From Canada with Love
Truth versus Guns

global peace - truth versus guns - kiss from Canada with love

No Manmade Global Warming
Rolf A. F. Witzsche
June 3, 2006

The Myth of Manmade Global Warming

Yes we are in a long-term global warming trend, but this trend is not manmade, nor is it in any way exceptional as is illustrated below. We have been recovering from that last Little Ice Age. And it appears that the recovering trend has ended, as a cooling trend has begun from 1998 on (see below).

see: The history of climate

The current warming trend began in the 1700s with the end of the last Little Ice Age, but we are still far below the medieval optimum and earlier warm periods. 

Large Historic temperature swings were experienced throughout the present interglacial period.

For a simplified illustration that also includes the significantly warmer interglacial optimum of 500-7000 years ago when mankind's presence was minuscule on the planet, see: "The Ice Age Is Coming" by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland  - The report is in pdf format - see page 58 (8 of 15) for the large temperature swings throughout the present interglacial period in which the current global warming is but a blip that doesn't even come close to the much warmer historic temperatures. And all of that happened long before there was anything manmade in the atmosphere except smoke from few camp fires.

The point is that the planet has been warming and cooling by natural means that are way beyond our ability to alter or prevent. Even the current warming tend, which began in the mid-1600s, began long before manmade greenhouse gases were created by industrial activity that is currently blamed for global warming in one of the most deeply reaching political cover-up projects in history, which is obviously designed to hide the impending return of the Ice Age.

Global warming assumptions based on false CO2 measurements.

in a statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004 - Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski warns the U.S. legislature that the current global warming doctrine is based on the assumption that manmade greenhouse gases have been rapidly accumulating in the global atmosphere during the last hundred years. Indeed, measurements from ice core samples are cited to prove the escalating trend. He warns that this proof is apparent based on a fundamental 'errors' since it is known in the scientific community that gases trapped in glacial ice are compressed and dissolved, or crystallized under the enormous pressures of the accumulating ice masses. It is known that when the deep ice core samples are drilled out and brought to the surface the confining pressure is removed. The gases expand and fracture the ice, by which a portion escapes through the micro fractures. He points out that the result is that the deeper layers yield fewer such gases, since a portion has has escaped through the micro fractures. He warns that the resulting false result is cited as proof that there were fewer such gases historically. This false result can be disproved by various types of historic biological measurements. The biological measurements, not surprisingly, indicate that the CO2 contents in the atmosphere was roughly the same in the mid-1600s when the current warming trend began, than they are today.

However, the ice core samples are useful for long-term comparative studies, and the results are even more devastating for the global warming doctrine. When the long-term CO2 trends are compared with the long-term temperature trends it becomes strikingly obvious that the CO2 trends lag the temperature trends by 800 years. In other words, the temperature changes happen first, and then by a delayed effect some 800 years later the CO2 trends follow. The delayed effect corresponds to the lag of the warming and the cooling of the oceans that are the chief contributor to the earth's atmospheric CO2 budget. The delayed effect completely debunks the global warming doctrine that CO2 drives the global temperature changes. The reality is in the opposite.

For more details please refer to the statement by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. on CO2 measurements - written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004. (Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is a world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer, who has excavated ice of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his over 50-year career.)

100 years of direct chemical measurements contradict the foundation for global warming theory

Over 90,000 direct chemical measurements have been carried out between 1857 and 1957, which indicate that the natural fluctuation in atmospheric CO2 are far greater than the small changes that the global warming prediction is based on. Nor does any evidence exist that these natural fluctuations had any effect on global average temperatures.


This vast body of evidence is conveniently ignored by those who cry out about global warming and demand the deindustrialization of the world to save the world from global warming. The above graph is based on some of the 90,000 direct chemical measurements. It proves the historic ice core measurements to be fundamentally flawed and totally unreliable.

See the complete text associated with the above graph.

The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule.

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski also points out in his paper "The Ice Age Is Coming" that the supposedly "dangerous" increase in global CO2 gases (the non-existing 30% increase) was dwarfed in historic times by CO2 levels that were 18 times higher during the Ordovician Period 440 million years ago when glaciers expanded in both hemispheres of the planet and eventually resulted in an a Ice Age that led to the second-most extensive extinction of life in geologic history. 

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski further points out in his paper that the CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule in comparison with greenhouse effect of water vapour which is responsible for up to 97% of the total greenhouse effect. He suggests that whatever affects the water vapour affects up to 97% of the total greenhouse effect and thereby the global climate. (see page 4 of 15)

Solar Cycles, not CO2, determine our climate (both the warming and the cooling cycles.)

