Yes we have been in a long-term global warming trend, but this trend is not manmade, nor is it in any way exceptional as is illustrated in the graphic above. As can be seen the Earth has been recovering from that last Little Ice Age. The current warming trend began in the 1700s with the end of the last Little Ice Age, but we are presently still far below the medieval optimum and even farther below the much earlier warm periods of the interglacial optimum that occurred more than 5000 years ago. 

Obviously it wasn't human activity that caused those enormous warm periods 5-7000 years ago, or even the breakout from the last Ice Age.  All of these vast climate changes can be accounted for as variances in cosmic radiation that are largely affected by the activity cycles of our Sun. The re-warming from the last Ice Age certainly didn't result from human activities. By what logic then must we assume that all of a sudden the small changes we see in modern times are manmade and not likewise the result of natural variations. Obviously a political agenda stands behind the manmade-global-warming doctrine.

Of course we are not told by the global warming activists that the extremely warm temperatures in earlier times weren't at all catastrophic in nature. We had so much moisture in the air then that we had rivers running in the Sahara around the time of the interglacial optimum, and the Sahara was green. Of course this high-moisture pattern is not a part of the current trend, is it? Today, many areas are getting drier, which seems to suggest that a cooling trend has begun in recent years, which has been confirmed by actual measurements at the Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk from 1997 on. Drier climates should logically result when increases in cosmic radiation increases the intensity of cloud formation and thereby increased rainfall in the colder areas.

It is also more likely than that we may be facing another Ice Age soon, since the Earth has gone through twenty Ice Age cycles over the last two million years, made up of long glaciation periods lasting close to 100,000 years each, interspersed with 'short' warm periods of app. 10,000 years each. We are presently in an interglacial warm period that is near its end.

Am I crazy talking about an Ice Age when the whole world is afraid of global warming? Well, the simple answer is that the Global Warming doctrine is one of the many lies that came out of the imperial cultural-warfare mill and still keep on gushing forth from it. Manmade global warming, as advertised, doesn't exist. All evidence shows that it has never existed and probably won't be possible in spite of our best efforts if we wanted to create it to avoid the cyclical return of the Ice Age. A great fear campaign has been built up over the global warming issue for which science has been twisted and abused to achieve the desired outcome. As one of the global warming activists has put it, by saying that one has to consider where the balance should lie between being truthful and being effective. When the desired outcome overrules the truth than the lie becomes the means to an end, by which truthful science appears to be as distant today as the rivers were in time that once flowed in the Sahara.

Sure we have seen evidence of global warming over the last 300 years. But shouldn't we expect that with the ending of the Little Ice Age, which was neither caused by manmade effects, nor ended by manmade effects. Also there was no CO2 increase detected by honest science during the period of re-warming. 

The Little Ice Age was evidently caused by increased cosmic radiation that coincides with diminished solar activity, such as Sunspots and solar winds. The Little Ice Age coincides perfectly with the "Mauder minimum" in observed solar activity. As the Sunspot activity increased again after the observed minimum, the Earth was warming up in response. But this doesn't mean that we are facing a global warming crisis. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet around the edges, doesn't portend a crisis. It merely indicates a return to earlier times, the times when "Greenland" received its name for a reason. It was a green land. Those were the times when vineyards could be gown in Iceland and in the north of Scotland, and the Vikings sailed across the North Atlantic. Of course, with all the cries about the melting ice sheet, hardly anyone bothers to mention that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually getting thicker again as observed by NASA, and that the ocean levels are not rising.

A recent a report issued by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveals that almost all the ice allegedly lost in the Arctic has come back. The report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels (March 2008). Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual. Reading the NOAA report, one columnist pointed out: "If global warming gets any worse, we'll all freeze to death." (Source)

Also, the "global warming society" (a kind of flat-Earth society) observes a strict code of silence about such inconvenient truths as the lack of warming in the upper troposphere where the supposedly increased greenhouse effect should have caused increased temperatures there, which apparently have not been observed. Neither is it ever mentioned, or rarely, that the absorbing band (the range of the infrared frequency where CO2 absorbs energy) is extremely narrow while the absorbing band of water vapor is extremely wide. This means that if the CO2 concentration could be miraculously increased tenfold or even twenty-fold, the resulting impact would be rather small, nor would this huge increase prevent another Ice Age  that would result if the water vapor content in the atmosphere was partially reduced. CO2 simply isn't a big player on the greenhouse spectrum.

