Fire or ice 22

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

- Robert Frost

*

This is from Canada Free Press by Robert Felix:

Satellite data show that glaciers in part of the Karakoram range on the China-Pakistan border are putting on mass, defying the general trend toward glacier shrinkage. In an article entitled “Slight mass gain of Karakoram glaciers in the early twenty-first century,” Researchers from the National Centre for Scientific Research and the University of Grenoble admit to “an anomalous gain of mass” for the Karakoram glaciers.

This is in direct contradiction to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which claimed that ice from most of the region could disappear by 2035.

Often considered a part of the Himalayas, the Karakoram range, which runs through Pakistan, India and China, is technically a separate chain that includes K2, the world’s second-highest peak. …

We’re talking about the greatest chain of ice-capped peaks in the world — from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan — and satellite measurements show that they have lost NO ice in the past 10 years.

Not only have they lost no ice, in a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas – including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat – are actually growing.

“These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. “And all of them are either holding still, or advancing.”

And get this. Eighty seven of those glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s.

But we don’t need to look to the Himalayas for growing glaciers. Glaciers are also growing in the United States. Yes, in the United States.

Look at California. All seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing, including three-mile-long Whitney glacier, the state’s largest.

Farther north in Washington State, the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing. And Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption.

Even farther north, the Juneau Icefield, which covers 1,505 square miles (3,900 sq km) and is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere, is also growing.

Are these growing glaciers also just “an anomalous gain of mass”? Well, let’s look at a few other countries.

• Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Argentina, is growing.

• Pio XI Glacier, the largest glacier in Chile, is growing.

• Glaciers are growing on Mt. Logan, the tallest mountain in Canada.

• Glaciers are growing on Mt. Blanc, the tallest mountain in France.

• Glaciers are growing in Norway, says the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE).

• And the last time I checked, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand were growing. (The Franz Josef glacier is advancing at the rate of 4 to 7 feet per day!)

But these glaciers are babies when you look at our planet’s largest ice mass, namely, the Antarctic ice sheet.

Contrary to what you may have heard, this huge ice sheet is growing.

In 2007, Antarctica set a new record for most ice extent since 1979, says meteorologist Joe D’Aleo.

Antarctic sea ice has also been increasing, on average, since 1980.

Think about that.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is almost twice as big as the contiguous United States, is about 90 times bigger than all of the rest of the world’s glaciers combined.

Close to 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing, in other words, and all we hear about are the ones that are shrinking.

Welcome to the new ice age.

Are the warmists embarrassed? Well, yes:

“Our measurements…indicate that the contribution of Karakoram glaciers to sea-level rise was -0.01 mm yr for the period from 1999 to 2008,” write the French researchers [Julie Gardelle, Etienne Berthier, Yves Arnaud].

Huh? What does that mean? “The contribution to sea-level rise was MINUS 0.01 mm per year”? …

“Why this should be is not clear,” writes BBC News environment correspondent Richard Black. “Though it is well known from studies in other parts of the world that climate change can cause extra precipitation into cold regions which, if they are cold enough, gets added to the existing mass of ice.”

Get that? Global warming adds to the existing mass of ice (“climate change” being the replacement phrase for “global warming” since global warming paused in the last ten years).

Uh huh. First we’re told that global warming will melt all of the world’s glaciers and sea levels will rise catastrophically. Now, we’re being told that global warming will make the glaciers grow and contribute – in a minus sort of way – to sea level rise. Does that mean that sea levels will fall?

If it does mean that, you won’t hear the warmists say so. They believe that sea levels will rise, so rise they must.

Seems, one way or another, the earth has only about 5 billion more years before Carl Sagan’s promised “last perfect day” and then …

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • George

    In reply to harold :

                             Hello again Harold.  First of all I did NOT say they were  the top climatologists . I made it perfectly clear that per the listed news sources , they were  reported as such  per the listed presented or quoted sources I mentioned .    I also made it perfectly clear that I have no agenda either way. If you have credentials or proof to prove they are wrong and you are right then fine —please present such PROOF them or list such and I am indeed open minded to hear your side of the argument as well as the other.  I am NOT necessarily saying that THWEY are definately right , I merely presented info and named what the sources were. If you have something of evidentiary data to prove they are the ones are definately wrong , then more power to you. I have no quarrel with you on this subject as I have stated before this is NOT my area of expertise. 
     
