McCall Gathering 2007, Part 54

This entry is part 54 of 54 in the series McCall Gathering 2007

Closing remarks

JJ: I was going to go into cycles and global warming and what were we to expect in cycles. One of the things that I will say that I find kind of interesting is I have done some reflecting on the cycles and I think we will have a warming period as we are having now but I do not think that it will last and by somewhere around the year 2030 we are going to have another cooling period and then this global warming idea will have to be completely revamped in people’s minds because I do not know why but many people have it stuck in their mind that because we are releasing more carbon dioxide that we are just going to get warmer and warmer forever and they forget about the normal cycles that have been with us just about forever and ever.

Sharón: Light keepers say that always before a cooling period with the earth that it always looks like a warming cycle but then it cools and we head into a colder cycle.

JJ: That’s right, before every ice age there is a warming cycle. Those that seriously studied it are more worried about an ice age than global warming. Now it is possible that we are emitting enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to make the difference between an ice age and just a cooling period and that would be a nice thing. What would be funny and very humorous is if all this carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses is actually going to save us from a drastic ice age for ice ages are a lot tougher on humanity than a warming cycle.

The last major ice age was about 11,500 years ago and then there was an even worse one about 30,000 years ago. An interesting book is “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years” and he says that for the past couple million years there has been a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling and these cycles are a part of greater cycles.

Here are some of the more recent ones: Between 600 to 200 BC we had an unnamed cool period that preceded the Roman warming then from 200 BC to about 600 AD. We had a warming period and then from 600 AD to 900 AD we had the dark ages that was also a cold age for we had a mini ice age during that time period. Then we had the medieval warming period between 900 to 1300 and during this time Greenland was discovered and it was actually green. They went there and raised hay and cattle and it was a lot warmer than it is today. Then from 1300 it started to cool and after that time people started to freeze to death in Greenland and all the villages could not sustain themselves with growing food anymore so they either had to leave or starve so there was hardly anyone left by around 1400.

From 1300 to 1850 was a little ice age and I think by 1816 or something like that we had a major volcanic eruption that spread ash all around the world and it became the year without a summer. This was a period of great distress all over the world and during this time period crops failed everywhere. It is a miracle that people survived as good as they did.

So we had the little ice age from 1300 to 1850. As this wasa winding down we were fighting the Revolutionary War. We just cannot appreciate the cold that the poor soldiers had to endure for the cold was extremely bitter, much worse than it is today. When George Washington crossed the Potomac there was all kinds of ice build up in the river because it was such a cool period and at Valley Forge everybody just about froze to death.

Then between 1850 to 1940 we had another warming period. especially between 1920 to 1940. Some may say that is because of all the carbon dioxide that we began to release into the atmosphere. But the first great s urge of Human caused CO2 began at World War II and from 1940 to 1975 we had a cooling period. So we had a lot of carbon dioxide going into the air and yet it cooled during 1940 to 1975 and right around 1975 when it had cooled for 25 years straight pretty much everybody was talking about that it looked like we were entering an ice age.

Newsweek had a big front page article about the coming ice age and that we had to do something to prevent it just like they are talking about today that we must do something to prevent the warming age. From 1979 to the present there is a large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and independent satellite readings, which show only a slight warming, trend. Global warming alarmists emphasize the land based thermometers but what is interesting are satellite measurements that they think is more accurate show just a very slight warming trend.

What is interesting about global warming is that unfortunately it has become a political issue and one side of the political fence believes global warming hook, line and sinker and the other side of the global warming fence is accused of not believing in global warming which is not true. They believe it is mainly not man made and it is just a natural cycle but they are called global warming deniers and this is what they call people like me. This is incorrect named calling. I do not deny anything but am skeptical of any prediction that cannot yet be proven to be accurate.

Everyone that believes the way I do is not a global warming denier, we look at the temperature readings and accept them for what they are. The earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years and the land based measurements say about a degree, the satellite measurements say maybe about a couple of a tenths of a degree or something like that. Whatever it is, that is what we accept.