A wide raging (2006) collection of, Statements Opposing the Doctrine of Manmade Global Warming have been put on record by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

The opposition to the doctrine of manmade global warming is not a new phenomenon. There has always been a massive opposition.

One of the lies is that we are told in the media, is that the general scientific community supports the manmade global warming doctrine. Nothing could be further from the fact. Three major petition projects have been launched as far back as 15 years ago by the international scientific community. And those have massive protests. 

The first of these official declarations of protest by the scientific community was the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal. The appeal was launched from the University City of Heidelberg in Germany as a protest statement against the unscientific global warming assumptions and the draconian demands based on it. This pioneering appeal netted the Heidelberg organizers 4000 signatures from scientists from 69 countries and 63 Nobel Laureates . Of course, one shouldn't be surprised that this massive appeal didn't even make it onto the 'agenda' of the Rio climate conference in 1992. The conference was already then known to follow a political agenda rather than the truth. 

Subsequent to this failure by the scientific community to get the truth heard, and undeterred by the defeat, the next protest declaration was launched from Leipzig, again in Germany, which became known as Leipzig Declaration.  This time the project was focused on getting signatures from exclusively the world's actual climate specialists, in condemnation of the global warming doctrine. 

The Leipzig Declaration project brought together 110 protest signatures from the leading experts in the climate science field. The project was completed in time for the 1997 Kyoto climate conference. But once again, the voice of the actual experts wasn't heard. Dissent evidently wasn't 'welcome' at the Kyoto conference either. After all, the conference had been organized to rubber-stamp the global warming doctrine and to enforce it. Evidently, the outcome of the conference had been largely predetermined, which is usually the case with these kinds of UN world-conference events for which the delegates are generally hand-picked for their commitment to the predetermined conclusions. 

After the voice of dissent had been successfully hidden at the Kyoto conference, another petition project was launched by the scientific community, the so-called Oregon Petition Project (it was actually run out of California). The petition project brought together an unprecedented 17,000 signatures from scientists from around the world, urging the world's government not to ratify the unscientific assumptions behind the Kyoto Accord.

See the complete text of the Oregon Petition project.

A combined report on the opposition from the scientific community was published in an 1999 newspaper article (Feb. 1), of The New Federalist, Leesburg, VA, by the atmospheric scientist Hugh W. Ellsaesser, retired form Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after 23 years of atmospheric and climate research and 20 years as an Air Weather Officer for the U.S. Air Force.

The reality is that in 2004, five years after Ellsaesser's article was written, and seven years after Kyoto, in spite of all the claims in the general media of a supposed global consensus on global warming, only 32 countries of the 210 that adopted the Kyoto Protocol have actually ratified it. This lack of a positive response amounts to an 85% rejection of the protocol.

The widespread rejection of the Kyoto Protocol might be contributed in part to the Oregon Petition Project, and possibly to a gradual awakening to reality that is involved.

 The prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences, for example, has published its conclusion in May 2004, confirming that the Kyoto Protocol does not have any scientific grounds whatsoever. 

Nevertheless, the global warming hoopla continues. The evident goal appears to be to prevent the outbreak of a New Renaissance across the world, which would result in a powerful new thrust for humanist and scientific progress. This progress towards a new renaissance is what the imperial powers fear more than anything else. And rightfully so, because a highly developed humanity would not tolerate the continued looting of the world. That is what the imperials would not survive, who deepened on looting. But it would enable mankind to survive. Thus, the future existence of 99% of mankind hangs in the balance over a globally staged attempt to cover up the truth with a lie.

