...

Patience was running particularly thin in Britain, where Met Office, the national weather service, declared last month the coldest December in 14 years, and January brought more of the same. The shortage of salt or "grit" for slippery roads and walkways turned into a political issue...Volker Treier, chief economist at the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, told the newspaper Bild on Monday that unless weather patterns changed drastically, the frigid start to the year would cost nearly $3 billion...

Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?

Dailey Mail 11th January 2010: "Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century. If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production..."

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September...Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent. (There has been no warming since 1998.)

So we quibble over 0.5 degrees C and half of that is natural? Now one could argue that a normal cooling trend has counter-balanced alleged human-induced global warming but that can't be proven. But historically these changes have been observed throughout human history.

So where did the other 50 percent come from?

Science Dailey March 21, 2003: "Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study...This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York...

It's now three decades later. Why do I question these claims? Because environmentalism is a pseudoscience as are the claims of "scientific conscientious." Science is not about "conscientious. To quote the definition of pseudo-science:

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Although pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science. Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as theories or laws, often providing supposed evidence from observation, expert testimonials, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method.

Computer models do not constitute proof and their application to predict the future is simply conjecture and evades the scientific method.