The Government KNOWS That Global Cooling Will Kill Millions But Still Refuses To Admit It Exists

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


Climate change is a way of raising money for governments that just won’t admit they were wrong. It’s a way of taxing us to the point where we can barely afford to put food on the table. It’s a way of instilling fear into children, installing the ‘problems’ in their impressionable minds so that they grow up accepting and not questioning that global warming is an issue.

The change of title from global warming to climate change was subtle. It was a change that was designed to cover all bases. The term global warming signifies just that, that the world is warming. We know it isn’t, it’s cooling. The data bears this out and has done so for the last decade. When the warming stopped back in 1998 it created a problem for our fraudster government, along with all other governments that had bought into the global warming hype. How could they call a problem global warming when the world had actually stopped warming?

For a couple of years there was a hiatus, the Earth stayed roughly where it was, and then the cooling began, and the term climate change came into popular usage, particularly by politicians.

There is nothing wrong with believing the science of the day. Looking back it did indeed appear that the planet was heating up…it was heating up, and it is right that concerns were raised. It’s what happened next that was wrong.

Long standing and well respected scientists pointed out that this happens, the planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling. They pointed out the ‘blip’ in the 1970’s where a cooling trend had hit, and the media was full of headlines proclaiming the next ice age was almost upon us, which obviously was incorrect.

Unlike the arrival of a new ice age, which would cost governments a huge amount of money in the form of having to increase and update power stations to cope with the extra generating capacity required to keep people warm, icebreaker ships to keep key waterways open, extra logistical support to keep roads passable and of course the possibility of relocating citizens if glacial advance became a problem, global warming could be a money maker.

Governments realized almost immediately that they could levy extra taxes on their citizens to raise cash to fight the new threat to mankind. Companies could be made to pay for messing up the atmosphere and increasing greenhouse gases. Global warming, aka climate change, was a huge money spinner.

The government is right, climate change is occurring, and they need to deal with the fact that the world is going to get colder for a while. I am not suggesting that there are going to be glaciers on the White House lawn, but the planet is cooling. It is nothing more than another of cycles that the Earth goes through, and will continue to go through.

The problem with cooling is that it kills far more people than warming. A drought in one state at least leaves the possibility of growing food in others. Cooling doesn’t work like that. For reasons that are not entirely understood, cooling affects entire regions, even entire hemispheres at the same time.

Infrastructure can’t cope with cooling anywhere near as well as it can cope with warming. Extra energy production strains an already outdated system, water getting into cracks freezes and expands laying waste to road surfaces and ill-maintained buildings.

Modern homes are often built without chimneys as we have rapidly moved away from fossil fuels for domestic heating and this leaves people without domestic heating should the grid fail, which it most certainly would as it struggles to cope with the extra output and the weight of ice and snow on lines.

By denying that cooling is occurring, the government is avoiding the costs of dealing with the problem. Admitting it means that hundreds of billions of dollars that the government doesn’t have would need to be spent. Even the ‘green’ taxes currently levied would not be enough to bridge the gap.

The hype and scientific knowledge that pointed towards global warming has passed, and the fact that the government knows this, but continues to perpetuate what is now a blatant lie is unforgivable. The inaction will ultimately cost tens of millions of lives, not just in the US but across the northern hemisphere.

The last deep cooling event, The Little Ice Age, cost millions of lives in a world that had less than half the population that now exists. It should be remembered that these people didn’t live in huge sprawling cities. They had homes with chimneys, and they had access to woodland for fuel that no longer exists in many areas.

The forests, and with it the supply of fuel, was replaced by concrete and glass jungles that will offer no respite from the bitter winters and cooler summers that many scientists now predict lie ahead.

Investment in clean energy is falling according to the United Nations. 2013 showed a decline of 12%, and it was the second year in a row that investment fell short by billions of dollars.

The International Energy Agency says they need $1 TRILLION A YEAR if we are to avoid climate catastrophe…

You could buy 271 full sized 2MW fully installed wind turbines for that.

Or 100 commercial solar farms.

Or 100 water turbines.