Fortunately for mankind the scientific opposition to the global warming doctrine has not yet been trampled into dust even though the imperial promoters of the doctrine have gathered powerful forces under its wings. One of the most entertaining phenomenon of this kind is the recent surrender of Hollywood to the doctrine by awarding Al Gore's documentary film on global warming, The Inconvenient Truth, an Oscar for best documentary. The event must have raised some eyebrows, which caused a real documentary about the actual climate truth to be produced and aired in the UK a few weeks later.

"Climate change is natural and has been happening since the Earth began," begins a report on PrisonPlanet.com on the UK documentary (March 9, 2007). In the words of the reporter referring the documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together a plethora of scientists, professors, climatologists and weather experts (presenting carefully considered and rational science) to expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming... If the Earth was laboring under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced CO2, the troposphere (the layer of the Earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't support this fundamental presumption."

The science reported in the documentary reflects what is understood as the truth by the still-free scientific community, exemplified by what the professor Zbigniew Jaworowski has been fighting for, for many years, and how their voice is being silenced for political objectives. The reporter writes, "The UN's much vaunted IPCC report was heralded as closing the case on the argument of man-made global warming. But as the show explains, the IPCC's conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants, leading many to threaten legal action against the IPCC to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document."

The reporter points out that the documentary exposes "the hypocrisy of the environmental left in framing the global warming issue as big business against the people" and exposing the political "romanticisation of poverty," exposing the case that "the man-made global warming bandwagon has devastated Africa's development and is directly contributing to third world famine, illness and disease." A Kenyan development expert who is featured in the program states. "There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal." "It's suicide," says the expert who is fighting for the survival of Africa (and mankind as a whole).

And so the fight for the freedom of mankind continues. In this respect the powerful documentary that a few courageous people have produced and put on the air completely trounced the doctrine of man-made global warming that is designed to 'imprison' the world with lies, 

A group of concerned scientists from across the world put their name to open letters, one addressing the Prime Minister of Canada, and another letter addressing the Bali Climate Conference that had been organized to revitalize the failing Kyoto consensus and go beyond it. 

The scientists warn society in their letters that society is wasting its economic resources and accepting economic destruction for an effect that cannot be achieved since the climate on Earth is the result of cosmic forces that mankind has no control over. The letters urge that the governments should focus their resources on developing the necessary processes for living with the consequences of the changing climate, rather than attempting the impossible since the climate cannot be affected at the present time by any manmade means.

The scientific opposition to the manmade-global-warming doctrine is evidently far greater than is generally known and acknowledged. See: A New Senate Report Debunks Al Gordo's Global Warming Consensus. The following links contain the most massive collection of detailed statements in opposition to the doctrine that I have ever seen. They have beem submitted by 400 of the worlds scientists, published in the U.S. Senate report in 2007 that should once and for all debunk the myth of manmade global warming. 2007 seems to be the year in which scientists from all over the world decided to speak up on their own accord.

The petition project is still ongoing, the 19,000 names of the signators are on file, online.

In China, the snow and ice storms, which began Jan. 10, 2008, have been the worst in many decades. Over 160 cities are were hit with power and water shortages. Ironically China was forced last year to close 553 coal-fired plants to placate Al Gore and his IPCC climate-change alarmists who claimed the carbon dioxide released in burning coal caused "global warming." This left many areas with inadequate power resources to cope with this massive winter storm. The severe weather also effected farmers and farm produce where losses amounted to 53.8 billion yuan ($7.5 billion). (Source) So much for global warming.

In the USA, on January 31, 2008, in the State of Washington a wall of snow 400 feet long and 30-feet deep fell from the slopes of the Snoqualmie Pass onto Interstate 90. This was the second avalanche in two days. Area residents cannot recall even a single such event in the past. Around the same time two storms converged, one from California and another from the Gulf of Alaska, dropping snow on mountain areas from Washington state to Arizona. These were followed by a third storm over the northwest, while bitter cold air and blizzards descended on the northern plains, sending temperatures down 50 degrees in a few hours. Heavy snow stretched from the southeastern plains to Lake Erie. Ice, snow and high winds were moving across the midwestern states. (Source)

The actual measurements at the Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk were probably right, indicating that global warming ended there in 1998. The world is catching up with the trend recorded there. 