                             I have also repeatedly made it clear that the presented data that I listed came from these reported sources and they were reported by various  radio news , books  and internet sites as such.   Now having said this  , if you are refuting their findings , then so be it ,  then give me something in the area of credentials or credible back up  why you assert that you are right and they are wrong.   I’m not rooting for either side to be right or wrong because I don’t care either way.
                                 My continued question to you as always is that when we have articles on here about terrorist acts of slaughter , etc. ,  you are silent and then when the topic of weather or climate change is mentioned —–there you  are  as if you have a sole obsession with this topic only ( or rather 99.99%  of the time ) and I find that very puzzling.    Actually I’m getting totally tired of the topic altogether considering it has absolutely NOTHING to do with atheism whatsoever—–and that’s just my personal point of view  , no more and no less.   Peace !

    • Harold

      Perhaps you should re-read you earlier posts.

      George:  ”Hey Harold , you totally missed the point of my last post.   I simply posted the info from various TOP climatologists”

      Harold: “You did state that these were top climatologists, and it was this point, rather than their specific findings, that I raised in my last post.”

      George: “ Hello again Harold.  First of all I did NOT say they were  the top climatologists ” 

      Sometimes I find it difficult to understand what point you are making.  

      • George

                                    Harold , I have no need whatsoever to read any of my previous posts  for any reason.  Furthermore you say , that you find it difficult to understand what point I’m making —————–  Well I certainly DON’T find that surprising in the least.    I made it clear to you repeatedly that I was posting what was reported from the listed sources and I named such in detail. Now you are making clams to the contrary .   Very well then , show us what makes your claims  to be that which we should accept over the climatologists that were listed. Produce YOUR credentials that show we or anyone else should accept YOUR presentation  over others .
                                   And as usual , here we go again with your perpetually EVADING  my same question of why is it that you  have such an obsession with this topic of weather or climate change on an atheist conservative website and yet you vehemently ignore all ( or probably 99%  ) of the other topics  related to the subject of religion/atheism  or specifically  conservative secular freethought. Sometimes  Harold ,  I actually believe that you are on here just for the sake of being argumentative  and you have some personal agenda. Once again as usual you have evaded my question. Why is this solely or nearly so the primary topic that  you harp on constantly while ignoring all the topics of mass murder, terrorism , human oppression, exploitation, etc. Obviously these  horrific religious fanatic attrocities are things that  are  NOT important to you in any sense  ( or rather it appears as such IMHO ) ,  but as soon as the topic of   [ climate change ]  appears on here I can count on you like clockwork to pounce on that subject  with glee.  If that’s your thing  then so be it .  I don’t see you putting the emphasis on the discussion on human suffering by religious tyrants and zealots as you do on the  discussion  of weather conditions .  The way you rant on this ,  you would think this is the WEATHER CHANNEL .    Personally speaking I prefer more interesting  things to put my emphaqsis on rather than this crap.  If this is your thing then go for it —-as I said repeatedly to you and this is going in circles and nowhere fast  ,  I have no agenda in this topic either way and I really don’t care  who proves who right or wrong.

        • Harold

          I think my reasons for posting are a bit off topic.  I do not ignore issues of secular free thought, and there are a few recent posts on such issues.  I have only so much time, and I can post on issues I have previously thought about in a (somewhat) timely manner.  By the time I researched some of the other issues, it would be too late to make a contribution, if I had the time to do such research at all.  So I tend to post on topics where I, if not have knowledge, at least have put some thought to, in the past.

          I hope this goes some way to answering your question. 

          You regard the earlier exchange as a circular argument.  From my perspective, it seems that the argument has moved forward.  You suggested some views from climatologists for consideration.  I explained why these arguments were not to be taken seriously.  The next logical step would be for you to acknowledge this annd say you will therefore consider other opinions, or to defend the status of the original sources.  Since you have made no defence, I presume you are now ready to consider other opinions?

          Anyway, I think we will not progress much further here, but who knows?  I thank you again for the generally courteous and polite exchanges we are able to have here.  And we do agree on quite a few things, but not the climate, it seems.