Of course all of these ideas have a massive carbon footprint. All the components have to be made in factories, shipped from here to there and all that jazz.

Or how about this for an idea. If you want to be really green and sustainable you could:

Buy 401,606,425 pine trees at $4 apiece. Pine grows fast, it can be farmed sustainibly and has many uses, not least when dry it burns well. It makes up the bulk of sustainable forests in Europe and Scandinavian countries where it is used for building, furniture and heating.

I would suggest that investment in green energy has dropped because companies have realized they are being screwed because global warming has been disproved.

A final thing to think about. If Global warming is caused by man, how come levels were much higher tens of thousands of years ago? Ice core research has shown that this is the case.  The earth was warmer with a tiny amount of humans, with no factories and no cars…how is that possible if man is responsible for the rise in temperatures we saw up to 1998?

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Chris Carrington of The Daily Sheeple.

Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • jim_robert

    Some hints for the leftist warmers:

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor
    receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain
    skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman
    in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has
    authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent
    scientists of the last 100 years.”

    in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of
    scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always
    need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a
    certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr.
    Richard Lindzen, MIT

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the
    history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
    science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr.
    Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen
    to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace
    Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are
    not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and
    a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the

    an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm
    on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
    businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental
    Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical
    Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect
    because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
    scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor
    Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the
    National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem
    there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global
    warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of
    the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will
    virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles
    as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – .
    Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials
    Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment
    [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” –
    Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics
    of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s
    Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly
    Weather Review.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130
    plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate
    changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
    UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space
    Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    • lifeofliberty

      Warming is unequivocal among the world’s leading scientists. The person you quoted is not in that list and is considered a crank.

    • Grey Winters

      The consequences are horrendous if the warmers are wrong. It’s a huge mistake and a very anti scientific approach to ignore legitimate concerns and data.

      • JR

        Legitimate concerns are one thing. Strong-arming legitimate concerns the other way with the billions of tax payer dollars while suppressing SCIENCE is another. You posit the standard “precautionary principle,” which applies to *everything.” You warmers also ignore the fact of cooling since 1998, the fact that the impact of CO2 is by its very nature limited, and worse, that this is clearly part of the Agenda 21 socialist control. You argument remains unconvincing, and the unwillingness of the warmers to show intellectual honesty – as well as waste trillions – is worse.

        • Grey Winters

          Read my statement again.If we continue to diminish our energy base as we enter a cooling trend will we not be in dire straights. To imagine a cooling trend without the heating abilities of hydrocarbons and attempt to diminish our heat retaining atmosphere through diminishing CO2 levels the consequences will be far worse then any warming period or cycle could ever be.

        • Grey Winters

          Read my statement again.If we continue to diminish our energy base as we enter a cooling trend will we not be in dire straights. To imagine a cooling trend without the heating abilities of hydrocarbons and attempt to diminish our heat retaining atmosphere through diminishing CO2 levels the consequences will be far worse then any warming period or cycle could ever be.

  • jim_robert

    A few more hints for the “Yes we can/Low Information” voters and leftists:

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous
    nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social
    control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an
    ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist
    Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather
    Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or
    another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global
    warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and
    developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
    vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
    University in Japan.

    “The [global warming]
    scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that
    generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the
    Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
    Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Climate is not responding
    to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon
    dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than
    natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the
    University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide
    was the major driver of climate change (see (In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate Research, had published a
    peer-reviewed article saying the recent warming is not unusual, relative to
    previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might
    suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired
    from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

    appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global
    warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the
    Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect,
    Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his
    resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former Chief of the Climate
    Processes Research Program at NASA

    “Over the
    years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be
    policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I
    regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there
    are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded
    statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for
    the Dutch parliament
    examining climate-related controversies, or

    Interestingly, even IPCC uber-warmer Ken Trenberth has stated “It’s very clear we do not have a
    climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume that we
    do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”[1]

    Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert
    a geologist from Paderborn University noted the
    “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that
    we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his
    analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that
    of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding,
    “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no
    warming.” While the UN has often been told there will
    be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at
    or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed
    out that “in the geological past,
    we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35
    degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400
    [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other
    words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr.
    Ewert summarizes “It is necessary
    to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is
    not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.” [2]


    [2] Cited from CFACT email of June 8, 2011; video at
    Dr. Ewart’s credentials found at

  • jim_robert

    Then there is that utterly ignorant “consensus” argument. First, as clearly illustrated below, it isn’t true (think folks like Dr. Richard Lindzen, prof of atmospheric science at MIT, Dr. Gray, #1 hurricane forecaster in the world, Dr. Reid Bryson, the most quoted meteorologist in the world, or John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel (go to YouTube and search for “John Coleman global warming.”) – all of whom call it a SCAM. But, let’s grant – assuming I am an utterly ignorant leftist – that there is a “consensus.” Since when, exactly, is science determined by consensus, rather than experimentation and hypothesis testing? Since Galileo, lefties? Since Copernicus? Since Hitler had published 100 Scientists Against Einstein in the late 1930s? Since Ignaz Sememelweis was drummed out to the medical biz in the 1800s for insisting docs wash their hands between operations? (The consensus was that there was no such things as bacteria, etc.) Answer me, leftists? Or are you too busy at your “Yes we can” chant ins to think for yourself??

  • jim_robert

    … and here is that expose on that ignorant “consensus” scam: Frederick Seitz Past President of the National
    Academy of Sciences sponsored a petition against the whole global warming façade at Over 19,000 scientist have signed this petition as opposed to the 600 the U.N. could scrounge up, and some of these 600 have since reconsidered their past agreement, such as Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever who stated in an update to the U.S. Senate Minority report for 2007 that “Global warming has become a new religion” and “I am a skeptic.” Later, in 20011, Giaver upped the ante by resigning from the American Physical Society, stating “”The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

    Japanese scientist Kiniori Itoh, another former
    IPCC member has called Gorian warming a “scientific scandal,” while noting that people “will feel deceived by science and scientists” when they learn the
    truth. For a complete list of signees to the OISM petition – which includes a simply staggering number of Ph.Ds, – see, where they are arranged in alphabetical order. Meanwhile a similar petition at as of Jan., 2010 – had 31,486 scientist signatures, including 9,029 with Ph.Ds, disagreeing with anthropogenic global warming (the minimum qualifier to be on the petition
    is a BA in a field related to climate).


  • jim_robert

    Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist andGreenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in
    Greenland [1] when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland
    which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” [2] You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern agricultural methods are utilized.
    Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people [3] and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches.[4] Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records.[5] Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.”
    Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat’l Park two years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park –
    that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply as warm as or much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today.[8] We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare
    minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand
    years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the
    facts himself. More evidence: There are
    records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can’t grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide
    Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!),
    that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In
    the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “ [9]

    On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world[10] Even worse for the warmers, recent research
    has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian
    Andes – see,
    southern South America, see,
    China, see,,
    where the author XJ Zhou notes “temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those
    in the current warm period over China,” and Antarctica, Li,
    Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East
    Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal
    of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at
    Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see

    [1] Interestingly, Nature
    Magazine noted in June, 2006, that the Arctic used to be pretty much like
    Miami, with an average temp. of 74 F, alligator ancestors and palm trees. This
    has been determined from core samples taken 1,000 feet below the floor of the
    Arctic Ocean, the first time this has been done (see footnote below for further
    information on a warm Greenland). Another study, reported in The Journal,
    Summit Ministries, Dec. 2007, has shown
    from plant and insect remains that 400,000 years ago illustrate Greenland was
    as much as 27 F warmer than today . and that studies show over more than half a
    million years of history, temperature changes preceded CO2 levels. Even
    today, land temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have gone down,
    not up, in the past few years, along with sea surface temperatures.

    [2] Greenland was even
    warmer prior – World Magazine reports in its July 28, 2007, p. 32 issue (as
    summarized from Science Magazine) that when ice core samples were taken recently
    and analyzed, DNA from trees like pine and spruce, along with that of beetles,
    butterflies and spiders was found, and the international team thinks southern
    Greenland was covered with forests between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.

