Anthropogenic Global Cooling

“In just 2014, the New York Times wrote ‘The End of Snow’ – they do this every mild winter,” Horner added.
“Then severe winter returns with a vengeance and a great sense of humor, and they write ‘More Snow in a
Warming World, the Science Is Clear.’ That’s an actual headline – just a year after writing ‘No Snow in A
Warming World, the Science is Settled.'”

That is an intelligible passage from the following very confusing article:

The same “climate change” scientists and activists who have claimed for more than three decades that
pollutants were driving the planet toward a “global warming” cataclysm are now arguing that human activity is
driving the Earth toward artificially cool temperatures.

These environmental alarmists who have driven the multi-billion-dollar climate change agenda throughout the
globe – one that is pushed by the United Nations and adopted by numerous member nations – have shifted
gears into reverse and currently claim that cleaning up Earth’s atmosphere will result in driving temperatures up.

Climate flip-flop

After finally realizing that the claimed rising temperatures never showed up around the globe, the scientific
community is being told through its most respected publications that specific forms of pollution that are human-
generated are keeping populations from experiencing the toll of other airborne human-made emissions.

“Pollution in the atmosphere is having an unexpected consequence, scientists say – it’s helping to cool the
climate, masking some of the global warming that’s occurred so far,” Scientific American reported last week.
“That means efforts worldwide to clean up the air may cause an increase in warming, as well as other climate
effects, as this pollution disappears.”

After climate alarmists have scared the public and industries about aerosol pollutants – such as emissions at
factories and hairsprays and deodorants at home – are destroying the protective ozone layer and increasing
global temperatures, they are now telling Americans that avoiding such products is not causing global warming.

“New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be,” Scientific American’s Chelsea Harvey
insisted. “A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) suggests that
eliminating the human emission of aerosols – tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities –
could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius.”

She continued the mantra shared by former President Barack Obama and world leaders who signed on to the
Paris climate accord – giving more reasons for the world’s population to follow the climate change agenda out of

“This would virtually ensure that the planet will warm beyond the most stringent climate targets outlined in the
Paris climate agreement,” Harvey continued. “World leaders have set an ambitious goal of keeping global
temperatures within 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius of their preindustrial levels. But research suggests the world has
already warmed by about 1 degree – meaning even another half a degree of warming could push the planet into
dangerous territory.”

She got her newly crafted analysis on climate change from researchers who published their “findings” in order to
shift the global warming movement for the scientific community in a different direction.

“To keep within 1.5 or 2° of global warming, we need massive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,” AGU
Journal’s Geophysical Research Letters insisted. “At the same time, aerosol emissions will be strongly reduced.
We show how cleaning up aerosols, predominantly sulfate, may add an additional half a degree of global
warming, with impacts that strengthen those from greenhouse gas warming. The northern hemisphere is found
to be more sensitive to aerosol removal than greenhouse gas warming, because of where the aerosols are
emitted today.”

Confusing message

WND’s Greg Corombos pointed out the ridiculous nature of the scientific community’s new claims.

“So, after years of telling people their activity is responsible for the climate we experience, climate activists are
now claiming our behavior is responsible for not feeling what we’ve supposedly caused?” Corombos posed in his
WND report.

The flaws behind this revised climate change narrative was brought to light by Competitive Enterprise Institute
Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner, who served with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the
landing team for then-President-elect Donald Trump during the time between his election and inauguration.

“To put it gently, it is a more recent – if recycled – way of trying to explain how their lurid climate projections have
not come to pass,” Horner explained to WND. “They’re now saying, ‘My models, which I said were OK, on which
we were supposed to base economic policy … were actually wrong.’ That’s what they’re saying here. They’re
just saying, ‘My models are wrong and this is my excuse.”

The new semantics were carefully tailored to hide or excuse the fact that climate change scientists’ forecasted
sweltering temperatures ended up being a no-show.

