(NaturalNews) For years, we've all heard that global warming is threatening our planet. But now, in a stunning turnaround, world scientists are warning that an era of global cooling seems to be upon us, complete with extraordinary expansions of ocean ice being recorded in just the past year.
Even the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report seems to indicate that an era of global cooling is now underway, according to many scientists.
It turns out that global warming predictions were little more than doom-and-gloom fear mongering based on failed computer models.
For example, in 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice-free" by the summer of 2013. Here's exactly how that fear mongering was published by the BBC:
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Massive expansion of ice proves global warming alarmists wrong
Now the summer of 2013 is over, and you can't argue with the satellite imagery of ice. Those images, shown below, reveal over one million square miles of new ice being formed in just the last year. That's an increase of 60 percent over the previous year, reports the Daily Mail.
Here's the satellite imagery they published, showing the expansion of ice:
As you can see from the image, the coverage of ice in the August, 2013 image (on the right) is vastly increased over the August, 2012 image (on the left).
Now, I wish I didn't have to actually state the obvious in an article, but warmer temperatures would cause ice to melt, thereby resulting in LESS ice, not more.
Thus, the presence of rapidly increasing quantities of ice is proof that temperatures in the region are falling, not rising. That is, unless you believe in magic in the same way that so many "scientists" apparently believe in magic. What magic? The magic that somehow results in higher temperatures resulting in MORE ice formation. That sort of magic requires an elaborate magic wand, a set of finely crafted voodoo dolls and a bunch of tabloid astrology scrolls to pull off.
Nevertheless, there are many "scientists" who believe so deeply in their global warming arguments that they have been forced to come up with some elaborate new spin to try to explain away the formation of ice in the arctic. That spin is now called a "pause." The rapidly expanding ice sheets are due to a "pause" in global warming, they say!
Global warming has always been a political argument, not a scientific one
In truth, global warming has never been a scientific argument from the get-go. It has always been -- and always will be -- a political argument dressed up in the language of science.
For political reasons that have nothing to do with science or reality, certain globalist operatives needed to convince the world's populations that doomsday was coming if they didn't reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But in order to pull this off, these operatives first needed to demonize carbon dioxide, the single most important nutrient on the planet for reforestation, plant growth, food production and "greening" the planet.
Carbon dioxide is so important to plants that greenhouse operators buy and install carbon dioxide generators to provide extra nutrients to their plants which are starving from the low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In fact, here's a photo of a catalog mailed to commercial greenhouse growers. As you can see, this page features two different CO2 generators which convert propane or natural gas into carbon dioxide in order to vastly increase plant growth:
"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years," says the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
"CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient... increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."
The attempted demonization of carbon dioxide, in other words, falls apart once you embrace the simple scientific reality that plants use CO2 like a nutrient. Carbon dioxide is "atmospheric fertilizer" for nearly all plants. Thus, the higher CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more quickly land areas of the plant can be reforested or restored from near-desert-like conditions.
Guilt-tripping the public with a polar bear hoax
Thanks to propaganda brainwashing efforts conducted on the public, most people today believe that CO2 is somehow evil or bad. This idea is completely without scientific merit. It was implanted into the minds of the people via an elaborate, extremely well-funded propaganda deception campaign for a political purpose.
Once people were convinced that CO2 was bad, they could be "guilt-tripped" into supporting restrictions on CO2 emissions that ultimately allow government to control virtually every industry imaginable: agriculture, transportation, energy and even human reproduction and population (since humans exhale CO2 when they breathe).
CO2 became the leverage point by which the global economy could be enslaved to an anti-science control agenda called "global warming." That lie was sold to the public with a long list of bizarre claims and deceptions including the claim that polar bears can't swim and were drowning because all the floating ice was disappearing. As part of the global warming propaganda deception, American children across the country were found tearfully sobbing over depressing images that attempted to depict polar bears as drowning.