      • George

                       Harold , I was unable to post under your last message so  I chose here .     First of all you said that I offer no defense . Well, perhaps that is because I have nothing to defend. I made it perfectly clear repeatedly that I have no agenda in this matter either way. If you prove yourself to be right then so be it and if the other side proves itself to be right then likewise as well.  I truly don’t care either way.     I simply posted info that  I had studied and I named the sources and the individuals and their titles & credentials and I merely asked for yours in return as well and never got them. 
                             Unlike yourself , I have no obsession with this topic whatsoever . Now , having said that if you prove to be right then bravo , and if the other side proves to be right then that’s just fine and dandy ——either way it doesn’t matter to me . I have nothing to argue because I’m NOT pushing or promoting anything or trying to convince anyone of anything as well—so therefore it’s a non-issue for me .   Personally I’m really tired of discussing this crap as it doesn’t excite me in the least.  I have no argument with you or anyone else for that matter and I would prefer to be discussing secularism as it pertains to individuals who are conservative of which also this is the very theme of this blog.  As for me , I prefer to move on and get with the program of  conservative secular freethought which is why I came here to begin with in the first place —–plain & simple !  

        • Harold

          I cannot understand the appearance or otherwise of the “reply” button – it seems to appear and disappear randomly.  I am sure there is method in it somewhere.

          You express a lack of interest in this topic, and that is fine.  If you ever wish to have a look at the issues from another perspective, the skepticalscience.com site is a good starting point.  Articles are usually well referenced if you want to check the credentials.  I could give some examples here, but there are so many it is difficult to know where to start.

      • George

        Harold , I was unable to reply to your post of 1o hours ago ( no reply button )  prior to my posting this  .    Also Harold , I am  indeed interested in looking at the issues from all perspectives , however the point I’m making is that this topic in itself is simply NOT a topic of interest to me from either side . I canot make it more plainer.  I’m moving on to better issues and topics ( IMHO )  and I have no desire to  discuss this subject any further with anyone –plain & simple. If this is your special interest , then fine, but it isn’t for me and I’m done entirely with the conversation on t
        he subject.   Have a good day sir .

  • Harold

    Hi George, no reply button, so new post.  I think we have discussed lifeboats on the Titanic, and some other areas of interests, not just global warming.  But you are right, most of my posts here are on this topic, although not all of them.  The thing is I can’t go to bed if I spot something wrong on the internet -I feel I must try to correct it.  I haven’t slept for 6 months now, and I fear I am loosing ground.

    Regarding the top climatologists issue.  There are many climatologists in the world.  I cannot take issue with them here because they have not posted here.  I can take issue with you, because you have.  My point is that you have chosen to believe a few selected people, and not to believe the vast majority of climatologists.  You did state that these were top climatologists, and it was this point, rather than their specific findings, that I raised in my last post.

    • Jillian Becker

      Harold - 

      You seem to have missed this (from our post “Earth Day: ideally celebrated with human sacrifice” April 22):

      A University of Illinois 2009 survey [found] that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily debunked when one considers its selection methodology. … The Illinois researchers decided that of the 10,257 respondents, the 10,180 who demurred from the so-called consensus “weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated once again.” The real percentage of concurring scientists in the survey is less than .008%. That these 75 were … “scientists of unknown qualifications” adds yet another layer to the boondoggle.

      • Harold

        Usually, when you scratch below the surface of these type of claims, they turn out to be baseless.  Rarely are they so easily or so completely revealed as nonesense as the “Earth Day” piece you quote above. 

        The Illinois study sent out 10,257 questions, and got back 3,146 replies – apparently typical for this type of web based survey.  The opinions of the non-responders is not known, and we cannot say they “demurred from the so-called consensus”.  Do you agree so far?

        There were 79 who ”listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” i.e. the experts in the field.  Of these, 76 agreed.  This led to the headline claim “97% of climatologists…”.

        Agreed so far? 

        The quote above says the other votes weren’t counted, but that is completely wrong.

        Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.  This is less than 97%, but a very clear majority.  It is totally wrong to say “ The real percentage of concurring scientists in the survey is less than .008%. “  It would seem that 82% would be the correct figure.  This makes the claim off by a quite impressive factor of  10,000!