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski points to the well-known fact that the water vapour content in the atmosphere is to a large measure affected by the ionization that occurs in the troposphere under the influence of cosmic radiation. Ionized particles are many times more attractive to water vapour than non-ionized particles. By this effect the intensity of cosmic radiation is major factor for the intensity of cloud formation and the corresponding inverse intensity of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. 

The process of ionization is well described in a series of articles on the ionization process in the ionosphere (high above the troposphere). See: About the Ionosphere. In the very thin atmosphere of the ionosphere high energy solar radiation is absorbed, which protects the Earth surface from incoming solar radiation. Ionization occurs in the process of absorbing this radiation. 

Cosmic radiation is similar, but is of a type that largely gets through the ionosphere and through the stratosphere below it, so that it interacts with the much more densely packed air of the troposphere where the weather is made. It has been shown that cosmic rays (which are not actually rays, but high-energy particles, primarily protons, originating from countless sources within our galaxy) have a catalytic effect on the nucleation of cloud droplets in the troposphere of our planet. The effect is similar to that observed in a cloud chamber that one finds commonly on display in a science museum. The difference is that this effect is active on a global scale where the Earth's atmosphere is the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays continuously catalyze the production of ionized nuclei for cloud condensation. Actually the process is much more complex, but in essence a strong link exists between cosmic radiation intensity and cloud formation.

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski points out that cloudiness and water vapour are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were actually possible with extreme efforts to double the global atmospheric CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness. In other words, it is the Earth's cloudiness, controlled by cosmic radiation, affected by solar cycles, which determines our climate. 

The Earth is affectionately known as the "blue planet" and is often rendered richly blue by many an artist, but in real terms the Earth appears more white than blue, a planet of extensive cloudiness. The cloudiness, influenced by large astrophysical factors, reflects a substantial portion of the incoming solar energy back into space and thereby determines the energy balance on the surface, resulting in cycles of global warming and cycles of ice ages.

The image below is a photographic image of the Earth, a rare NASA photograph of the Earth taken by the crew of Apollo 11 from a distance of 158,000 km (98,000 miles) during the translunar injection on July 16, 1969 for the mankind's historic first landing on the moon. (NASA photo ID AS11-36-5355)


It is known that large swings in the intensity of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is not unusual, and that the intensity of that radiation is greatly influenced by the intensity of solar cycles in the form of solar winds and magnetic storms, which shield the Earth to some degree from cosmic radiation. If the solar activity shat is shielding the earth is strong, less cosmic radiation reaches the planet, causing less cloud formation, a greater greenhouse effect, and a warmer earth. If the solar activity gets weaker, the earth gets cooler. If one compares the changes in solar activity with the changes in our global temperature, the two trends coincide exactly, both in the short term and in the long term. In other words, changes in the intensity of solar activity are determining the temperature changes on earth, and not our feeble industrial development that is too minuscule in comparison to affect anything at all.

According to Zbigniew Jaworowski's presentation, the CO2 contribution to the global greenhouse effect amounts to roughly 3%, and he adds that of that minuscule amount the manmade portion is less than 3% again (a grand total of 9/100th of a percent). This minuscule amount is so small that it has no measurable effect on global temperature variations. The doctrine that is spun around the tale of manmade global warming is thereby revealed as a total scam, a politically motivated fraud that is designed to create an energy-lean world for the imperial purpose of scaling back human development that threatens the existence of empires as it always has throughout history.

The bottom line is that the intensity of cosmic radiation, effecting cloud formation and thereby our climate, is governed by solar cycles and not by any manmade effects. In real terms the global warming and global cooling cycles are definitely not caused by manmade variances of CO2 or any other manmade gases in the atmosphere. In other words, of all the dangers that mankind is facing, the physical global warming of the earth is one of the few things we don't have to be worried about. However, we should all be terribly afraid of the political objectives of the powers driving the global warming doctrine with lies, hysteria, and murderous demands that are already causing millions of unnecessary deaths around the world each single year. And that's just the beginning.

Some powerful forces are playing games with the very future of mankind, and ultimately with mankind's very survival on this planet when the Ice Age cycle resumes as it has for the last 2 million years and decimates the global food production. Extinction of the human species may occur if mankind is prevented by the unfolding imperial games from developing the needed global infrastructures for indoor agriculture that may be necessary for maintaining a 10-billion world population in an Ice Age world. And for that, time might be running out. 

Since the time for the next Ice Age transition might not be far off, what is happening in our current time frame could prove to be critical for human survival. Some say that the cyclical return of the Ice Age could be delayed by a thousand years, while others say that it it might only be fifty years distant, or might have already begun. But is it morally justifiable to gamble with the very existence of mankind by betting on the most ideal scenario, such as that the transition won't happen for another thousand years? How can we take such risks when so much is at stake? We are already in the boundary zone. The current interglacial warm period has already exceeded the average duration by 5%. Who wants to gamble on another 10% extension?

