Episode-138- What if Climate Change Means Global Cooling?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (17.2MB)
If you have listened to this show often you know I am not a big believer in man made climate change. I think the more evidence we look at the more we can see how little humans actually effect the climate. I just started watching the documentary “Little Ice Age: Big Chill” again though and it has reinforced my belief that.
- The Climate Does Change and at Times Very Quickly
- The Fact that the Climate Has Changed in the Past, Means it will Again
- We Can’t Stop Climate Change
- So We Must Accept the Threat as Real and Make it Part of Our Planning
Tune In Today to Hear…
- How a cold climate change is a bigger threat then one where the earth gets warmer
- What a sudden climate shift might be like, how long it would take
- How nations might respond during a decade or more of very low temperatures
- The effects it would have on food prices and energy costs
- How valuable the questions ‘what if” really is
- Just how cold the “Little Ice Age” really was
Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show.
You also now can call in questions or comments for the host at 866-65-THINK, please read the suggestions for calling in before you do for the best chance of getting your comments on the air.
I’m not so sure. If you remember your history, the farmers of the Midwest actually had a part in climate change that resulted in the dust bowl before world war 2. A BIG climate change that resulted in disaster.
Now if thousands of farmers can do that, what can billions of people throughout the world do?
Key there is that nothing those farmers did actually effected the weather itself. The practices effected soil erosion for sure but the weather patterns themselves had nothing to do with man kind as a whole.
The “global warming” alarmists (who have all started to use “climate change” since temps began DROPPING in 1998) are stating that we are raising the temperature of the globe as a whole. The science of global warming is really “junk science” in the true meaning of the term. Over 30,000 credentialed scientists have signed a petition stating that
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Yes 30,000+! http://www.oism.org/pproject/
The term carbon footprint has been so heavily marketed one must ask who benifits from it, where does the money go? The answer into GOVERNMENT COFFERS, that should be all we need to know.
Can the climate change? Yes! Will it? Yes. Should we be prepared for it? Yes. Is it your “carbon footprint” that is causing it? Not likely!
Again make sure you examine your own comparison. The dust bowl was caused by,
1. A very nasty weather pattern
2. Then aggravated by poor agriculture practices
The weather was natural and the aggravation of the problem largely man made. Yet those two facets are VERY DIFFERENT from each other.
Fact remains, man has a hand in Desertification and major destructive climate changes in many areas of the world. To say that mans current activities have no influence on climate does not make sense in light of what we know.
Personally, I don’t think Global Cooling is as likely as Global Warming as a Climate Change scenario; that being said, as you, Jack, have noted, the show speaks to surviving and thriving “if times get tough, or even if they don’t”; nowhere in that do you specifically say if those tough times are hotter, colder, wetter, drier or the economy or politics.
What I will say is that (and I think you would agree) greater self-sufficiency, energy efficiency and homesteading can and will lead to reduction of either scenarios impact upon us all.
I do have a “bone” of contention with you though about nuclear power being a part of the energy solution; I agree in theory it’s nice; the biggest issue is dealing with the waste radioactive material. If we were to design reactors that could re-use their waste fuel bundles again and again to reduce the waste and also to reduce the usage of the limited resource of fissionable Uranium. We don’t have reactors that can use Thorium yet; and even if we did, there is less than 50 years worth at the moment of it or of Uranium.
But I digress, in the end, becoming more sustainable and self-sufficient can only help us all. Maybe one should add a greenhouse to the sun-facing side of your houses, that way, to both help grow food and act at the same time as a large solar air-heater for your home.
Great podcast by the way.
@BlackMacX, you said, “Personally, I don’t think Global Cooling is as likely as Global Warming as a Climate Change scenario”
Don’t take this wrong my friend, but what are you basing that on? The same propaganda that tells us global warming is real and ignores real climatic data that shows we are right now entering a cooling period. I don’t pretend to be 100% right on this but all I want people to do is actually look at the real data and the real science behind this. It just seems that people have accepted the junk science and the marketing spin without really questioning it.
On nuclear we have hashed this out before but lets really look at how much “high level waste” there is. If you add up ALL as in 100% of high level waste produced all time in the U.S. it won’t fill ONE high school gymnasium. Such waste can easily be contained and buried deep enough to never matter. I also agree with developing reuse technology but that will never happen as long as we don’t build any more plants.
The French and Germans are light years ahead of us (the US and your nation of Canada is what I mean by us) on Renewable energy and it is nuclear that got both of them there.
Why are you willing to question all hype and spin from government EXCEPT global warming? Man has had many negative effects on the environment, from local effects to quite global ones. Still there is a big jump between causing soil erosion, water pollution or acid rain to actually altering the global climate.
Again notice how all the Global Warming propaganda has changed from “global warming” to “climate change”. Why? We 100% are by all scientific indications about to enter a cooling in fact it has started already. Now odds are it will not be the next “Little Ice Age” but it throws a wrench in the works for the globalists that want to institute a carbon tax. So now we hear, “global warming is the cause of global cooling”. And yet the petition I linked to above stating that man made climate change has no scientific basis with 30,000 plus credentialed scientists has never once been mentioned on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN?
Seriously before you just accept this, really, honestly examine the science on the other side of the issue. Then watch Al Gore’s movie again and just notice every time fear is used or scenes of disasters with NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE are blended into montages that are designed to create fear. Gore’s movie and every documentary on global warming I have ever watched are rife with classic emotional propaganda.