        The info is quite short, and can be found here:
        http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

        This makes me wonder why the author of thge “Earth Day” piece you quote above mis-represented the data so completely.  Was it a total lack of understanding, was it picking up some information without checking, or was it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

        • Harold

          Here I am replying to myself.  To redress the balance a bit, I have seen the data from the same paper misused by global warming believers.  The statistic “97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming” is quite widespread, and often uses this paper as evidence.  From the above discussion, this is wrong, because the paper does not say any such thing.  The correct headline could be “97% of climatologist in the USA believe…” or “82% of Earth Scientists in the USA believe…”

          The error is several orders of magnitude less than the one I discuss above, but is still an error.

          If we want to know how many scientists believe such and such, we must look elsewhere for the answer.

          We could ask the same question of these people – why did they put up the wrong statistics?  I supect it is picking up information without checking, combined with a bit of mis-understanding.  There seems to be no deliberate effort to deceive because the message is essentially correct – most of the surveyed people supported the proposition.

  • Harold

    Hey George, I post where I think I can contribute, and where I can increase my own understanding.

    The Karakoram data comes from a pair of satalites called GRACE, that have been measuring since 2003.  They basically measure gravity, and calculate a weight from this – i.e. they are weighing the continents.  The resolution is only about 100km, so no fine detail is possible, and all sorts of corrections are made for groundwater use, rebound from ice-age, surface water etc.  So there is some uncertainty in the figures.  These shoud perhaps be tought of as tentative for the moment

    These data allow measurement of the total ice-mass, and avoids the problem of difficult to access high glaciers. 

    Logically, if use some of this data to support an argument, then you must accept the rest of the data also.  Otherwise it would be what we often call cherry-picking.  So we must be bound by ALL the findings of Grace in order to decide if global warming is continuing or not, not just the Karakoram bits. 

    It will come as no surprise that the global picture is that total land ice lost was about 500 billion tonnes / yr, whilst one area (high Asia) was losing about 50 billion tonnes less than expected.  Total ice loss was worse than 2007 predictions.  The Central Asian gain of ice seems to have occured in one year of very high snow-fall.  It is very interesting, but in no way can  the data lead one reasonably to conclude that there is no global warming.

    • George

                      Hey Harold , you totally missed the point of my last post.   I simply posted the info from various TOP climatologists —-no more and no less.    Now , if you are proclaiming that YOU know more than them and that they are wrong as you say , then just as I have stated before  time and time again —— you need to take your argument up with THEM——-not me.  
                              You of course have the perogative to post on whatever subject you like , as I simply asked why is  THIS  topic of  [  climate change   ] the ONLY topic that you speak on ?    I have NEVER gotten an answer from you but you skillfully evade the question.    I’m not saying this to be abbrasive or argumentative but to be inquisitive regarding this. I’m perpetually repeating the same ole thing and getting the same ole  NON-answer.  You continue to try to convince me and others on this site that you know more than the top experts on this  subject. Very well then, let’s see a “face off” between you and the top climatologists in a public debate.  That would indeed be an interesting forum for sure.
                                If you feel this way , then please sir — e-mail them a long rant and tell them they don’t know what the  heck they’re talking about and then get back with me and tell me what they say.   While you’re at it , leave me their e-mail address  so  I  can contact them and verify that you have done so.  I have NO argument with you either way.     I gave my sources thouroughly and detailed and now having said this then your refutation  is still with them—– NOT ME. 
                                Now  , once again for the umpteenth time , why aren’t you concerned about all the religious tyrannny going on around the world and the terror , chaos , mass murders, subjugations , oppression , etc ( as reported on this website ) as you are on this topic.   Are you sure you’re on the right website or is it just that you simply did a keyword search on the internet and came up with this topic attributed to THE ATHEIST CONSERVATIVE website . Just wondering— that’s all.     I don’t even know why I’m even bothering to repeat this over and over continually when you NEVER answer the question.  This wasn’t a ” trick question”  of any ad hominem attack but an inquiry as to WHY .     Maybe by the next decade you will give me an answer  . If not , I really don’t care in the least.   I still find it interesting  just the same sir.  Have a good day Harold !

