Monday, 27 February 2017

Physical Evidence Proves the Fundamental Dishonesty of Climate Change Propaganda

Massive 2000  year old tree remains with running sap, that have thawed from glaciers show that the basis of the climate change theories are fundamentally flawed.
Receding glaciers in Alaska that tore trees in half and then froze the stumps  reveal those old remnants of a warmer era. I like these little “concrete” anecdotes, though their true meaning depends on exactly how old these remains are, and whether that timing correlates with warming in other places.

The retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier reveals the remains of trees which grew more than 2,000 years ago. These ancient forests that have remained frozen beneath the ice for up to 2,350 years. The most recent stumps have been dated by Proff Connor and other researchers as emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old. They’ve also documented the glacial advance between 1724 and 1794 A.D. that pushed Huna Tlingit off their land, and written a paper incorporating those cultural and geographic histories. In that paper they cite Tlingit histories recorded by Richard and Nora Dauenhauer as saying that glacier was growing and advancing “faster than a running dog.” 
 The Many remains of frozen humas as well as trees shows that this global cooling happened very quicky and was deadly
Some of the ages of these trees suggest the Roman Warm Period may have occurred at the same time as an Alaskan Warm Period. Evidently, polar bears survived.) These particular tree stumps are a bit too early to tie in with Medieval warm times in Europe. Though, like other places, the glaciers started receding 200 years ago, long before man-made CO2 started to rise.

Receding Swiss glaciers inconveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “... My findings thus caught many experts off guard”
 Lots of other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”
Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

Distinct solar imprint on climate
What’s more worrisome, Schlüchter’s findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly. Near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier his team found huge tree trunks and discovered that they all had died in just a single year. The scientists were stunned. That finding, Schlüchter states, confirmed that the sun is the main driver in climate change. 

Today’s “rapid” changes are nothing new
He casts doubt on the UN projection that the Alps will be almost glacier-free by 2100, reminding us that “the system is extremely dynamic and doesn’t function linearly” and that “extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past“. History’s record is unequivocal on this. Schlüchter also doesn’t view today’s climate warming as anything unusual, and poses a number of unanswered questions:
  • Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? 
  • Why did the earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? 
  • Why did glaciers again advance in 1880s, 1920s and 1980s? 
Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

On science: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest”
CO2 fails to answer many open questions. Already we get the sense that hockey stick climate claims are turning out to be rather sorrowful and unimaginative wives’ tales. He summarizes on the refusal to acknowledge the reality of our past: “Our society in fundamentally dishonest“.


  1. NASA's Q & A refutes all of the above succinctly and based on real science. As for your claim that you're a SCUBA diver too (would love to see some of your photos) and that coral reefs are abundant in the equatorial warm waters. Better take a look at the ABC Australian Story on coral bleaching and take a look at a few 18 million year old coral core samples. The huge coral reef systems don't just come and go it take many 1,000s more years for large plate corals. It's a pity Trump listens to rhetoric not fact.

    1. Here's one from Magnetic Island

  2. Excerpt refuting Schlucter's claim the sun is causing climate warming: From NASA (based on many scientists) Quote: "No. The sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity. In fact, recently (2005-2010) the sun has become less active, while temperatures have marched upwards.

    One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the sun’s energy reaching Earth.

    solar irradiance
    Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom), from 1978 to 2009. The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the sun has been behind the global temperature trend we’ve seen over several decades. Credit: NOAA National Climatic Data Center.
    A second smoking gun is that if the sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the sun getting “hotter.”

  3. Margi _ love you but there is a HUGE difference between what NASA scientists, (who don't get paid to study climate change) say and what people on the internet say they say.
    Over, 500 Australian scientist were sacked when they not only could not find any scientific evidence of climate change but actually dared to publicly say its a paid hoax
    Unethical Scientists, whose grant depends on them finding some evidence of climate change, WILL GRASP AT TINY STRAWS, to try and keep their grants.
    Climate change is a tax on the air we breathe

  4. Spot on! Pesky little realities. Follow the money. Billions are spent on these fabricated studies. It's about time we get over this hoax and move on. Man-made global warming and climate change are hoaxes, yet, pollution, air and water contamination and crony capitalism abuses are real. It's also time we make that distinction and separate things.

  5. Since 1979, the planet’s waistline been expanding poleward by 56km to 111km per decade in both hemispheres. Future climate projections suggest this expansion is likely to continue, driven largely by human activities – most notably emissions of greenhouse gases and black carbon, as well as warming in the lower atmosphere and the oceans.

    If the current rate continues, by 2100 the edge of the new dry subtropical zone would extend from roughly Sydney to Perth.

    As these dry subtropical zones shift, droughts will worsen and overall less rain will fall in most warm temperate regions.

  6. Sure Margi, sure... Now, it's 2100, is it, when none of us will be around? According to that Inconvenient Truth Mr. Gore gave voice to, we are years past some coastal cities being under water... huh... wait... never happened. Bummer! Man made global warming is just a load of BS! I am truly concerned with pollution, our waters being poisoned by fracking, private property meaning nothing (and eminent domain abuse!,) but climate change is a natural thing, not man made, and wind energy, as is today, doesn't even pay for the investment - although the companies that sell and install the monster windmills make big bucks off tax payers' pockets through government subsidies and the like (this, spoken by the very people who sell, install, and maintain them, mind you!) I have some of these monsters ruining the land and landscape where I live, and I can tell you, what an aberration! They should never, ever, been put up there where they stand, and when their life is spent, they will be left behind to decay because (again, as I was told by those who put them up,) they will not be dismantled and removed, and will not have paid for themselves, so they just abandon them. Carbon is the stuff of life. Want renewable? Get out of the city, buy a woodstove and get a few cords of wood. Nothing better!