The global warming dogma was 'invented' in the early 1970s when the scientific community became concerned about the necessary economic development that would be required to assure the survival of mankind in the dramatically changing world caused by the impending return of the Ice Age. Calls were raised to organize an international meeting to discuss what measures would be needed to meet the challenges of the coming Ice Age. This meeting never took place. The agenda was hijacked and turned upside down by imperial forces to pull the focus away from the near return of the Ice Age. The doctrine of global warming was 'invented' and put in place to accomplished that diversion in order to prevent at all cost a global economic renaissance that the private world empires would not survive. 

Great scare stories were conjured up to get the counter-organizing momentum going, build on the basis of 'scientific' lies. One scientist of the group of the counter-organizers has put it this way: "Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." (Quoted by the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray -- head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1972-1975 and governor of Washington 1977-1981, -- presented in an article, "Global Warming, Ozone Depletion--Where's the Evidence?" published in 21st Century Science and Technology special report, November 1997, page 80, based on an address by Dr. Ray to the Jefferson Energy Foundation in Washington D.C. on Oct. 15 1991)

 There is a lot of political hype being promoted about the observed loss of glaciation in the high arctic, though hardly anybody cares to mention that this is more likely the effect of global cooling. The high arctic is a part of the "polar mobile anticyclone," an airflow system in which colder air (being heavier) is forced southward by centrifugal force. In North America the anticyclone flow extents all the way into the Gulf of Mexico from where it returns as warm air across the Atlantic flowing back to the Arctic to complete the cycle. The colder the northern parts of the continent become, the stronger the flow will be, and correspondingly more more warmth becomes drawn up over the Atlantic into the Arctic. The observed phenomenon appears to coincide perfectly with the dramatically lower annual average temperatures that have been measured at the Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk after 1997.

Another part of the manmade global warming hype is centered on increased ocean temperatures and surface water acidity. While both these phenomena are real, they do not prove the case of manmade global warming. They too, more likely prove the opposite.

 With the Earth getting colder again in the higher layers as measured by the Russian institute, and the cooling being caused by a reduced greenhouse effect resulting from weaker solar activity cycles, one would expect increased ocean temperatures. The greenhouse effect is caused by the troposphere absorbing some of the long-wavelength heat that comes from the Sun, as well as that which is reflected back from the Earth. When this greenhouse shield is diminished, more of the long-wavelength heat from the Sun gets through, which is promptly trapped by the dark surface of the oceans, causing the oceans to gradually heat up even while the world in general is getting colder.

The increased ocean acidity is not so easily explained. The global warming activists cite the phenomenon as proof that increased atmospheric CO2 from manmade sources exists, and that this increase is directly responsible for the increased acidity in the oceans. They fail to mention that the manmade increase in the global CO2 budget amounts to a mere 3% in comparison with natural sources, a large portion of which comes from the oceans themselves. I fail to see how the 3% increase that mankind is responsible for should endanger the oceans that contribute large amounts to the atmospheric CO2 in the first place. It appears more likely that the changes in acidity reflects variations of the intensity in the normally ongoing chemical reaction in the oceans. Chemical reactions typically intensify with increased temperatures. While those have been recorded, it cannot be said that mankind is responsible for them. Nevertheless the hype is on, blaming mankind's economic activity in this case as in all other cases.

When seen from an honest scientific standpoint the manmade-global-warming doctrine is full of holes. The recent film, The Inconvenient Truth, for example shows a direct historic relationship between global temperature and global CO2 levels, but it isn't mentioned that the warming of the planet happens first and that the corresponding increase in the CO2 concentration follows as a consequence 800 years later from increased biological activity.