“All of the claimed warming has failed to arrive,” Horner pointed out, noting that so-called climate experts are
now blaming human-generated pollutants as the cause behind all extreme weather phenomena – which they say
is unnatural … and an indication of impending out-of-control catastrophic climate change. “There seems to have
been a several-decade plateau. Yes, we have El Niño and La Niña years, but the projected warming hasn’t

Natural weather cycles that the Earth has undergone for millennia due to the sun’s activity and other natural
factors are frequently attributed to manmade pollutants – in order to move climate change alarmists’ lucrative
green agenda forward … and the mainstream media is always happy to oblige.

“In just 2014, the New York Times wrote ‘The End of Snow’ – they do this every mild winter,” Horner added.
“Then severe winter returns with a vengeance and a great sense of humor, and they write ‘More Snow in a
Warming World, the Science Is Clear.’ That’s an actual headline – just a year after writing ‘No Snow in A
Warming World, the Science is Settled.'”

Climate opportunists?

Besides fluctuating winter conditions, climate alarmists take full advantage of natural disasters to sell their scare
tactics that human pollutants have ushered in uncontrolled cataclysmic weather patterns – similar to what former
Vice President Al Gore did in 2004 and 2005, when numerous destructive hurricanes hit the Gulf and Atlantic
states. Yet little was said after no major hurricanes hit the U.S. coast for more than a decade afterward.

“So, the lack of hurricanes was somehow attributable to catastrophic man-made global warming,” Horner mused
before exposing the deceit behind the climate change agenda. “‘Which time are you lying?’ I suppose is the
question. The increase in storms, the absence of storms, is it everything? Even when it’s just right, Goldilocks, is
that because of your faith in catastrophic man-made global warming?”

He argued that climate science is more like climate religion, as alarmists with advanced degrees claim that every
storm or change in the weather is evidence that a trend of climate catastrophes is looming.

“It’s a non-disprovable hypothesis, which means it’s a faith,” the climate expert impressed. “Their religion
requires them to reach for whatever happens outside the window. Nothing they’ve ever proposed would
detectably impact the climate. This is something I come back to every time because the rest is just this
increasingly bizarre sideshow.”

Words spoken by Gina McCarthy – the EPA administrator who pushed Obama’s green agenda until he left the
White House – were used to make his case and point about alarmists’ doublespeak.

“[McCarthy] testified that there would be no impact on the world’s temperatures from her rules,” Horner
recounted. “Then after Boston’s most severe winter two years ago, she said, ‘This most severe winter is
because of carbon dioxide. If you let these EPA rules stand, we won’t have these storms anymore.'”

It was then stressed that the photos of drowning, starving polar bears clinging to the last piece of melting ice
floating in the Arctic – often used by Gore and other climate change alarmists to draw in more money to fight
global warming and “dangerously rising sea levels” – are no longer working, so a change of narrative is needed
to keep money from environmentalists coming in.

“As a famous EPA memo I found said, ‘Make it about children struggling to breathe – that’s what people care
about because the polar bear stories aren’t persuading people,'” Horner told WND before chuckling about an
anomaly the mainstream media intentionally fails to include in its coverage. “As you know, polar bear populations
plummeted from somewhere below 5,000 to nearly 30,000, so that one had to go.”

Now, alarmists are confusing the issue with their newly devised claim that human activity is driving up aerosol
levels that they say are obscuring damage to the Earth’s climate.

“What we’re now hearing is, ‘The reason it’s not as warm as we promised is because of aerosol pollution’ – it’s
something of a paradox for them because which is it that you want to address?” Horner pondered. “Do you want
cleaner air? That’s not what global warming is about, by the way. Global warming is about controlling the
reliable, affordable, abundant energy sources.”

It was also emphasized that it is lifestyles and bank accounts that climate “experts” truly want to change – not the

“You cannot impact the world’s temperature – their models agree on that,” Horner concluded. “You’re talking
about 1900 levels (in the amount of emissions prescribed). The old PBS show about the house on the prairie,
not Little House on the Prairie but Prairie Living, that’s what you’re talking about. You know, the good old days of
drudgery, disease and infant mortality. What a throwback.”

The Concebot Concept Index