The current global warming trend appears to be coming to an end.

The above is an example of the scientific evidence for the Orgon Petition Project by the scientific community against the manmade global warming assumption

In real terms the manmade global warming doctrine is a myth conjured up for political objectives that have nothing to do with anything real in the physical universe. It is designed to hide the return of the Ice Age and the urgency for a response. It's a political fraud in defiance of reality. The truth no longer means anything, which it rarely does in political games. Not surprisingly, the more the truth is coming to the surface, the greater becomes the hysteria that drives the global warming mythology contrary to the observable facts. As one commentator put it, "There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's (during the postwar industrial boom), we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase (by 800 years, not leading it) - because global warming is our justification to do anything and we are going to do it whether you like it or not!" 

In long-range  historic terms, the global warming that we have experienced while the earth is recovering from the last Little Ice Age is not an extraordinary event, nor is it really extraordinary in terms of the actual warming that took place. We are currently far from catching up with the medieval optimum climate, and beyond that we have even further to go to get catch up with the interglacial (Holocene) optimum between 7000-5000 years ago when the earth was so warm that we had rivers running in the Sahara that is now a dessert. None of these vast historic changes were manmade, obviously, since the human presence was minuscule in those times. The current recovering from the last Little Ice Age is minuscule itself in that comparison, and even this minuscule warming has already ended and given way to a new cooling trend. The earth has been in a cooling trend for 4 decades between the 1940s and 1980s, followed by a warming trend till 1997, after which a new cooling trend has been recorded.

In real terms global cooling has begun.

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski cites a Russian report from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk that presents on-the-ground physical measurements which show that the most recent global warming trend from the 1980s on is already reversing again. That's not based on any theory, but reflects physical measurements recorded in Irkutsk in the mountains north of the Mongolian dessert. The average annual temperature that has been measured at the institute there had peaked in 1997 at 2.3 degrees C. and then had dropped annually down to 0.4 degrees in the year 2000 (a huge drop for an annual average temperature). After 2000 the decline levelled off towards the current minus 0.1 degrees C. (in 2006). 

The institute at Irkutsk has also measured corresponding variances in sunspot cycles that typically precede global air temperature changes by three years. Scientists at the institute tell us that the current 11-year sunspot cycle is weaker and that they expect the foreseeable next two cycles to be weaker still, going into the mid-2020s.

Oh yes, global cooling can give us warmer temperatures
(that's not a contradiction).

The current summer heat wave that is widely attributed to global warming is actually consistent with global cooling. 

A new Ice Age is on the horizon. It is caused by the diminishing intensity of the sun's sunspot cycles. The diminished solar activity in turn allows more cosmic radiation to reach the earth, thereby increasing cloudiness with the corresponding decrease in water vapour in the atmosphere which provides 96-97% of the greenhouse effect that makes the Earth warm and liveable. In short, the Earth's greenhouse mantle is slowly diminishing towards the coming new Ice Age. But why would this trend give us warmer temperatures?

The answer lies in the nature of the greenhouse effect. The sun is our heat source. Its energy comes to the surface of the Earth in the form of short-wavelength radiation that cuts right through the greenhouse mantle and heats up the land and the oceans. But the heat that is so created on the surface, the 'dark-body' heat of the earth, is reflected back into the atmosphere in the form of long-wavelength radiation. A portion of that heat is absorbed there and reflected back to Earth, retaining it, similar to the way that heat is retained in a greenhouse. When the greenhouse effect becomes diminished, less heat is reflected back, whereby the Earth becomes colder. However, the sun also emits heat in the form of long-wavelength radiation. When the greenhouse effect is strong much of this incoming heat is reflected back into space, but when the greenhouse effect is weak, less is reflected back into space and more is reaching the Earth. The result is that the climate tends to get hotter during the clear summer days, even while it gets colder in general. Moscow reports 40-below deep-freeze temperatures in the winter and 40-above steam oven temperatures in the summer. The effect of greenhouse mantle is to moderate these harsh differences. As the greenhouse diminishes, the moderation also diminishes, creating stronger heat waves and cold periods. The resulting lack of moderation is especially noticeable in the oceans, which are thereby are getting warmer since the oceans retain their heat better than land does. The great forests are similarly effected by the more intense heat penetration, even though the climate is getting colder.

It is easy to cry "global warming" when the heat waves are scorching the Earth. Unfortunately the resulting hoopla is taking us in the wrong direction leading to incorrect responses. Society goes into fear and destroys its economies to lower CO2 greenhouse gases to fight manmade global warming, without ever realizing that there is no such thing as manmade global warming and CO2 is not a factor when 97% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour. The bottom line is that the entire CO2-based manmade global-warming hoopla is built on a lie. No facet of it concurs with real history. And why should we be surprised at this, since it has become morally acceptable to lie to society on a grand scale in the name of political objectives, or imperial 'business' objectives? Shouldn't we be more concerned with understanding what is really affecting our climate?