Another falsification that is paraded before the eyes of mankind is reflected in the way ice core samples are measured an interpreted. We are told that mankind's evil activity has injected 500 billion tones of CO2 in total into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. We are told that this huge increase is visible in the ice core samples, as one might expect. We are told that according to the ice core samples there was only half as much CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution, compared to now. But it is conveniently omitted that it is understood in scientific circles that those measurements are faulty, because the ice-trapped gases become become liquefied under increasing pressure as the ice builds up over the deeper layers that correspond to the pre-industrial era. Then when the ice samples are drilled out of the glaciers, by which the pressure is removed, the trapped gases expand again and fracture the ice, and thereby escape through the micro fissures. It is well understood that this is how the low figures are derived at for earlier ages, which are falsely cited as proof that industrialization has increased the greenhouse effect. Professor Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski calls this falsification of the truth about the measments of CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF)  

Jaworowski proved his point by citing alternate methods for determining historic CO2 levels, which proved that the exact same CO2 concentrations existed before the industrial revolution as we find them today. While it is true that human activities have injected large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, no one cares to mention that human agricultural activity and forestry practices have dramatically increased the biotic consumption of CO2. Juvenile forests and lush agriculture are far more potent CO2 sinks than old growth forests or sparse grasslands are. Also the dynamic interaction between the biotic CO2 sinks and levels of CO2 concentration is far too little understood. Slightly greater local concentrations appear to be offset with greater consumption levels, whereby the net-effect of any increase is cancelled out. Some researchers even suggest that the efficiency of the sinks for CO2 removal is greater than what the supply side can keep up with. This trend is confirmed in long term geologic history where the CO2 concentrations have been constantly decreasing over time towards a potentially dangerous deficiency. 

The Russian atmospheric scientist, Mikhail Budyko, the man who wrote the book on climate science, landed a bombshell in 1982 when he suggested that the Earth might be dangerously CO2-deficient.  He pointed out that the Earth's long-term trend in a growing CO2 deficiency, if the trend continues, might cause the entire planet to freeze over, including the oceans, during one of the future Ice Ages, as apparently has happened 700 million years ago. None of the hyped up climate activists who cry about manmade CO2 ever bother to mention that in the current warm climate of the Earth, 97% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, with the CO2 effect being masked by it. However, in an extreme Ice Age environment when the water vapor content is dramatically lower so that CO2 remains as the only "player on the block," then the CO2 component becomes highly important as the last resort for maintaining  a minimal greenhouse effect. If this last-resort component is too low during a critical ice age stage, the entire planet might become a snowball and remain frozen for 10 million years as it is believed once happened in Precambrian time. Evidence for the Precambrian Snowball-Earth theory exists, though it is disputed.

With all evidence considered one can only conclude that the manmade global warming hype is a political project build on lies to achieve an imperial political agenda, an agenda of the war of empire versus mankind, the private war of the slime mold that claims no name, that is only known by its effects: the slime mold New World Order. The evidence for this background becomes apparent by considering the funding sources for the political global warming project. The near exclusive imperial funding, and the imperial motives behind it, seem to coincide perfectly with the entire manmade global warming story. 

A notable element of evidence that the global warming doctrine is a political project is found in the vehement opposition of the "slime mold" oligarchy and its agencies to nuclear power, which has long been a feature that pervades the global warming camp. If there was any honesty behind the CO2 global warming cries the great demand in this camp for mankind to dramatically reduce its fossil fuel power consumption (which presently powers the global economy) would have lead to the promoting of nuclear power as an alternate resource as it doesn't produce CO2. But we don't see this happening. We see the promotion of windmills and solar cells instead -- the most inefficient, unreliable, and the weakest possible power generating systems that one can think of. In the background of this insanity one hears cries for depopulation, the murdering of society to reduce the human presence. Thus, the real goal is genocide, indirectly admitted.

Indeed, it is exactly the coveted kind of mass-population-collapse that would result without large-scale power production that the global economy depends on. Civilization would disintegrate without its large scale power systems, resulting in a wave of genocide never before seen on this planet. But even while the demand is made to scrap the existing power systems the path is vehemently blocked to the only available alternate power source. It is being blocked by every possible means. On in recent years has the opposition relented, and brought nuclear power back to the table as an energy option. But this concession is always linked to the CO2 hoax, to promote the CO2 hoax further for which the biofuels have been invented to carry the genocidal torch.

