Connect with us


Scientists increasingly moving to global cooling consensus

Scientists increasingly moving to global cooling consensusCritics of those who claim that man-made global warming is a serious threat to the planet and settled science frequently point to the fickleness of scientists on the issue, noting that in the 60s and 70s scientists were warning of just the opposite. It now appears the critic’s claims may have merit as a new consensus is beginning to once again return to the global cooling model.

Adherents of man-made global warming have supported the issue in a way akin to that of religious zealots, even to the point of attempting to cover up evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs or portrays it in a negative light.

Global warming has been blamed for every recent catastrophe including wildfires in America even when they have been started by human activity, Hurricane Sandy, and even for the recent rash of cold spells that have descended upon much of the world.

However, even in the midst of their support for the theory, they appear to have acknowledged there are serious issues with claiming that record cold winters are the result of global warming. In the 1990s, they frequently made calls for governments to take steps to issue regulations to curtail “global warming.” However, they now generally do not use the phrase any longer, instead calling on combating “climate change.”

It is unclear exactly how that is supposed to happen since the very definition itself means that if the weather changes from one day to the next that is climate change.

However, scientists are now beginning to rethink their climate change models and are seriously discussing the possibility the earth is entering into a period of global cooling.

Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon writing in the Financial Post cites the fact that solar activity is currently decreasing at one of the fastest rates as anytime the last 10,000 years. Because of this, he says many scientists are actually reverting from the mantra of global warming and are now subscribing to the possibility of global cooling as occurring.

“Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s,” Solomon writes. “The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age.”

He further goes on to note that Columbia University’s George Kukla- who warned the US government about the dangers of global cooling back in 1972 claimed that global warming “always precedes an ice age… The warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s, in other words, was expected all along, much as the calm before the storm.”

One of the public-relations problems facing man-made global warming adherents is that individuals are able to look around and see the effects of increasingly cold weather that they are able to experience personally. Europe and many parts of America have experienced record snowfalls at even later periods in the year in recent years. This causes people to ask if the alarmists are warning about the planet getting warmer, then how can they explain it getting colder.

Rather than blame man-made activity for weather change on the planet, scientists have recently begun looking at solar activity as a predictor of world climate. Data available has revealed that low solar activity has been connected with cold eras in human history, while the opposite has occurred during higher solar activity such as what happened during the recent period form the 1950s to the 1990s.

Evidence of solar activity affecting climate appeared on Mars, when a probe revealed that the planet’s icepack was also experiencing global warming and receding. This prompted skeptics of man-made global warming to mockingly say that it is amazing how our probes are now causing global warming on Mars.

Continue Reading


  1. Otter

    Nov 3, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Climate scientist Judith Curry’s latest peer-reviewed paper, on Stadium Waves, indicates that a) the recent warming is quite normal, and b) That the current plateau in temperatures may last until the 2030s.

    By that time, the UNproven theory of ‘man-made’ global warming, will be well on the way to being a footnote, much like mesmerism or Lysenkoism.

    • Jack Mehoff

      Dec 3, 2013 at 6:22 pm

      I did the wave at the stadium this weekend

  2. Ravenscar.

    Nov 4, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    There are more than a few learned Russian scientists who fear we may be entering a prolonged cooling, something akin to the LIA. If, the earth were to suffer a major volcanic event, on a scale of Hekla 1104 [VEI 5] then the Northern Hemisphere would be in trouble, big trouble.

    Cooling is the enemy, warming we can cope with.

    • Bob

      Nov 5, 2013 at 8:40 am

      Ravenscar, would you care to provide supporting evidence of your statements? Which, BTW, is something that Jack Minor completely failed to do in the original post. He made lots of claims, and backed up none of them with evidence.

      • Richard Aubrey

        Dec 1, 2013 at 9:35 pm

        Everybody knows. Calling for cites is trying to get somebody to waste time.
        However, just so you know everybody knows…. A couple of months ago, both the Economist and the NYT ran articles about how climate scientists are “struggling” to explain/understand how come temps have been level for about seventeen years.
        James Hansen, late of NASA, is now saying, “level now, but hell when it breaks loose”, which is to say even the hysterics have to admit level temps.
        The British met office has gotten tired of being laughed at for forecasting warmer and drier while the brits are looking at colder and wetter. They’ve forecast level to 2017, and nothing beyond. Even they, apparently, can feel shame.
        Oh, yeah. The CRU was busted years ago.
        I didn’t actually waste my time. It’s not that I think you don’t know this stuff. You think nobody else knows this stuff. But we do. Now that you know that, you won’t have to waste your time.

        • guest

          Dec 2, 2013 at 10:56 am

          “Calling for cites is trying to get somebody to waste time.” That’s the exact wrong answer. All articles should cite their sources, just like how all peer reviewed papers should have repeatable results and published data. Otherwise, it is just an opinion piece at best, unverifiable and subject to bias, and at worst hearsay. Mainstream news outlets (NYT, etc) also fail to properly cite, and their “science” articles suffer for it.