Large-scale protests by the scientific community against the global warming doctrine.

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 by the international scientific community, which are poof of that. 

The Heidelberg Appeal

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. 

The Leipzig Declaration

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. 

The Oregon Petition Project

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 Kyoto Protocol met with an 85% rejection across the world by 2004.

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.

The Inconvenient Truth

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 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; that is suicide," he says, fighting for the survival of Africa (and mankind as a whole).

And so the fight for the freedom of mankind continues. In this respect this 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, 

The history of the global warming dogma.

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)

While the lies continue, the Ice Age is coming closer.

Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explores in his paper whether mankind will be able to protect its biosphere against the returning Ice Age. He suggests that the answer depends on how much time we still have. He suggests that statistically the return of the Ice Age is already overdue by half a percent of the average ice age cycle (500 years), warning that the expected transition might be happening soon. He suggests that mankind won't be able to acquire the knowledge and the resources in the next 50 years to govern the climate of the world. He points out that even the most intense effort aimed at doubling the global CO2 levels (should this actually be possible) would be trifling. In other words, nothing that is in our power can prevent the Ice Age from recurring and its radically reduced global temperatures. We can only prevent the consequences by large-scale scientific, technological, and economic means.

The bottom line is that the only hope that mankind has to maintain the part of the biosphere that its very existence depends on, it to build the technological infrastructures that enable it to shift its food production into indoor facilities and away from the devastating cold climate. Technologically, such a feat is totally possible. The material and energy resources are available to do this. Also the intense economic development is possible that would enable mankind to build the needed vast infrastructures on a near global scale. But will mankind do it? Will we take the first steps in our time so that our children will live?

Considering what is at stake and the potential urgency of it, the scientific and economic development and the building processes should begin now. Tragically nothing is happening on this front. Out time is a dead zone of ideological devolution. Mankind's economic resources are being destroyed at an amazing rate and what is left is devoted to war. Nor will we see a reverse in this trend for as long as the return of the Ice Age continues to be hidden behind the mythical fairy tale of manmade global warming. Only the consequences on our food resources cannot be hidden.

Our global food resources seem to be far more vulnerable to global cooling even now than we care to acknowledge. The food supply infrastructure is far more deeply affected by the weak cooling trend that has already begun. A part of this vulnerability is amply visible in failing harvests, such as in the U.S. grain belt where dryer climates are beginning to develop. (See: Alpha Omega Newswire report, June 13, 2006.)

Will mankind make the needed breakthrough to protect its food resources from the coming Ice Age cooling and live? 

Who can answer that? It appears that the answer depends on what we do in the present time, and specifically what we do individually to assure that the breakthrough will happen. The question is, do we have enough love for our children and their children and for one-another across the world, and for our humanity, that we will make the 100-year effort to prepare ourselves and our world for the coming Ice Age before the transition begins? Some glacial evidence from southern Greenland suggests that the last transition began with sharp, short-term temperature fluctuations in the order of decades before the climate change-over settled down.

If the transition to the next Ice Age begins with mankind being unprepared to protect its food resources in indoor facilities, even for a few decades, the collapsing agriculture would likely reduce the global population to very small numbers. Mankind came out of the last Ice Age with only 1-10 million people, for the lack of food resources. We won't do much better this time around. Mankind might be able to support a 100 million people maximum (1% of the expected population in a hundred years time) and bring that remnant through the next 90,000-year cold spell. This might be the best that mankind can do if the Ice Age resumes without the world being prepared for it with indoor agriculture. However, should we, today, choose to take steps to protect the global food resources from the expected 'near' return of the Ice Age, we would have to start soon, because time may be running out. It will likely take mankind at least 100 years to develop the technologies, power systems, financial resources, and a high-powered economy that can build the infrastructures. A hundred years might be all that we've got left (if we are lucky).

Are we willing to go this route and protect our future?  

That's the question we need to answer urgently. Dreaming about global warming won't allow us to even consider that question. That's the great danger that we face with the global warming doctrine. The future survival of 99% of humanity is at stake. The outcome will most likely be determined by how we answer that question in our time. Right now the world is still crying Global Warming, even with the evidence to the contrary. (See: The Nonsense of Global Warming)

Rolf A. F. Witzsche, is an independent researcher, publisher, and author of eleven novels. The novels are focused on exploring the Principle of Universal Love, the principle that is reflected to some degree in every bright period throughout history with the added challenge for today to give our universal love an active expression in a type of ' Universal Kiss' for all mankind.

Novels by Rolf Witzsche

free online with love by rolf witzsche.html


go to home page

go to Rolf Witzsche main home page