      • Harold

        You say that you post info from various TOP climatologists. I would be interested in why you think these particular people are TOP climatologists, rather than the others?There could be all sorts of criteria for choosing who you think is among the top climatologist. The only reaon I can see for including the ones on your list is because they say what you want to believe. There is no objective measure by which these are top climatologists, or even climatologists at all in some cases.Habibullo Abdussamatov is an astrophysicist with very contraversial views. Willie Soon published a paper in 2003 which has been comprehensively contradicted since. The editors resigned because they were embarassed that it got through. Legates has published with Soon. Both are funded by petroleum money – Soon to the extent of £1,000,000. This does not make their results necessarily less valid – all evidence should be evaluated on its merits- but it counters arguments that global warmists should not be believed because they are in it for the money. They published an article on polar bear decline that other experts said was “largely unsupported by the data available.” Shannon Goessling is a lawyer, and the article cited mis-represents what solar scientists said, as well as slandering the late, great Carl Sagan with made up nonsense about how he called for increase CO2 emmissions in the ’70s. Robert Felix is not a climatologist at all, but an ex-architect with some very outlandish theories about magnetic reversals.These are not top climatolgists, and again I find it interesting that you choose to give the opinions of these people such great weight, far in excess of their worth. There are many climatolists- even top ones- who disagree with the above.  Are these opinions worthless?

        • George

                            Harold  , I never claimed at any time that the sources you indicated are worthless  ( YOU  IMPLIED THAT regarding me , —not me ).    I looked at BOTH sides of the argument and I have observed the other side as well regarding this fiasco for quite some time.     I don’t have any agenda in this entire debate and I really don’t give a rat’s rear end either way. While you are accusing me of going along with those who say what you claim I want to believe  , I as well can make the same claim towards you in that these individuals that YOU have listed are obviously saying what YOU want to believe.   I have stated to you repeatedly that if you say the sources I have listed are wrong then fine, take up your argument with THEM——–  NOT ME . Why do I have to repeat this to you over and over and over again and again and again ?   
                              If you debate these sources and it proves that they are wrong then so be it as I have stated previously I would indeed give you total credit that is due and I would acknowledge such. What part of that didn’t you understand ? I think you are trying to be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I actually don’t care either way—although I do indeed care about our planet, environment , and seasonal safety just the same. 
                                   Now , one more time for the zillioneth time  that I have asked YOU this question and you STILL havent’t  answered it in any sense but continue to evade the question————-     Why is this the ONLY topic of concern on this website ? This is a website for secular conservatives and not once have you posted anything in regards to that topic but let a topic of weather conditions come up and you go hog wild. Why ?  We have had a multitude of articles , pictures , videos on this website of terrorist attrocities , people being tortured , murdered, subjugated, oppressed, enslaved,  and other horrific events and yet not ONE comment from you on any of this  , but oh no , let the topic of [  CLIMATE CHANGE  ] come up and then you come on here practically snarling fanatically in your commentary regarding this  ?  How many times have I asked this question and still get NO answer ? Why is that ? Once again you have EVADED the question.   If the people who say we are approaching an ice age are right then power to them for informing us. If it later proves that YOU are right then also power to you for informing us .   I listed my sources and I also mentioned contrary sources as well in the past .   It appears to me that you have some OBSESSION with this topic only  and NOTHING else.   I stated before that you have the perogative to post whatever assertion that you so desire ,  and once again , if you have a “beef” with other scientists on this matter —-then for the trillioneth time —debate with them— NOT ME.  

  • Harold

    Global warming causing local increase in precipitation is very well understood.  I am surprise you are unaware of it.  Warmer climate means more evaporation hence more precipitation.

    The claim that 90% of the worls glaciers are growing is just totally wrong – where oes that claim come from?  It must have just been mae up on the spot.

    avid Bellamy, a very well known zoologist, go into a lot of trouble claimming that 555 of 625 glaciers monitore by the Zurich Glacier Monitoring Programme were retreating.  The claim has not basis.  It seems that it was a typo – the original claim was 55%, but the % is above the 5 on UK keyboar.  The original claim was also rubbish – apparently originating from Singer, an appearing nowhere in the literature.