          If you are worried about wasting time, consider that if the author spends a small amount of time to write down the citation that they should already have on hand when drafting the work, that saves the time of every reader digging up the sources on their own. Not to mention that a reader might not be able to find the same source. Google search is pretty good, but it’s not a mind reader. Especially if the source doesn’t exist.

          Incidentally, I found this article due to an opinion piece citing its source. ( Had this been a stronger piece, then it would have supported the original article more. But at least the original article provided the links.

          • Mary McNamara

            Dec 2, 2013 at 2:08 pm

            “But at least the original article provided the links.”

            That was the point. The climate change religious zealots demand documentation, but never read it and continue lying.

  3. Jose79845

    Nov 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    It appears that preparation for an ice age is going on in Presidio Texas where the city generates twice as much electricity as it consumes with its newly installed solar cells. It uses its newly installed largest battery in the U.S. to store the electricity for night time.

    It is the longest continuously populated area in North America and is getting a multi $million makeover on its international airport.

    If you can imagine the movie “Day After Tomorrow” where the ending showed Americans migrating into Mexico, Presidio Texas is on the American side of the border.

    If you live in Canada, you may want to think about buying property around there while it’s still very cheap.

    • visigoth

      Dec 2, 2013 at 4:55 am

      The Presidio array has nothing to do with solar power. It is charged from the grid to deal with outages and fluctuations. No one preparing for anything, whether global warming or global cooling should bother with solar. There has never been a solar input of a single net watt at market prices into the commercial grid, ever.

    • Gordon

      Dec 2, 2013 at 7:39 am

      Will solar cells be much good during an ice age?

  4. cbunix23

    Dec 1, 2013 at 8:47 pm

    Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.

    • Mylesman

      Dec 2, 2013 at 5:39 am

      Very well said, clear and concise.

  5. Jakatoa

    Dec 1, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    Scientists have lost so much credibility after the last several years of fear-mongering “Climate Change” that perhaps they should humbly focus on science as opposed to producing results that the government wants to see.

  6. Kevin C.

    Dec 1, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    No global warming for 15 to 17 years (depending on data set). At or near record highs for global sea ice extent. Model after model embarrassing itself. The USA far surpassing the greenies in Europe on CO2 emission reductions with fracked natural gas and efficiency gains. It’s great fun watching the warmists squirm.

  7. Craig

    Dec 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Global cooling was never a consensus. In the 70’s it was a fringe idea.

    “Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon” is not a scientist. He’s a lobbyist for oil companies, and campaigns against nuclear power.

    This article is a thinly-sourced, confused mess of straw men. Responsible scientists aren’t running around saying that this or that storm is “the result of global warming”. The best science now appears to indicate that, while storm frequency is not being affected, there’s cause to believe that the intensity of the largest ones is on the rise, exactly what would be expected from global warming.

    Which. Has. Not. Stopped.

    There. Is. No. Pause. (Unless you cherry-pick your data. Which is what’s happening when people mention specific years, especially 1995 or 1998.)

    • Greg

      Dec 1, 2013 at 11:21 pm

      It must be hard for you since your unicorn died…

    • quizberry

      Dec 1, 2013 at 11:43 pm

      I agree that this article is thinly sourced. In fact, that’s generous.

      But just listing Solomon’s affiliations isn’t a refutation–you could just as easily say that IPCC gets government funding, governments want to control more, hysteria helps them do that, and so the entire IPCC system can be written off.

      You also say “the best science now appears to indicate…” This, you have to admit, is a bit of a farce. Even granting the IPCC some credibility, they have walked back multiple claims, including about storm intensity and frequency, from “very likely” to “unknown.” The idea that the current science is in any position to firmly link storms, intensity and AGW is just ludicrous. Magic 8 Ball says: Ask again in ten years.

      Finally, you say that there is no pause, unless you choose a starting year. You don’t seem to understand what a pause means. It starts sometime. You have to choose a year. It’s true that we don’t know if the pause will continue, or if it’s significant, but it seems right now to exist. (Note, however, the recent claims that better controlling for the under-measurement of arctic temperatures makes the pause look smaller: )

      The important thing about the pause is that the temperatures are now below the 95% confidence interval of where temps should be. That means that the predictive models are wrong. The point of having a confidence interval is so you know when you’re wrong.

      Jumping to global cooling is a bit silly, but your reply grotesquely underestimates the theoretical issues which give rise to such silliness.

