K. L. spotted this story, and it's worth talking about because it's an example of what's happening, or rather, not happening in the whole climate change discussion. I submit that there's an odd pattern that has emerged over the decades, if you have been following it. The pattern, briefly, is this: every few weeks a study is released "proving" that "climate change" is real and that it is anthropogenic (man made). Then, a few weeks later, another study will be released, "proving" it is not happening and not man-made. Along the way, we're treated to occasional stories where computer records have been stolen, data fabricated, and so on. And of course there's the whole tautological circular-argument nature of "climate change" itself. I've commented on this at length as well, as in the 1970s we began with predictions of gloom and coming ice ages, then it changed to "global warming," and as that was increasingly challenged, we now have "climate change," a concept so broad that in the popular imagination any change is "proof" that we need to "change our ways."
But it would take someone with their head in a paper bag not to notice that the weather has been awfully "danged peculiar" lately. Europe is baking in a heat wave with temperatures reaching 32 degrees Celsius in Norway recently. Norway! (For those in the Fahrenheit world, that's about 90 degrees). A few weeks ago the American Midwest was hit with so much rain, and so many tornadoes, that records were set, crops were left unplanted. And if you were watching the patterns, the floods began in the upper Midwest, the massive rains hit further south, just as flood waters from the north began to drain into the Missouri-Mississipi river basins, heading south. Then, as a final blow, a hurricane hit New Orleans, just as all that flood water was hitting. Parts of Brooklyn resembled Venice, and while all that was going on, I blogged about scientists wanting to dump a gimongous amount of snow on Antarctica to stop the melting ice pack there (and they seem to have forgotten that snow pack actually locks in heat, in Antarctica's case, much of it geothermal. Thus, the "solution" might be even worse than the problem itself.)
In other words, for all you "climate change deniers" out there, the weather is screwy (as are many of the scientists talking about it).
Which brings us to K.L.'s shared article, and the "pattern" of "discussion" about "climate change":
I want to cite much of the beginning of this article, for a purpose we'll get back to:
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."
In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.
The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era. (Boldface emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added).
Now, if you've been following my occasional blogs on this topic, or for that matter, the work and research of Elana Freeland and others(I highly recommend her book, Under an Ionized Sky), you notice immediately that the one thing shared by most publicly available and discussed climate change studies - whether pro or con - is the complete lack of discussion of various geophysical engineering technologies: cloud seeding, and, for our purposes here, ionospheric heaters. Those technologies are real, and they can cause significant damage. The tragic flood in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 1972 followed directly upon a massive cloud seeding effort. That seeding has expanded, if you've been following the chemtrail story, to include seeding the atmosphere with very different types of heavy metals than those used for rain-making, metals designed to increase the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere, and these in turn would have an effect on cosmic ray bombardment, which will affect the weather as a byproduct of whatever motivations may lie behind this activity, and there's no doubt in my mind that this motivation is military in nature.
More important for our purposes here powerful ionospheric heaters such as the HAARP array. Again, it is admitted in the original patent for this device that it would have the capability of making significant modifications to the properties of the ionosphere on a planetary scale, affecting the magnetosphere, and thus (once again) the magnetic shielding properties of the planet. In short, there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, but, as this study evidences, no one wants to talk about it nor admit it into their studies. As Elana Freeland aptly stated in an interview recently with this author, these technologies and their use mean, in effect, that there is no longer any such thing as purely "natural" weather.
And as I've stated previously, is looks to me as if the whole climate change discussion is being carefully managed, so that those technologies never emerge into the public discussion. The reason is simple: it's not Johnny Rancher or Susie homemaker causing the screwy weather. It more likely is the military-industrial complex, the deep states of the world, and their "toys."
And this Japanese study is yet another example of the glaring material omission: not a word about chemtrails, not a word about ionospheric heaters, and other exotic geophysical engineering technologies. It's as nutty and worthless as the Ocasio Cortez's Green New Deal which it purports to challenge.
See you on the flip side...