    [3] See Unstoppable
    Global Warming – Every 1500 Years, by Fred Singer. The Smithsonian site at says the Viking
    population reached a zenith of 5,000 people.

    [4] Chris Mayer, Putting the Green Back in
    Greenland, Interestingly,
    global cooling not only exterminated the Vikings in Greenland, but global
    cooling also coincided with collapse of the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire,
    as noted by Doug Casey in an interview with Louis James, Dec 28, 2009; See also

    See also (Bergthorsson, 1969; Dansgaard et al., 1975; Pringle,

    [6] Archeological Survey of Canada, Canada’s
    Visual History, The Little Ice and the Historic Inuit, Meanwhile, notes that during the
    time period 880 to 1140 AD, “Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada
    (were) far north of the modern timberline” that “low radiocarbon levels in tree
    rings indicate high solar output and presumably warmer temperatures” and there
    was “Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.”

    [7] The Fate of
    Greenland’s Vikings, Dale Mackenzie Brown, Online Features, Feb. 28, 2000,

    These are cropped photos I took myself near the Vatnajokull glacier
    system at Skaftafell Nat’l Park, Iceland, in 2005, where you can see park
    documentation clearly states that during the Viking period “forests used to
    grow where the glacier is now,” and “valleys now filled with glaciers were rich
    in vegetation…” Go visit Skaftafell
    Nat’l Park, Iceland, yourself and read the full story there (before the global
    warming cabal, who apparently have an aversion to truth and honesty, go there
    and force the park to remove its signs). .



  • jim_robert

    But here is the visual clincher.

    Here is an ancient white spruce stump found
    on Canada’s Arctic Ocean – a picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra,
    some 100km north of the current treeline. Photo by Professor Ritchie
    (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon
    date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate,
    Present, Past and Future. See
    for this picture, as well as other AGW info.

  • Burrow Owl

    I have been warming my tender backside with pine and various other conifers for 50+ years- in temperatures ranging down to -45 F.
    Methinks you need to pull your head out of your obviously mis-informed nether-regions and stop spreading ignorant bullshit.

    • Dew Free

      Damn that was funny!

  • GeorgeW

    My brother and his wife have been heating their northern Alberta, Canada foothills home for 25 years with pine. 3 bedrooms, no basement. (900 sqft)
    Two pieces in the stove at bed time, still warm in the am. two more in and off they go to work.
    Two when they get home, repeat.
    And last year they upgraded the insulation and replaced the burnt out old wood heater.
    Anyway, pine works great, it even surprised me how well.

  • ddearborn

    So “clean energy” investments are falling even though energy demands are rising? Coal is responsible for the largest percentage of increased “dirty” power. Funny thing though, like gold the “official” line is that coal is declining in price and companies are being driven into bankruptcy because demand is down, way down.
    Of course like the fraud of global warming the demand for coal and gold has been skyrocketing for years. And all the while these same people have been quietly buying up the miners. They did the same thing with agriculture, water, transportation etc. First they drive them to the verge or into bankruptcy and then they pick up the pieces for a few pennies on the dollar. These are modern day robber barons. Global warming was supposed to be the One world order people’s way of instituting a global tax to fund their global control.
    These idiots never learn do they. They keep trying to screw all the people all the time because the math is so appealing and money appears to tantalizingly easy to steal. History has shown over and over that trying to pull this off ends up badly. First they end up destroying entire civilizations. And second they always end up getting destroyed along with them. For a group that considers themselves the “global elite” they really aren’t.

  • abinico

    You have to be stupid – repeat, really stupid, if you think some 7+ billion belching, farting, car driving humans will have no effect on the planet.

  • lifeofliberty

    The fucking idiot moron that wrote this article should be banned from touching a keyboard. Disinformation like this is actually criminal.

  • Grey Winters

    Wood burning is a thousands times dirtier then natural gas.Pine is especially noxious with all its turpines and resins. Don’t get me wrong I burn wood, dry hard and hot, but do I want millions of others doing so. Nope !