This glaring hypocrisy indicates that the motive behind the global warming lie is not to save mankind and the planet from dire consequences, but to wreck the economies of mankind and to cause genocide with unimaginable consequences. If there ever was the slightest concern in the global warming camp for the future of mankind, then nuclear power would be intensely promoted instead of being blocked, and it would be promoted for its vast economic potential instead of being linked to a hoax. Concerned scientists warm that nuclear power must be developed for its vast benefit alone as the safest and richest energy resource presently available, and must not be seen in conjunction with the genocidal manmade global warming hoax. (See: Open Letter to the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear Energy and the CO2 Fiction by Zbigniew Jaworowski)

Indeed, mankind should have stepped away  from burning fossil fuels ages ago. It is insane to burn these precious resources and suffer suffer for it the consequences of chemical pollution in terms of respiratory diseases. Even at the most optimistic estimates, the global oil/gas/coal resource will likely be exhausted in several hundred years at the present global rate of depletion. Then what? Mankind has a potential future on this planet for at least another 2 billion years and possibly much longer. We should have a longer energy outlook than 200 years (possibly 60 years for oil). Nuclear fission power with uranium and thorium as fuel recycled in breeder reactors provides a power resource large enough to last us through the next 10,000 years, with nuclear fusion coming on line in parallel. Nevertheless, in spite of this vast potential for abundant clean energy, stinky and polluting coal fired power plants are still being built all over the world, because they are deemed to be a few pennies cheaper than nuclear power plants that are at the same time being blocked, especially the thorium fuel cycle, the most efficient nuclear fuel, is being blocked. 

Windmills are promoted with a near religious devotion to insanity as if one could power a modern economy with windmills. Bio-fuels are also promoted. But isn't it totally insane to take food products from an already starving society and distil them into alcohol to burn the food in cars, when the energy input for the production cycle of the alcohol fuel requires a greater amount of fossil fuel burning than the finished product gives back in usable power? Bio-fuels are a net energy drain. Actually the term fossil fuel is incorrect as the link between oil and ancient fossils has not been proven. 

The entire hyped-up CO2-global-warming thing is a lie on every account, and a cruel and murderous one on top of the insanity involved.

So who is thinking about mankind's future in the global warming camp? The evidence suggests that all the hyped up concern in the global warming camp is nothing more than a big lie or a gigantic delusion at the very best.

Those who promote the manmade-global-warming lie, or who believe in it, have to face the inconvenient truth that a lie remains a lie no matter how often it is repeated. Nothing can change that. No matter how badly people might wish for manmade global warming to be possible, even in order that we might prevent the impending cyclical return of the Ice Age, the inconvenient truth is that we simply don't have the capacity to affect the global climate on that scale, and won't likely have that capacity for a long time to come. 

We simply have no choice at the present time, for the above reason, but to create the technological resources that enable a large world population. such as we presently have, to live through the coming Ice Age.  That's the real "inconvenient truth" for the imperial powers, because the need for deriving mankind's global food resources from protected indoor agriculture poses not a small challenge.  It poses a challenge that requires mankind to create itself a global renaissance on a vast scale that no empire would survive. And it may be in that where we find the real reason for the global warming hype. 

Herein lies the greater challenge that we face, in addition to the technological challenge, which is to overcome the impediment of empire -- to end the war of empire versus civilization by ending the rule of empire on this planet. Failing to reach this goal would mean that empire and its lies would prevent mankind from tackling the greatest existential challenge in its entire history, which is the modern Ice Age Challenge.

Since the issue of manmade global warming is a perceptional one, rather than a physical one, and the perception is kept alive by a song of 'scientific' lies that serve the rulers of empire in maintaining their illegitimate existence, the global warming song will likely continue to be heard for as long as empires rule, and the imposed economic consequences will continue to be suffered by society. The song of lies won't be allowed to fade. Too much has been built on it. And it will be maintained apparently with ease. For as long as the payola of empire plays the tune scientists and politicians will eagerly dance to the tune. While the scientific community appears less willing than the political community to prostitute itself to the biddings of empire, it is unreasonable to assume that the desired scientific "coalition of the willing" won't be enticed into the service of empire to facilitate any predetermined objective.

