Global freezing? Arctic ice levels reach 30-year HIGH

Despite the current rising trend of carbon dioxide levels, arctic ice is actually expanding, not melting.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently convened its annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the “climate crisis.” It was revealed there that arctic ice is currently at a 30-year high, according to data from the intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

Globalist groups like the WEF have been pushing for years to redistribute the wealth of nations as a “remedy” for alleged global warming and climate change. It turns out that the real problem might be global freezing.

Remember how three arctic science expeditions got stuck in thick ice?

One of the primary metrics used by climate fanatics to make their wild climate claims is arctic ice. We have been told for years that the polar ice caps are melting, which Al Gore infamously said would cause flooding due to sea level increases.

“In 2007, Al Gore began warning the world that scientists were predicting that by 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer,” writes Art Moore for WND about how wrong these fanatics ended up being with their climate hysteria.

FACT: The climate is always changing

Climate change skeptic Tony Heller remains an outspoken critic of all this wrongness by the climate cult. Last September, he wrote a piece about how the Arctic Ocean gained a record amount of sea ice for that time of year.

“Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased,” he tweeted, further noting that this would not get reported on by the likes of CNN, The New York Times, or BBC News.

Last summer, sea melt was the lowest it has been in 15 years while the expanse of the Antarctic Sea was well above average. All of this points to the fact that the planet is not warming; if anything, it is freezing – or better yet, it is just normal based on shifting climate cycles that have been occurring since the beginning of time.

Even so, the corporate-controlled media continues to fearmonger about the fictitious notion of global warming. The Times, for instance, published a story last fall claiming that climate change is “the greatest threat to global public health” that exists.

The solution, of course, is more government control over people, more taxes, and more tyranny. This, the “experts” claim, will keep the planet at just the right temperatures.

The Biden regime is also on board with this agenda, as its Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an announcement about how it plans to treat climate change as a public health issue.

By doing this, the government has now granted itself the authority to invoke emergency powers just as it did with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), except this time the restrictions will include things like curbing private vehicle use and limiting the amount of animal products people consume.

Fossil fuels like gas and oil are also slated for elimination, only to be replaced with highly unstable and unreliable “green” technologies such as wind and solar.

“If climate activists were allowed, they would take us from COVID lockdowns straight into climate lockdowns,” says Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com.

“Now that they’ve seen arbitrary lockdowns successfully imposed under the guise of a ‘public health emergency,’ they can’t wait for federal, state and local declarations of a climate emergency to achieve the same sort of dominance over us.”

In the comment section at WND, someone noted that the same people who say they need unlimited power over our lives because the earth is warming too much will now simply shift gears and say it is because the earth is freezing: the outcome will still be the same.

See more here: naturalnews.com

Bold emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    VOWG

    |

    CO2 is not a climate driver.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi PSI Readers,

      Believe the VOWG!!!

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Heretic Jones

    |

    It’s called the Eddy Minimum, no?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    I have long been calling attention to the 1966 book ‘Weather & Clim ate’ by R. C. Sutcliffe. In the paper cover of this bound book I read: “At the end of World War II, he was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British Forces in Europe.”

    From which I take a leap and assume he was part of a Meteorological Team whose important responsibility was to predict (weeks, maybe months in advance) the weather for the D Day landing at Normandy. I ask today’s meteorologists, with much more meteorological data, how they would like this responsibility today for the lives of the troops who were going to land on Normandy’s beaches?

    In the 4th Chapter, 2nd paragraph, page 33, Sutcliffe wrote: “I would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapor and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means ends here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter. Taking an overall average, about 50 percent of the earth’s surface is covered with cloud at any time whereas precipitation is falling over no more than say 3 per cent, Non-precipitating clouds are thus the common variety, rain clouds are the exception.”

