There has been a very small increase of 0.8 degrees celsius in average global temperatures, in the period since they were first recorded one hundred and thirty five years ago. So is it really so far out of the ordinary or anything that the world should be alarmed about?

Can we be sure that an increase in carbon dioxide, a trace atmospheric gas, is the sole reason for the small increase in global temperatures or could it be that the earth warms and cools naturally just as it does throughout the seasons and there is nothing that man can do to stop this cycle?

Al Gore author of The Inconvenient Truth Click to enlarge

Al Gore 

The work of global warming scientists were seriously undermined with claims by Al Gore (Nobel Prize Winner 2007) author of the The Inconvenient Truth, who predicted that the North Pole could be completely liquidated by 2014 due to the impending threat of global warming. Subsequent reports have found that his wild prediction has resulted in the opposite with a dramatic increase in the amount of ice covering the pole.


Tim Flannery

Tim Flannery

Tim Flannery (Australian of the Year 2007), representing the Australian climate commission preached that global warming would cause permanent drought in Australia “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” ..Since that statement we have had record floods and our cities dams are back to normal..some overflowing.

Top scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade are now baffled by the fact our planet’s temperature has not increased for almost two decades. There was also an amount of cooling between 1945-1975 and recently between 1997-2015 even though CO2, the alleged cause of G W, had increased

dramatically in those periods.

Assuming temperature levels were accurately measured in the early part of this century, it is hard to accept that we have global warming when we have had two long periods of stable temperatures totaling 50 years

Manningham Council  Cancel Electric Bikes Click to enlarge

Manningham Council
Cancel Electric Bikes
Click to enlarge

Why are we demonising CO2 by using the term “carbon dioxide pollution” ? is not factory waste to be buried in the ground or poured into the ocean. Pollution is a separate issue from global warming. If you do more than ten minutes research into the matter, you will realise that all the so called the “green” energy technologies produce pollutants as well. This was recognised by Manningham council who cancelled the program to introduce charging stations for electric cars and provide electric bikes for the use of its councillors.  While they might be more sustainable in that they are renewable and “clean”at point of use they can produce as much or even more pollution than fossil fuels. Furthermore no renewable energy source can ever replace fossil fuels in terms of output except nuclear. But nuclear power isn’t championed by green energy types so their solution is to ruin the world economy and set us back hundreds of years in terms of technology forcing most of the world’s population into third world and killing many in the process. So getting rid of fossil fuels hurts everyone and helps no one.

1880 to 2015 Click to enlarge

1880 to 2015
Click to enlarge

The graph on the left was sent in by Charles R. It shows a strong rise in global temperature from 1904/05 to 1940 of approximately 0.05 degrees. It flattens out and shows almost no change from 1940 through to 1975/76. Then the same upward trend resumes from 1975 until 1997 then flattens out again to 2015 in manner similar to the period 1940 through to 1975-76. Since the catalyst for G W, the CO2 level, was quite significantly lower early in that period, how can we explain the 0.05 degree rise from 1904 through to 1940? We would have had at least 50% more trees, (which absorb carbon dioxide), than what we have today. And there was nowhere near the level of industry then or the number of motor vehicles we have on the road today.

Why do we need have to have a doomsday scenario?…. Concerned scientists in 1972

Below is a letter sent to President Nixon by concerned scientists reacting to the period of global cooling during the period between 1945 and 1975.

Ice Age Prediction Click to enlarge

Ice Age Prediction
Click to enlarge

In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:               Dear Mr. President:                                                                                                     Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.

The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.

The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.

With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …

With best regards,

George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)

R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity  looking into the threat of an ice age.




  1. Adrian says:

    It’s not that we don’t care, or even believe we can make a difference. But even if we believe in man-made global warming, does it make sense to hand over a trillion dollars to a self appointed gang, many of whom have form for dubious dealings and fraudulent statistics, who a generation ago stated that “climate change was the vehicle through which global government would be achieved”.

  2. Spearmint says:

    Is this the average temperature of the Earth? Or the temperature at a specific point? At a specific point wouldn’t mean anything, and even if the average temperature has remained the same according to this measurement, that doesn’t account for an increasing gradient among areas that could be drastically warming and other areas that are cooling.

  3. Anonymous says:

    If carbon dioxide emissions are supposed to correlate with a rise in temperature then why isn’t there a sharp rise in world temperatures since 1945 when CO2 emissions really took off when car use and post war industrialisation was in full swing. In the thirty year period between 1945-1975 the planet cooled slightly and from 1997-2015 temperatures have remained stable. That’s 48 years of flat temperatures out of the 70 years since 1945. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have clearly failed. What worries me is that they have known it for a long time.

  4. Stillman says:

    A small increase you have to admit, but what were they using for thermometers back in 1880? A tube of mercury and a bent nail, surely you don’t believe that those temperature readings were even remotely accurate from those things. And surely you don’t believe that they were global in scope. Back in 1880, there were only a few colleges in the world recording temperature, hardly global. Global temperature readings truly began with satellites in 1979. If the current pause in rising temperatures continues much longer they might have to come up with a different reason for global warming other than increased Co2 in the atmosphere.

  5. Cool Head says:

    Scientists were just as sure of global cooling in the 70’s as they are today of global warming. Both were considered the result of burning fossil fuels but global cooling was also considered to be from the result of airborne material such as dust and smoke from human activities. However the leveling out of average temperatures such as what had occurred between 1945 and 1975 puts both theories into question, if indeed these small variances in temperature have any real significance.

  6. Starbuck says:

    Global warming has become such a lucrative funding vehicle for the scientific community, and for politicians who have hitched their careers to it, that any new theory, no matter how strong the supporting evidence might be, will be ridiculed and treated as an unwelcome intruder. Average global temperatures have remained flat for nearly two decades but the scientists are telling the public that the “pause” is due to the heat being taken up by the sea! I wonder what they will say if temperatures start to fall again after the pause.

Leave a Response to Cool Head