But whatever it is, it has become a political issue with people throwing accusations back and forth. Instead of throwing accusations why don’t we look and discover what the real truth is. One meteorologist came forward and just questioned some of the views of global warming that were prevalent and one of bureaucrats in charge of the global warming thing comes up and threatens his job and he says I am going to destroy you completely unless you change your mind. A number of meteorologists have come forward to say that they disagree with some of the global warming conclusions and their jobs are threatened. There is a lot of threats and intimidation to try to attack anyone who comes presents an unorthodox view.

Why is it that they say that all the scientists agree on global warming? Well they created this IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) for the UN that is supposedly composed of a whole bunch of scientists but unfortunately the leaders of the panel are not scientists but bureaucrats with an agenda and they pay these scientists to come up with research and if their research does not point in the direction that the bureaucrats want then they cease to get funding.

They take the findings from the scientists and compile them together to fulfill their own agenda. Scientists that are not connected with these panels come up with an all together different conclusion than the UN panels and the UN claim that they have ten thousand scientists or whatever but on the other side has written statements that are contrary to that too. So you have thousands of scientists against thousands of scientists and what is interesting is not so much that the scientists disagree but that we have different scientists with different motives.

The truth is we find what we look for and if the scientists are paid to find something then they will find something because if they do not find it then they lose their grant and funding and lose their jobs so they are going to find something that keeps their employer happy. The independent scientists that are looking into it have very different findings than the ones whose job depends on getting specific results.

The problem is that the political agenda behind global warming is not to save the planet from global warming it is to change our way of life. The plan is to take away 80% of the greenhouse gasses that we emit in the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years and that would completely alter our economy and they want us to do it without nuclear energy using only solar panels and wind power which with our current technology can only provide us with maybe 2% to 3% of our current use of energy.

Nuclear energy has the capacity to provide 100% of our needs but they are against doing that. Al Gore and many of the UN scientists are against using nuclear energy and the bureaucrats certainly are and so what their draconian steps would do is completely take away our prosperity and our potential for freedom so that we could be taken over by a dictator and a one world government in the wrong direction could materialize.

So this is something for people that believe in freedom to stand up for. The interesting thing about carbon dioxide is that when it is emitted as a greenhouse gas – as it increases in density it inversely decreases in its power to produce a greenhouse effect. So if you double the amount of carbon dioxide the amount of the effect is reduced by 50%. All the scientists that support the global warming theory do not tell you that. They just act like that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide then we will have double the effect. When we double the amount of carbon dioxide then the amount the increase will affect global warming will go way down. We would have to introduce a lot of carbon dioxide to produce the effect that they are trying to scare us into thinking that is happening.

Audience: Aren’t these people looking at France that gets like 88% of their energy from nuclear power?

JJ: France is doing great, they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. The same people that are against global warming are fighting to get France to switch to some other form of providing power. Right now Germany who is trying to be green has to buy much of their electricity from France because they cannot produce it with the solar panels and wind and all this type of thing and yet they preach to everybody about remaining green whereas France is a big supplier of electricity for Europe right now. France has their faults but in the way of energy they did it right. They entered the mental plane and they planned. This happened in the days of oil embargo and the middle east oil was threatened to go up about double in a two week time period and it scared the dickens out of everybody and France said that we do not have any oil resources so we have to do something practical. As a result they developed nuclear energy and I would say that France would be completely falling apart now if they had not done this and have that nuclear energy as a base.

We could have nuclear energy as a base and we could power the United States indefinitely. Instead of putting the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain by using fast breeder reactors we could power this country for thousand years just recycling the waste and use the energy to power electric cars and be completely independent. But unfortunately President Clinton stopped the research into the breeder reactors. But fortunately France is continuing research in breeder reactors. So when we finally get enough common sense turn around on nuclear energy we will most likely have to go to France to get our breeder reactors. The breeder reactor was developed right here in Arco, Idaho and this is where they actually created the technology where they can reprocess the waste and turn it into power that could power us for a thousand years but because of short-sightedness this has become a pipe dream.

May the next generation be wiser than the last.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Series NavigationMcCall Gathering 2007, Part 53

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code