This January 2007 History Channel ‘Megafreeze’ documentary depicts a possible 'mini' ice age scenario just around the corner – hardly ‘global warming’. A growing number of free thinking climate scientists engaged in studying the sun's ‘global warming’ activities (the sun is 99.98% of the mass of the solar system) are growing increasingly sceptical about the ‘Global Warming’ rhetoric of politicians. The 'global warming' phrase it seems has been used to directly mislead the public into an intellectual acceptance of 'carbon taxation'.
However as the ‘global warming’ scenario like the one portrayed here shows - ‘lying’ is really the only ethical option open to Governments - whose pronouncements govern the forward flow of time and history. ‘Global Warming’ sounds a lot better than ‘Global Cooling’ – which publicly pronounced would collapse northern hemisphere based stock markets in a matter of days. What this overly dramatic ‘Global Warming’ documentary does is tell it like it is likely to be.
Ten years is one time frame mentioned in the film but some scientists are talking about 3-5 years. The phrase 'global warming' will, in under 2-3 years be patently obsolete in the northern latitudes at least. Is it helpful to over dramatise potentially real ‘global warming’ scenarios as this work does? Does this approach reduce the likely-hood of rational and informed scientific debate about the subject? Will the ‘tipping point’ about ‘global warming’ come in time for our species to re-organise it’s activities – or will it just be that we lose the ability to feed more than half of the planet’s population in under ten years.
Doom and Gloom? A wake up call? Business as usual? You decide – good luck!
Global warming or global cooling?