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    I call attention to the fact I had just commented (quoted) what a meteorologist had published in 196S

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Chemist

    |

    I’m stunned that more people don’t just look at this one graph category, that being the NOAA provided sea level graph set. Pick your station, they’re all over the place. The oceans’ sea level readings are the ultimate “moving average” for the planet’s temperature. The perfectly straight line since the Civil War speaks volumes. If CO2 had a significant impact on planetary temperature you’d see the temperature rate of change begin a trend up beginning in the 1950’s. But there is NOTHING. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Kevin Doyle

      |

      Chemist,
      Exactly! Worldwide sea levels have been rising steadily since the last Ice Age, 18,000 years ago.
      The chart you show is from New York Harbor. The worldwide average is actually only 4″ per century, as places like Alaska are rising due to tectonic movement.
      As long as sand and soil are eroded by rainfall and rivers, the ocean will always rise…

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Marius Jacobs

      |

      I FULLY agree!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Kevin Doyle

    |

    As Jerry and others have pointed out here, adding more H2O clouds to the atmosphere acts as a ‘coolant’.
    Adding more Ozone (O3) also has a cooling effect, as it blocks UV rays from the sun.
    Adding more CO2 also acts as a coolant.

    Apparently, meteorology and basic thermodynamics are not taught to ‘climate Scientists’…

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Kevin, Chemist, and PSI Readers,

      This morning I composed a relatively long comment and this seems as good a place as any to post it.

      In the physical sciences the word—resonance—is critically important word (concept). But outside of the scholarly physical science and scholarly music literature the word resonance is seldom written and even more seldom defined because it is assumed that anyone reading this literature knows its definition that applies to the physical sciences and music.

      If one goes to (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resonance) one finds 7 possible definitions for resonance. But only one best applies to physics: “a vibration [movement]. of large amplitude in a mechanical or electrical system caused by a relatively small periodic stimulus of the same or nearly the same period as the natural vibration period of the system.” My problem with this definition is: What is “the natural vibration period of the system.”?

      And only one best applies to chemistry: “the conceptual alternation of a chemical species (such as a molecule or ion) between two or more equivalent allowed structural representations differing only in the placement of electrons that aids in understanding the actual state of the species as an amalgamation of its possible structures and the usually higher-than-expected stability of the species.” The problem here we cannot literally see the tiny, tiny species of molecules or ions. So we (I) must imagine what we (I) cannot see and comprehend all the many words of this definition.

      As a teacher of these two major physical sciences I never simply demonstrated for my students, that which I could have, to help them to actually see the natural physical systems with which they had probably commonly experienced without any realization of what they were doing.
      What I am now thinking of is the playground swing. In the first grade I remember learning how to pump up the swing so standing up I was looking over the high (maybe 10 to 15ft above the ground) bar from which the swing was hung. And to get the swing this high I had to periodically move my body in a certain way with significant force to reach my maximum height and after reaching this height I could maintain the swinging height with much less timed force. And many of my classmates learned to do this also. But we were never told this was an example of what was termed “resonance”.

      Now natural “resonance systems” in which humans play no part can also be seen. These natural systems are termed “ocean tides”. At the end of the 2nd to last paragraph of “The Principia” Newton wrote (as translated by Andrew Motte): “In the philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws if motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Brian James

    |

    The sky is falling chicken littles cannot combat fact’s and real science.

    June 3, 2022 Sun activity: June 4 update: The sun is quiet

    Last 24 hours: The sun is still quiet. There have been only B-class flares (“too small to harm Earth” on the Stanford scale). We’ve seen five flares, the largest B8.14 from sunspot region AR3024. Sunspot region AR3026 is close to disappearing on the northwest limb (edge) of the sun, being carried out by the sun rotation.

    https://earthsky.org/sun/sun-activity-solar-flare-cme-aurora-updates/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jeffrey Levine, Ph.D.

    |

    Ha-ha… I attempted to provide links to publications from the intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites… the purported source of the claim that Arctic sea ice is at a 30-year high… but the system flagged it as spam.
    No matter… Anybody reading this can do a Google search on: EUMETSAT arctic sea ice
    just as easily as I did. “Do your own research”. Isn’t that what science skeptics are supposed to do?
    I miss honesty. I really do.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      MattH

      |

      No. It is critical thinking that dictated “do your own research” and even then believe nothing until you have seen the evidence or data has not been ‘doctored”.

      Most readers of PSI know that a ‘free speach’ ethic means that all articles need heathy skepticism

      It is also well known that on issues Covid19 and climate , Google and wikipedia are purveyors of deceit, lies, and deplatforming science.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via