The end of the global warming song is therefore tied to the end of empire itself. Until this end is reached, we will likely hear the song being performed evermore vigorously and loudly. Latest movie version of the song has already been awarded an Oscar. Its political front man has been awarded the Nobel Price. Soon there will be another U.N. sponsored international conference convened, like the Bali Conference in December 2007, designed to impose even more draconian measures than the Kyoto Accord has, though the Kyoto is widely regarded as an economic death sentence when fully implemented. It is also being said that the opposition to the global warming song is fading. This may be true, as the music of the payola that accompanies the song is getting lauder. Thus the world becomes increasingly enslaved by the payola that increasingly rules in the war of empire versus civilization.

The resulting tragic scene reflects the ongoing bottom line in American history. The people who once stood up as a beacon for truth and liberty stand tall no more, and likely won't stand so again until the whole of mankind stands on that higher platform with them, above the war of empire versus civilization. When this day dawns we will see its light reflected in a New Treaty of Westphalia, built on still higher ground than the one in 1648 that nevertheless set up a 'constitution' for a world of sovereign nation-states bound by shared universal principles, like the recognition that peace requires that each must work for the benefit of the other. When a  New Treaty of Westphalia raises that platform to also include such spiritual values as truthfulness, integrity, honor, humanity, and love, then the music of the payola will be heard no more and the song of manmade global warming will fade into the silence of the graveyard of buried lies.

There is a faint light on the horizon. As the expanding multitudes that have been duped into singing the empire's song of manmade global warming, are demanding evermore strongly the needed measures to wean the world off its primitive energy source, which is coal, gas, and oil, the advocates that are fighting for a secure future are indirectly fighting for the new and more efficient kind of energy resource that we really cannot exist without, that is cleaner, more efficient, more powerful, and more universally available. Since this more efficient energy regime begins with the development of nuclear power and nuclear produced hydrogen fuels for transportation, the singers of the song of manmade global warming are indirectly fighting for nuclear power development and for the advancing steps beyond that, since no other options exist.

The current regime of nuclear power is presently the most minimal option that mankind has, which offers the same and greater power density and abundance in supply than coal, gas, and oil, and offers vastly greater resources of supply. In the short run, this is mankind's only option until nuclear fusion and the harvesting of cosmic plasma energy as the next steps forward become available for commercial production. 

If the mythological song of manmade global warming would inspire society to spearhead the development of these more efficient energy resources, an immense benefit for mankind's future would be won. And this may yet happen. The resulting benefit would in fact help society to negate many of the effects that the changing global climate is imposing, which we cannot avoid no matter what we do. In addition, the development of the higher level resources would require a new environment in scientific honesty in which the truth would actually matter, which would all by itself shut down the song of manmade global warming on the path of exploring the truth.

Sometimes a long detour towards a certain goal is the shortest practical path when no other path exists or all other paths are blocked. The critical element here is that the current resources are not scrapped before the new resources take their place, otherwise civilization would collapse and mankind with it. An efficient civilization cannot be maintained without large-scale energy use. Without that the physical support structures for human existence cannot be maintained. While the genocidal collapse that would result in an energy-deprived world is the very key element in the platform of empire versus civilization, proclaimed by the empire itself, it appears that this tragedy can be avoided as mankind is not suicidal in nature, but is developmental in nature like the universe is as a whole. 

end of overview

While it is true that the global greenhouse effect determines our climate, it is also true that ninety-eight-percent of this effect is produced by water vapor. Only the remaining two-percent of the total greenhouse effect is produced by the rest of the so-called greenhouse gases. While it is true that the major contributor in this 2% category is carbon dioxide (CO2), it is also true that the man-made portion of this minuscule amount, is roughly 2% again. This means that the manmade influence on the global greenhouse effect adds up to roughly 4/100th of a percent (0.04%) of the total. This simple fact tells us that if the entire world made an enormous effort to double its burning of oil, gas, coal, and wood, for long periods of time, the resulting effect on the world's climate would still amount to almost nothing compared to the huge effect that water vapor has on the climate, while the water-vapor-effect on the climate is hugely influenced by the intensity of cosmic radiation that effects the intensity of cloud formation. Large variances have been measured for the cosmic effects on the global climate over long periods of time, including the variances that have become the Ice Age cycles. Manmade CO2 has no impact on these variances at all. 

