So What Happened to Global Warming?

global warming

Yet another record-breaking winter in Britain, could this be a trend? Go figure. (Photo: Patrick Henningsen).

Britain and Europe have been hit hard for the third straight record-breaking winter season. Labeled by experts as the coldest winter in 100 years and set to blow well into 2011, it is already raising some very interesting questions about the new ideological split we are witnessing throughout society in the much celebrated green debate.

Tonight Britain braces itself for a further 10 inches of snow and more sub-zero temperatures to come- with no let-up, top forecasters have warned. These unusual Arctic conditions are set to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond and as temperatures plummeted to -10c (14f), prompting the UK’s Met Office to state that this December 2010 was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910.

So is it not safe to say that we are witnessing a real, tangible and physical trend here? Unlike the million dollar computer-generated climate model projections produced by the UN’s elite circle of research grantees and bursary award-winning climate scientists, this new trend is actually a real one- one we can feel, touch, and most importantly… empirically measure.

Indeed, it is Britain who has been hit- yet again, by a siege of blizzards and freezing temperatures. As public transport and utilities face continued disruption in services, major airports are reporting closures as the snow drift continues to pile up.  It seems that temperatures will struggle to rising above freezing points for the second straight day and this will sure spell more chaos for the general welfare. For a relatively moderate, low altitude climate zone like the UK, such winter storms can cost lives and create an endless backlog of crisises that municipalities will have difficulty managing.

There is a rather bizarre upside of course. If you count yourself as one of the millions worldwide who find yourself living in constant fear of global warming and climate change, there is one positive reassuring aspect to this now bona fide and well documented global cooling weather trend since 1998. This essentially means that you can now safely get out from under the bed and breathe a sigh of green relief as you look out your window to see everything covered in thick white again. Yes, yes, you are completely and utterly safe from CGI-created scary visions of sea levels rising- as seen in the science fiction “cult” film, Age of Stupid (yes, those are CGI graphics and no, sea levels are not rising), allegedly due to that arbitrary phantom menace… of climate change.

Still though, this hasn’t stopped thousands of green-washed activists, hippies and guilt-ridden corporate rehab patients in search of a low calorie religion from chasing their paper tiger further into that endless political forest. A generation lost to indoctrination from up-on-high, high, high up some of the world’s leading investment banks and arcane think tanks. And the hippies, well they are also high, of course.

climate camp

Lost the plot: What was once a fun green activity for young Euro-hippies has now transformed into a wandering farcical climate circus.

The Club of Rome (official progenitor of the global warming hoax) and the UN’s own well-documented programmes of social engineering (Agenda 21) and various departments of political division, all have seen resounding success, particularly between 2004-2008 when the ideological zeitgeist of global warming and its new alter ego, climate change, started heading south for the winter (all the way south to Antarctica, in fact). The inevitable collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one recent sign that the whole effort to monetised and control Western lives through this coercive pseudo market is struggling to maintain its illusion of green utilitarianism. The writing was on the wall this past summer and went unnoticed by most green activists and passive spectators in the great climate debate. Although initial investors and shared holders managed to jump ship with their fortunes in tact in, the end, it was simply “unsustainable”.

If you have unwavering faith in men like Al Gore, the UN’s own knighted IPCC body of 40-odd climate scientists and the Guardian’s resident earth expert George Monbiot, then you have effectively swallowed the blue pill. Here you have a license to switch off your critical thinking faculties because in your mind you can hear the following phrases, successfully implanted there, over and over again. “The debate is over, the science is settled, every scientist agrees”. Like a fundamentalist Christian, a Jew, or Muslim, you take the climate scriptures word for word. You are a true believer, one who somehow knows in his heart that there really is a thing called man-made, CO2-driven global warming. It simply must be. And there is a ready-made crowd waiting for you at the church, where everyone is singing happily from the same hymn sheet- literally. What once passed for education in the West, was transformed into a top-down waterfall of relentless green propaganda- driven by middle class guilt and a multi-billion dollar gravy train of state-subsidised financial opportunities.

And in the most bizarre turn of green ideology seen yet, more and liberal-minded zealots are now claiming ”that global cooling is what we must expect because of global warming?” If you are in any doubt as to the reality of this new claim, just ask any climate change advocate yourself and you will be amazed to hear this new party line stated. Another idea has been successfully implanted into the minds of this faithful flock.

blue pill

In the end, the climate debate comes down to Alice in Wonderland. Our advice: at least know which pill you have swallowed.