    • Jimbo

      Dec 2, 2013 at 2:51 am

      Your post is misinformed and untrue. The Pause is very much real, widely acknowledged and is reflected in HadCrut4, NasaGiss and NOAA surface temperature datasets and the UAH and RSS satellite readings. Moreover, the “best” science you refer to regarding the intensity of large storms is based on computer modeling which also predicts greater storm frequency, contrary to your claim. However, actual observation is already undercutting this modeling as 2013 was the slowest year for hurricanes since 1982 and Accumulated Cyclone Energy of all cyclones in the Western North Pacific is below normal (99%, Even the IPCC acknowledges this dearth of observed cyclone activity on page 62 of their 5th assessment report.

    • Mylesman

      Dec 2, 2013 at 5:43 am

      Keep that head in the sand Greg. By the way, are you happy with your higher obamacare premiums? Oh, I forgot, you work for the federal government. Someone else pays for your premiums.

    • Rick Caird

      Dec 2, 2013 at 8:05 am

      Funny, I thought the global warming crowd picked 1998 as proof ow warming. Now, it appears that was wrong and it is the people have noted that 1998 was the high point and we have not warmed since who are cherry picking the year.

      It is all so confusing. The global warming guys have changed to climate change, but deny that climate change includes cooling, but it does include deep ocean heat storage by some undefined process.

      I think you need to reevaluate who you think is cheery picking. BTW, wait until there is government money for studying global cooling. Then that theory will take off.

    • Jim O'Neil

      Dec 2, 2013 at 11:55 am

      Let’s see, about 1000 new low temperature records set last month. That’s just due to weather. One typhoon hits the Philippines. That’s, OMG, due to global warming!! No cherry picking here, now I understand.

  8. Dave72

    Dec 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    The bottom of the barrel climatologists will continue to cry global warming until their gummint grants end.

  9. forrest

    Dec 1, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    I realized that AGW/CC was a vehicle for graft when Al Gore came out with that paranoid “An Inconvenient Truth” infomercial to sell the rubes on it, especially after he made bank and then continued to live his personal life with a “carbon footprint” larger than many small countries. Never trust a hypocrite, if AGW were actually an emergency, the proponents of it wouldn’t be buying waterfront mansions and flying in private jets.

    • Mylesman

      Dec 2, 2013 at 5:45 am

      algore is a world class hypocrite, but then again so was his running mate, john edwards.

  10. Bob

    Dec 1, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    Global Horse-pucky ! They didn’t know then and they don’t know now. Any of you ever actually TRIED to take air temps with multiple devices and have them agree ?

    Global warming was neither global nor warming. I expect that global cooling will be the same. When they can accurately predict the weather two weeks ahead of time, we can try again. But that’s the thing about Chaos; you can not predict the future with certainty Period !

  11. Leo Wright

    Dec 2, 2013 at 7:01 am

    forrest – Which statement makes you a moron. Gore was trying to move the dial on an issue that was then and is now being stonewalled by the conservatives and energy companies.

    Richard Aubrey – Everybody know? Really? I get that kind of bullshit all the time when dealing with the climate deniers. Well, everybody except the scientists being misquoted and lied about in your various articles.

  12. Peter the Lawyer

    Dec 2, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    So now 1/2 the climate scientists don’t believe in AGW and Leo Wright wants to talk about climate deniers. As if anyone denies we have climate. What a facile, unscientific little person he must be. Just wants to be on the government gravy train whilst being a self-righteious git.

    If there is global cooling it will cause much more damage to the envrinment and kill many more people than global warming would have done.

    Sinistra delnda est!

  13. Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn)

    Dec 3, 2013 at 8:09 am

    Great Report!
    Those who have been following, WeatherAction and WeatherActionUSA will know both the warmist so-called ‘science’ and the so-called ‘consensus’ are a pack of brazen lies and fraud.
    These scientists who are now ‘coming round’ to the facts are in the main opportunist fraudsters who have now decided to swim from the sinking ship of lies they did so much to build and keep afloat. They should not be welcomed on the hard ground of evidence-based science but left to drown.
    Furthermore we at WeatherAction warned of the mini-ice age – the CIRCULATION PATTERNS OF WHICH HAVE BEGUN – 6 years ago so I urge people to have a look at our website especially Latest/News No 43 which is the presentation I gave to the GAFTA (International Grain and Feed Trades Association) conference in May.
    Thank you. Piers Corbyn

    • Phil Dawson

      Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm

      Hi Piers, great to see you in relation to this article – you showed us the way and continue to make your science more and more appropriate to what we see happening around us. Keep up the good work – never miss a month of your updates.

  14. Bob

    Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    CO2 goes up, temps go down. I guess the socialist money grabbing fraud is going down. LOL

  15. MickeyOregon

    Dec 3, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    I guess Al Gore will be returning the money he made off of his little lies, won’t he?

  16. Brian H

    Dec 4, 2013 at 12:06 am

    Combatting climate change is turning into quite a circus. Every time the weather flips, the change must be combatted, it seems. Talk about perpetual employment!

  17. James Foster

    Apr 11, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Conservatives are terrible people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top