 In comparison to these large natural variances, the increase in the greenhouse effect that mankind's entire history of burning fossil fuels has contributed still amounts to less than one-tens of a percent or three-one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. Without the greenhouse warming the average Earth's temperature would be -18 degrees Celsius instead of +15 degrees, for a 33 degree warming. The manmade portion is 1/1000th of that (0.1%) for a grand total of 3/100th of a degree of warming for the entire history of mankind's effect on the global climate. It is obvious that this tiny amount is minuscule compared to the 6 to 9 degrees of 'natural' cooling during the Ice Ages. It is even minuscule in comparison with the three degree variances that have been observed during interglacial period. The Global Warming doctrine falsely (if not fraudulently) attributes these natural variances to manmade effects, especially the global warming that has been occurring since the 1700s as the Earth has been recovering from the last Little Ice Age that began in the 1400s. 

The bottom line is. It's the water vapor that controls the climate, which is in turn determined by whatever effects cloud formation. Huge variances of these natural factors have been observed with dramatic effects on the climate of the Earth. They are all caused by processes far away from our planet, resulting in Ice Age cycles, and interglacial warm periods, and Mini Ice Ages overlaying the warm periods, and interglacial optimum periods, seven thousand years ago, during which the Earth was two degrees warmer than today without any human influence causing anything.

According to what we know about the period of the Climatic Optimum of seven thousand years ago, the Sahara dessert was green. It had major rivers running in it, and cities and civilizations flourishing there where hardly no one exists there today. Even during the Medieval Optimum period when the Earth was somewhat cooler then the earlier optimum, we had vineyards growing in Britain and Greenland and Norse navigation across the Atlantic. Since this warm period was our climate before the Little Ice Age began around the 16th Century, and we are still in the process of recovering from it, we will likely get back to the Medieval Optimum level over the next hundred years unless the real Ice Age intervenes sooner. In fact, the cooling process may have already started. The current Sunspot cycle is weaker than the previous one. According to the Russian physicists Bashkirtsev and Mashnich of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk the next cycles will likely be even weaker (between 2021 and 2026). The suggestion has been made that shift to the cold climates has already started.

Measured temperatures in Irkutsk (in the mountains north of Mongolia) the highest surface air temperature reading were recorded in 1997 (+2.3 degree C.), which began to drop to +1,2 degrees in 1998, +0,7 degrees in 1999, and +0.4 degrees in 2000.

The Irkutsk observations support the findings of World Glacier Monitoring Group in Zurich, which monitors 625 glaciers. The group reports that until 1960 up to 95% of the glaciers were in retreat, but that since 1980 a new trend was beginning as 55% of the monitored mountain glaciers were advancing again.

It appears that the recovery phase from the last Little Ice Age may be already over, and that we are heading back into another Little Ice Age, if not the big one. The precise timing of the big one cannot be determined. It might be still 150 years away. All that we can predict with certainty, is that it will pose greater challenges than any event in history, and if preparations are not made to meet these challenges, the Ice Age may lead to the near extinction of mankind as the major food-growing processes become inoperable, which depend on the present warm interglacial climate. The Global Warming doctrine appears to have been designed to assure that this calamity will happen by hiding the coming Ice Age behind the cloak of a myth. 

The one thing we don't have to be concerned about in the foreseeable future, is manmade global warming. However we should be very much concerned about the indented economic destruction resulting from the global warming hoax.

In real terms, manmade global warming does not exist. This does not mean that large temperatures variations have been experienced caused by natural effects.