And then you have the skeptics – the demonised, the mavericks, the outcasts (of whom this author is one, and has yet to receive any money from ‘big oil’ etc) often stoned in public for challenging Herr’s Gore, Strong, Hansen, Mann and Jones on certain hack aspects of their sacred computer-modeled science. The doubters knew something wasn’t right when Wall Street started its hedging and hyping of the world’s most innovative financial instrument yet — carbon emissions. They knew something was off kilter when carbon taxes inevitably became to main thrust of global warming shills and the United Nations. So after a third straight year of frostbite and ice skating down your neighborhood street and into a lamp post, it’s gone beyond a joke. You simply have no choice but to swallow the red pill.

Patrick HenningsenIt seems that the only people in denial are the religious followers of the IPCC’s new Jonestown Church of climate change… drunk on a delusion that they are, in their own little way, saving the planet from the evil substance known as CO2. It’s become a sort of tribal division, where two tribes cannot seem to agree if the Sun orbits the Earth, or the Earth orbits the Sun. Throughout history tribes of people needed mythologies in order to give meaning to their lives. Climate Change is simply the latest mythology for this current epoch. In the 21st century, we thought modern man had surely advanced past this handicap, but alas… old habits die hard.

Alice… are you there Alice?

Patrick Henningsen

21st Century Wire


  1. in_awe says

    [Sorry if this is a duplicate – the earlier submissions were accepted but never appeared]

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

    By Charles Onians

    Monday, 20 March 2000

    Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

    Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

    The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

    Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

    Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.

    Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.

    Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

    Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

    “We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.

    David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

    Not any more, it seems.

    Isn’t Viner one of the pantheon of Global Warming Gods?

    If the science is settled, then how can one of the East Anglia “expert climatologists” go in the space of a mere ten years from global warming being responsible for:

    “snow will be a thing of the past”


    “massive snowfall is the direct result”

    THE SAME GUY! So what changed so dramatically that he (and others) could flip 180 degrees on the effects of global warming? Show us specifically what caused the about face…the RAW DATA (we won’t fall for that trick again) and/or the change to the model. Then we’ll talk. Until then this AGW/ACC crowd is just making noise.

  2. Mary Hayden says

    You are completely misinformed about the science of climate change, which is really what we should have called the phenomenon caused by greatly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Wild fluctuations from extreme heat to extreme cold with greatly increased precipitation in some regions and severe drought in others is what we can expect – and what the climate scientist have been predicting for some time now.
    Reducing our levels of carbon dioxide is still a very pressing issue!!

  3. Mac McKinney says

    Nice try to “skeptic” away global warming, but no dice. Undoubtedly we will return to record high temperatures during the summer of 2011 in various parts of the world, save some massive volcanic eruption or other event that blocks out sunlight on a massive scale.

    There are two key reasons for the extreme winter conditions in Northern Europe right now:

    1) The intensified heat of the summer months is putting more and more moisture from evaporation of greater and greater volumes of water in the world into the cloud layers, and moisture, vaporous H2O, is the stuff from which all that snow is made.

    2) The BP Oil Disaster has apparently disrupted the Gulf Stream and Gulf Loop Current to a considerable degree, some researchers alleging that it has even halted in its journey north and is only basically flowing toward Africa now. This is on top of the fact that scientists already have measured that the Loop Current has declined over 30 percent in the last decade. If the Loop Current fails to reach Europe, essentially the heater is turned off.

    Thus Britain is apparently getting a double-whammy, from more moisture in the clouds than ever due to intensified warming, and from their beloved corporate Frankenstein monster, BP.

    • in_awe says

      Of course, the forecast for California this winter was for warmer and drier than normal. How is that forecast working out?

      But you are certain that we will return to record high temperatures this summer…OK.

  4. Joshua says

    It is nice to see that LA Progressive is brave enough to post a contradicting opinion, it shows real charachter and a sense of intellectual honesty that is lacking most places, regardless of their ideological stance.

    ONLY if you have heard both sides of an argument can you make informed decision.

    I happen to agree with the authors point BUT I also know weather doesn’t equal climate. A single meteorological event can NOT prove or disprove AGW, as it is an incredibly complex theory that requires the knowledge of a couple of scientific disciplines to completley understand.It also takes time and mountains of data.

