By Lubna Abdel-Aziz The "inconvenient truth" to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, is that "the world is currently experiencing some of the coldest weather in decades." How so? Are we not all in a state of panic because of the dangers of global warming caused by CO2 which bodes for catastrophic ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy, water and food resources? Is that all a myth? For decades scientific leaders have been skeptical about global warming theories, but they have been steadily silenced. Many have been dismissed, scorned, deprived of research funds, and ousted from the mainstream scientific community. Such contradictory views have been reported frequently in this column on several occasions. Here we go again, swinging with the climate change pendulum, which has caused doubt and dizziness, at the very least. Pictures speak louder than words and a picture of polar bears seemingly abandoned shot by photographer Amanda Byrd has often been used by Al Gore & Co. as proof of the threat to them by melting Arctic ice. Photographer Byrd however, denies that the picture has anything to do with global warming, and admits she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg. According to Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor, the polar bear population has actually increased during the last thirty years. Have we therefore been duped by global warming alarmists? Then there is the case of Alan Carlin, primary author of a 98 page report that was submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) two weeks ago, expressing skepticism over claims that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. Not only was his report suppressed, but was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his group. A 38-year veteran of the EPA, Carlin was also ordered not to work on climate change. Suppression of evidence against global warming is not just occurring at the EPA, but all over. NASA (National Aeronautic & Space Administration) has shifted gears from global cooling to global warming, and is now back again predicting global cooling. Who stands to gain from hiding the inconvenient truth that we will actually see global cooling over the next three decades? What kind of bogus science are we being fed? Is global warming a reality or a convenient political theory favored by the Obama administration, the EU, the UK, as well as big business? Where can we find an impartial scientific report on the present climate change? Historical records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the next three decades of the 21st century. How else do you explain snow in Saudi Arabia in May, as reported by the Saudi Gazette and the Associated Press?. It covered the valley areas and the forests of Al Zaraeb and Khaymal. Widespread reports of unseasonably cold weather come from many sources. The Northwest portion of the United States, usually sustains a 9 month winter season and three months of summer, is complaining of "a year without summer." The outlook for the area is 7-10 degrees F below normal for June, July and August. "Chilly, cloudy, and rainy," Chicago will be 12 degrees F cooler this summer. Even Botswana in Africa is reporting unusually cold weather, and Australian resorts are profiting from the heavy snowfall due to low temperatures. Causes of global cooling are convincing because the scientific evidence is plentiful. The sun hit a 50 year low in solar wind pressure, a 55 year low in radio emissions, and a 100 year low in sun spot activity. Pictures of the sun taken from space are baffling astronomers. There are no sunspots and very few solar flares explains Professor Louise Hara of University College, London, but is unclear as to why this is happening. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century show a strong correlation with sun spot activity and the Pacific Ocean temperatures. The Pacific Ocean switches back and forth between a warm temperature and cool temperature mode every 25 to 30 years. This is known as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). NASA announced that the PDO has shifted to its cool phase which will last three decades. Similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) virtually assures several decades of cooling. This is not exactly good news. The ramifications are far reaching. Example: failure of crops, increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties and habitat change -- but the news is that rather than warming, the globe is cooling. Meanwhile global pollution will increase from 6 billion to 9 billion. Why are trillions of dollars being wasted on reducing CO2 when the real problems will be resulting from global cooling. This cooling may be fairly severe, suggests Don. J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, because the PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean. This virtually assures us of at least 30 years of global cooling. The recent solar changes are an additional worry to Dr. Kenneth Tapping: "If the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilling weather." Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences concurs. He advises us to stock up on fur coats. Solid evidence negates the presence of global warming. It is therefore not surprising, that less and less people in the US believe in it. Despite all the cover-up, the truth seemed to have seeped through, reducing the number of global warming believers from 77% in 2005 to 45% at present. Writer Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has written extensively on the subject, blaming Al Gore for lying, in order to create a climate scare. The UN must also share the blame for putting global warming center stage with their IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and a series of quasi scientific reports by 1,500 quasi scientists who emphasized fears, falsehoods, and fraudulent data. The question still remains -- why? Why choose global warming without conclusive proof, to global cooling backed by scientific evidence? Gore and Co. who have made tens of millions of dollars off the global warming scare, stand to gain more millions by their investments in future alternative fuel and green energy industries. At this point, such future plans seem hardly relevant or necessary. The projects will be pushed through and we will be driving with expensive corn instead of less expensive oil. Someone will gain by this but it will not be the general public. If we must believe in one party over another, it should be the party that stands to gain nothing more than the honest reporting of scientific data -- the party with the clear conscience. The works of nature must all be accounted good -- Cicero (106 -- 43 BC)