But it turns out polar bears are powerful swimmers. This is common knowledge among arctic biologists, of course. Even Sea World knows this and publishes it openly on their website:
Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.). Polar bears can obtain a swimming speed of 10 kph (6.2 mph).
A thick layer of blubber (fat), up to 11 cm (4.3 in.) thick, keeps the polar bear warm while swimming in cold water... Polar bears are so well insulated they tend to overheat. Polar bears move slowly and rest often to avoid overheating.
The absurd claim that polar bears can't swim is the biological equivalent to claiming that humans can't walk. The entire polar-bear-global-warming hoax was based on the single observation of just four polar bears floating in the ocean after being apparently killed in an arctic storm. The scientists who claimed these bears were killed by global warming were later reprimanded, reports a Huffpost story:
The article was based on observations that Monnett and Gleason made in 2004 while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales. They saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm...
From this, global warming alarming like Al Gore leaped to the conclusion that polar bears were being decimated by global warming caused by rising CO2 levels.
The evidence for global warming, it turns out, is no more credible than Obama's evidence that Syria's government used chemical weapons (which actually turned out to be sodium fluoride). In both cases, we're witnessing the fabrication of evidence for political purposes.
Bad computer modeling leads to bad predictions
Now that the global warming hoax has been utterly discredited, you have to ask how the scientists were so terribly wrong about it all along.
If you discount for a moment the idea that they were all just lying about it, you have to conclude that their computer models used to predict the effects of rising CO2 levels are wildly inaccurate. Computer models are, of course, attempts by scientists to guess how changes in certain variables might impact outcomes.
But these models are based on guesses that may or may not reflect reality. After all, your local TV weatherman uses incredibly advanced modeling technology but can barely tell you with any degree of accuracy whether it's going to rain tomorrow. What makes anyone think similar computer models can accurately predict global temperature changes over the next century?
The Daily Mail is reporting US climate expert Professor Judith Curry as saying "In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It's now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level."
Climate scientists in particular have earned a reputation for being no more accurate than TV psychics or carnival palm readers. After all, in the late 1960's and early 1970's many scientists, observing a cooling trend, publicly "forecast an imminent ice age." (SOURCE)
Furthermore, it turns out that CO2 emissions from human activity are dwarfed by CO2 emissions from the world's oceans. So if CO2 alone could cause global warming, then we would have been living on a runaway greenhouse effect planet long before humans arrived on the scene. (And indeed, CO2 levels have been more than 15 times higher in Earth's history...)
Climate scientists, casinos and gambling addicts
Increasingly, the verbal excuses of global warming climate scientists sound more and more like blackjack junkies at a casino, trying to explain away their losses. "Yeah, I just lost that hand, but overall I'm winning!"
There is a strong tendency in human psychology for something I call "cognitive momentum." It means a person who has decided to believe in something and who has publicly stated his or her belief in that thing is usually extremely difficult to convince to reexamine their beliefs from a fresh angle. This is why all of us who are true scientists must remain ever vigilant about our own beliefs, and we must be willing to question them and publicly change our positions if we find we are in the wrong. (Case in point: I used to believe the global warming hype, but I publicly changed my position based on new evidence that clearly contradicted my former belief.)
People who simply dismiss all contradictory evidence as an aberration rather than real evidence as not true scientists... they are dogmatists. This includes nearly all pro-vaccine people, by the way, who consciously dismiss all reports of the children harmed by vaccines as "aberrations" rather than patterns of evidence. When does overwhelming evidence not count as evidence? When it's evidence showing the dangers of vaccines, of course. All that evidence is swept under the rug, much like the current evidence against global warming being caused primarily by human activity.
This is how "science" becomes "dogma." It's how scientists turn into cultists. And in every way imaginable, the global warming pushers are now cult leaders who ask their followers to believe them as a matter of faith, not anything based on real-world evidence.
Maybe they all need to be dunked into the freezing Arctic waters for a few seconds just to snap them out of it. "Still think there's global warming?" you can ask as you pull their faces out of the water for a breather. "Then why is your face covered with ice?"
In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.
With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.