Emotion works in marketing but when you have REAL science it isn’t needed.
Mainstream media isn’t even all on the same page – at least long term. Here is the last fact-deprived climate change fear mongering. Time magazine reporting in 1974 on the potential for a coming Ice Age.
I will agree with you, Jack, that generally European countries (especially the Germans and Scandinavian countries) are years ahead of us in North America on renewable energy; I think that in part has to do with a) they governments support of it and b) less to do with nuclear power (France is an exception, with roughly 75-80% of their power being supplied by nuclear power) and more to do with their feeling that this is the right way to go (for whatever reason). I will though bring a point up, that from cases I have read and heard about (in this instance in France), in the massive heat-wave of a couple of years ago (where about 35 000 people perished in Europe over the summer) that at least one nuclear plant had to be taken off-line due to the location’s lack of sufficient volumes of water (that was cold enough) to cool the reactors properly due to the heat-wave.
As to the site with the petition, I thought I heard of them on other venues and thought to look them up (via a Whois statement via Internic and Network Solutions); in both cases, neither has a entry for http://www.oism.org/; I would suggest that you might be just as susceptible to being lead as I am for believing in Global Warming. I doubt that 31 000 scientists have signed the petition; or if they have, that what they signed wasn’t what was presented to them. I will posit that like the old pro-smoking lobby in the 1980s that then moved to becoming anti-Global Warming crusaders, that the OISM.org petition scientists and site are of those who have either dubious credentials, are speaking on areas they are not qualified so really speak on and offer opinions or were mis-informed.
I am sure they have valuable concerns; but to have a body of 30 000 accredited scientists not heard except by such a petition begs belief.
I will agree that emotion works in swaying people and I am not saying that Global Cooling isn’t a possibility. I am no scientist; but based on what I have read over the past decade or so, by people on both sides of the debate on Climate Change and even in the centre, I feel that the evidence is stronger on the warming then the cooling side.
But hey, friends often agree to disagree. We mightn’t agree on what the climate is doing; but the aim of this community and your work is to wake us up and start having us prepare for either way is could go.
I read the book “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton a while back. While this book is fiction, Crichton included footnotes to real studies done on the Global Warming phenomena. This prompted me to dig through the hype and really look at what the research indicated. After investigating many of studies, I have come to the conclusion that those who preach man’s responsibility for climate change today will one day be seen as we now see those who once preached that the world was flat.
Back in the 60’s schools taught of car emmissions being the #1 cause of pollution & global warming; lyndon Johnson squashed all efforts to use alternative fuels; he was an oil man; the “new” fuel cell was patented back in the 1930’s by Charles Lemke I believe the last name is; teapot dome scandal; alternatives to electricity the way it is set up today also squashed; many times stamped classified to prevent being used cuz this way it can be overbilled; our “politicians” work from corruption & greed; & nothing is done for social need here in USA or any other country they have gone to; there should NOT be any 3rd world countries at all; Haliburton owned Johnson when Pres per Rumsfeld who has contributed only lies & misery to all himself; environmental laws are ignored along with others on the books just for looks; it is TIME to change; & NOT the way our “lawless leaders” want to go; do away with “politicians” and get civilians with an agenda for the PEOPLE, the PLANET, which is the AIR, LAND & WATER: which makes up the “country” of every nation; instead of bribery & corruption & exploiting everyone which is criminal & a crime; NOT the “way” democracy works at all;
Please read the rambling you wrote above? Could you possibly learn to use a period from time to time? How about the return key to separate ideas?
I am happy to have decent on the blog but I would love for it to be readable and understandable.
Your first statement though is just NOT TRUE, you said,
“Back in the 60’s schools taught of car emmissions being the #1 cause of pollution & global warming;”
That is flat wrong BECAUSE no one even used the term “global warming” in the 60s or the 70s or the 80s or even the early 90s. It is just the latest craze from the 60-80s we were being told “global cooling” was the problem.
Again happy to debate you but please get your facts strait and do try to make your writing a bit easier to read. I almost did not approve this comment simply because it reads like rambling nonsense. You have some good points in there but damn is it hard to pull them out.
@BlackMacX you said,
“I am sure they have valuable concerns; but to have a body of 30 000 accredited scientists not heard except by such a petition begs belief.”
One simple question for you, why?
Why is that so hard to believe? Simply because it opposes the dogma we have been fed for so long? The lie that “the facts are in and there is no debate” as Gore tells us?
Look at the site the NAME OF EVERY SIGNER is listed. There for anyone to see. If they were all fake names, don’t you think the people that equate “global warming deniers” with “holocaust deniers” would have exposed it by now?
If those names are fake, if they can’t be verified go prove it. Prove they don’t exist or the people didn’t really sign or that they are not credited. Show me proof and I will be glad to expose it. You know I am good to my word, I will call anyone on any side out for fraud. As of right now though I have no reason to doubt the signatures.
I do have a huge reason to doubt though that if it were some type of fraud that the eco freaks would not be screaming about it. The fact that no one wants to talk about it speaks volumes.
Oh and I would keep my identity hidden from the whois data base if I was running that site too.
I take issue with the warming folks because it takes resources away from needed venues.
When the impact of a solar maximum event is felt, I imagine all these warming advocates crying and wringing their hands, asking why didn’t we harden our infrastructure.