    Good source.. ..if you want to know the skeptic position.

    Nice post Mr. Henningsen

  5. Jody says

    Patrick uses regional weather phenomenon to prove that the world is cooling. While climatologists have pointed out, and common sense also dictates, that local weather patterns will be changed due to global warming. The scientific and anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.
    On the two largest land masses we have seen a migration northward of plant and animal species over the last 20 years of 100-300 miles. The rapid disappearance of glaciers in the Andes which will have major consequences upon humans residing on the western slopes of South America. Speeding up of the glacial melt in Greenland, etc. etc. etc.

    The steps taken to slow or reverse global climate change do not harm humanity. In fact those same steps will reduce pollution, increase efficiencies in human civilization, and will help mitigate the detrimental impacts of humanity upon the world’s ecosystems.

    On the other hand, if nothing is done as it appears Patrick wants, the consequences if he is proven wrong would be catastrophic to humanity. At that point saying “I’m sorry” will not rescue humanity.

    While Patrick has engaged in a Fox News style attack upon those advocating for dealing with global climate change, he did not express what he believes to be the state of the earth’s climate other than to refer to a commentary written at the right wing website Free Republic in 2006 (slight global temperature reduction from 1998 to 2005). Ignoring the fact that changes in extremes, which can be local manifestations based upon geography, can still average out. While those same extremes (such as the current weather in the UK) might be offset by above average temperatures in another part of the world. Weather patterns will change, the basis for using the phrase Climate Change as Global Warming.

    People like Patrick who use their intelligence and communication skills to make fallacious arguments, are despicable. They do not act out of ignorance, but deliberately craft their communications to harm others, not to present an alternative viewpoint. They are instrumental in delaying the critical steps that must be taken by humanity in general if we want to be around in the future. Life on earth will continue, it just might not include humans.

  6. Joe Weinstein says

    Commenter George’s point is only too correct – especially the scenario noted in his last sentence.

    What has actually been happening without any shred of scientific dispute is a causative phenomenon – a cause with weighty future effects which are not yet fully known nor fully predictable. Namely, as a result of human activity in recent centuries and especially in the past decades and years – ever more C02 and other heat-blanket gases have been going into the atmosphere.

    In order to convey to ordinary folk the importance and weight of the situation, publicists have misleadingly used a labels [‘global warming’, ‘climate change’] which focus on serious likely effects rather than on the undisputed actual situation [more greenhouse gases].

    As a matter both of fact and of some irony, in recent years one undisputed serious clear effect of ever-more human-released C02 gas has ALREADY emerged. Ironically, this effect does not directly involve climate. Rather, it’s unprecedented ocean acidification – the result of some of the extra atmospheric C02 going into solution in the upper ocean waters.

  7. George says

    Is this guy serious? At first, I thought he was giving us the Koch Brothers line and then switching to the real world, but there is no visible hint of satire. Is this really a progressive website or a hoax?

    More extreme weather events are an established scientific prediction. The deflection of Arctic air to the United States last year was touted by the Right Wingnuts as proof of global cooling. Of course they did not look at temperatures in Fairbanks, Alaska, or the Southern Hemisphere. The winds that usually bottle up the cold air in the Arctic were weak, so the Arctic was warmer while mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere were colder as a result. It’s a more or less cyclical phenomenon last seen in 1976. The Southern Hemisphere had record breaking heat at the time and the year turned out to be the first or second hottest on record in both hemispheres.

    If the Gulf Stream is deflected by Arctic melting, Europe might get very cold. I don’t know if this winter is a harbinger of that shift, but it definitely is NOT evidence against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

    • says

      Yes, the is a ‘progressive’ website which means it allows for some free speech, correct? Climate change is by nature a politically loaded trap. Still, after all the rhetoric, there is no proof that man’s CO2 contribution is warming the planet. Im all for sustainibility, but popular global warming theory hasn’t got it.

      You guys have some catching up to do on this subject, Al Gore’s film has been thoroughly bebunked years ago…

      TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

      MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
      FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

      There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

      MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
      FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

      The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

      MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
      FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

      MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
      FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.
      Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

      MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
      FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

      MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
      FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
      1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
      2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”. To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

      MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
      FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

      MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
      FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

      MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
      FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

      MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
      FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

      Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Leave a Reply

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