    My key between s an f ( or c an e) seems to have stoppe working.

    • George

                             Gee Harold , I’m surprised you waited this long to respond on here.   If these major scientists are just plain wrong  as you proclaim in their presentations , then have you voiced your refutation with them and proven otherwise ?   The things I have posted on here did NOT come from me but top climatologists themselves . Now  , having said that , then if they are indeed wrong as you say  , my other question is why aren’t you voicing this to THEM if you are proclaiming  otherwise ?   I have asked YOU this question several times before and I never got an answer  and the question AGAIN  is why is this the ONLY topic that you discuss on this ATHEIST CONSERVATIVE website ?  
                           I’m not complaining but just inquisitive. Why is that ?  There are articles on this site galore of people being terrorized , murdered en masse, oppressed , enslaved ,  tortured , enslaved, violated , harrassed ,  and subjugated and ONLY when the topic of “claimate change ” is discussed do you make any comment.   Why is that ?  I’m not the one making the claims regarding what I posted but I only posted what SOME of the various leading climatologists have presented. If YOU say they are wrong  then my other question is why aren’t you debating with THEM and showing them in a debative forum that you assert that they are wrong. I’m not the one here or anyone else on here is the one presenting these  presentations ————–   THEY ARE ! 
                              If you can  show us that they are wrong and you are right then I will openly and clearly acknowledge that you are right and they are wrong . Again , I am not the one making the claim here any way whatsoever.   If you have a  “beef” with their presentations, then they are the ones to engage with in dispute.   I knew when this article came up that we would be hearing from you , but if this were an article of a mass religious  massacre , it would be total silence by you .  Why ?  Is this the ONLY topic of your concern ?  What about all the terrorist acts and horrific human rights violations ?   Don’t they matter to you ?   If so , then where are your commentary posts on such ?  You can freely discuss whatever you see fit as  I am only trying to figure out why you seem NOT to make any comments of ANYTHING else but CLIMATE articles. I give your  argument the same consideration as others . I do not mean this to be offensive or attacking in any sense but only trying to figure out WHY is this the case ?    

    • Liz

      So global warming causes an increase in precipitation - that still doesn’t mean it’s man-made.  And if it is, then maybe the sun’s cooling cycle will nicely offset it!  

  • Liz

    It will be interesting to see how they pretzel around and come up with a way to say that its all STILL our fault.

    • George

      Don’t be surprized ——————THEY WILL       !!!!!!!!

  • George

                          If  anyone  remembers  , I have mentioned the book by Robert W. Feliz    titled :           ” Not by Fire but by Ice “    a few times before on this website .  I heard him on a radio talk show speaking on this subject quite some time ago.   Just do a keyword search on the internet under :   ” Ice Age Now “  or  Ice Age Now  . com .        He clearly exposes the myth of this “global warming ” bullcrap.  There is another publication titled   :     “Prepare for Ice Age Now” –by top paleoclimatologist — Terrence Aym .            Our glaciers are growing , not melting , which blows the lid off the falsehoods  promulgated by Al Gore and his cronies.   The top experts report that  :   It’s a natural cycle and that the next Ice Age could begin any day.
                         Now let me take a wild guess who will be chiming in on THIS  topic .

    • George

                          Correction on previous post.   The book author’s name is Robert W. Felix  ( not Feliz ).   Additional brief info on the website as stated above  ( check it out )   :
                              
      Article :             ” New Little Ice Age ‘ to begin in 2014′  according to Habibullo Abdussamatov , head of space research at the Polkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. 

      Article :            ” We are being brainwashed says astrophysicist ” — an interview with astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon and hydroclimatologist David Legates.

                           US scientists say the earth may enter a Little Ice Age within a decade ———- acording to heavyweight US solar physicists who say the sun appears to be headed in hibernation , and that temperatures have been for the past 10,000 years warmer than today.

      Report :     Glaciers  are growing on Mt. Shasta and that a record snowfall will spur even more growth.

      Article :    ” Rather than spiraling into a meltdown , we may be heading into next ice age ” — by Shannon Goessling.

      Book :        Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps –by Robert W. Felix.

      Book :     Basic Preparedness