Climate change: blowing hot and cold

The contradictory speculations and theories of science about climate change versus the occult scientific facts

Introduction

In this new investigation we shine a penetrating light on the ever-changing speculations and theories of material science about climate change and compare them to the facts of Occult Science. As we develop our theme we will see just how murky the muddy waters of so-called 'climate science' are and expose the global warming hoax driving the lunatic cult of Net Zero and those who are profiting from it. This is followed by a review of what is known about climate and the real factors which drive the weather, both on Earth and in the wider Kosmos of which our solar system is a part. In our customary afterword we review the exaggerated and histrionic predictions about the changing climate made by scientists during the last half-century.

One cannot turn on the television, radio or open a newspaper without hearing about climate change and global warming. Self-appointed 'experts' tell us there is a climate crisis. The world is heating up rapidly and something must be done now, if not yesterday or we are all doomed. A whole generation of children have been frightened half to death by the predictions of climate Armageddon hanging over their heads. Their older contemporaries glue themselves to bridges, streets and works of art in their adherence to the utterly mad dogma of Net Zero. Yet, if we turn back the clock a mere fifty years, we find previous generations of 'experts' warning us about an imminent ice age. Which is correct? Are we roasting to death or freezing to death, or both? These are among the questions this new investigation aims to answer. Along the way we can promise you quite a few surprises, not least that material science has very little idea of what really controls the climate of our planet.

Blowing hot and cold

The climate is constantly changing. This should be self evident to anyone who has a window to look out of. Hot and cold cycles have succeeded one another throughout human history, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions of years to just a few years, or even weeks. Fossil records and geological samples prove that for most of the Earth’s history conditions were much warmer than they are today. Two million years ago forests extended almost to the north pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, the temperature in northern Europe was sufficiently warm to attract hippopotami and other sub-tropical animals. Roman legislation from the end of the first century A.D., strictly limited the amount of grapes that could be grown in Britain. Such draconian laws would not have been enacted unless British wine was seen as a serious threat to the dominance of the native Italian market. Consequently, the climate in the British Isles must have been warmer 2,000 years ago than it is now. The Domesday Book completed in 1086 recorded the existence of no less than 46 vineyards in this country.

This was made possible by what is known as the Medieval Warm Period. This cycle lasted from 900 to 1300 A.D. The warmer climate brought a flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe. Agricultural yields increased, marshes and swamps dried up, removing breeding grounds for mosquitoes that spread malaria, and wetlands were turned into productive farmland. In general, civilization has tended to flourish during warm periods, while cold periods have brought more drought, famine, disease, and wars. None of this should surprise us and yet the public have been brainwashed into thinking that any increase in global temperature spells disaster for the planet and mankind. The Medieval Warm Period was followed by what is known as 'the Little Ice Age', which lasted some 500 years, from about 1350 to 1850. During this cold cycle, the Thames froze regularly in winter, the ice being thick enough for fairs to be held on it. Further north, people were able to travel from Poland to Sweden across the Baltic Sea on sleds, staying overnight in accommodation built on the ice.

We are not quite out of the freezer today. The winter of 1875-76 was bitterly cold, especially in South East England. The first week of December dumped two feet of snow in the Midlands. The South West of the country recorded large falls of up to 14 inches of snow in the winter of 1916-17. The following seasons were warmer until the winter of 1946-47 which saw the coldest weather since 1814. The winter of 1962-63 will be remembered by some of our British readers as one of the coldest (and longest) winters ever recorded in the United Kingdom. Dubbed the 'Big Freeze' by the press, Snow drifts reached heights of more than 20 feet (6 metres) in places, driven by gale force easterly winds, blocking roads and railways. In January 1963, the sea froze for a distance of one mile (1.6 km) from shore at Herne Bay, in Kent. Only the winters of 1683–1684 and 1739–1740 were colder. Another 'Big Freeze' occurred in 2009-10, affecting the whole of Europe. In Northern Italy temperatures plummeted to -17°C while in Poland 15 people froze to death as overnight temperatures dropped to -20°C.

Yet the summers of 1976 and 1990 were some of the hottest ever recorded in the UK and Europe. During seven successive days in July 1976 the temperature never fell below 35.9°C (96.6°F) in much of England. The opening week of May 1990 was the warmest of the 20th century, with monthly records broken not just in England but also in the Highlands of Scotland, where the mercury soared to 28.3°C in Inverness. Temperatures peaked in early August at 37.1°C (98.9°F), beating the previous record set in the summer of 1911. This not only shows that the climate is constantly changing but that these fluctuations have little or nothing to do with the activities of man. There were no coal-fired power stations pumping out noxious gasses during the Medieval Warm Period mentioned earlier, nor, to the best of our knowledge, were the highways and byways of this green and pleasant land clogged with motor traffic! But it is not just the climate which blows hot and cold, scientists do so too, never more so than today, as we shall see next when we examine the speculations and theories of science about climate.

Capricious climatologists

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that carbon dioxide is now the main driver of climate change, and that the Earth will warm by up to 5° Centigrade (9° Fahrenheit) by the end of the 21st century, resulting in catastrophic floods, famines and widespread doom and disaster. As we shall see, this hysterical claim is simply not supported by the facts. Climate scientists tell us that warming over the past 150 years has occurred mainly in northern latitudes, in the winter and at night. There has been much less warming in the tropics and in the southern hemisphere. But is this accurate? The modern preference (we almost said 'malpractice') of siting measuring equipment at or near to airports where large expanses of tarmac, heat from airplanes and support vehicles artificially inflate readings is not representative of real-world temperatures.

We have graver concerns about the ubiquitous use of computer modelling to predict the weather by 'simulating' the Earth's climate. These concerns have been increased by the great harm done to public health and the economy by the reliance on similar simulations during the covid-19 pandemic. Climate change models typically divide the atmosphere, oceans and land into a three-dimensional grid system. Grid cells range from 100 to 200 km wide and 1 km deep. Anything smaller requires considerably more computing power and processing time, and hence is rarely, if ever done. This raises a serious problem since many important weather phenomena occur on scales much smaller than the large resolutions commonly used. Climate scientists get over this problem by employing a process called 'parameterization'. This sounds very 'scientific' until we look into the process more closely. We then discover it depends on one or more parameters that are not precisely known but are nonetheless used to influence the results of the climate model being evaluated. If that sounds awfully like guesswork you would be right. Hence, the proud boast that computer modelling is a thoroughly scientific method for predicting changes in climate falls to the ground. If it were, we should expect modern weather forecasts to be more accurate than those which relied on weather ships, atmospheric balloons and physical observation in the past. We all know this is not the case. Moreover, if climatology were a genuine science, there would be only one model, and that would match reality. Instead, there are dozens of competing models, each 'tuned' differently according to the aims of the modeller and the outcome desired by whomever is funding the research.

As we mentioned earlier, the biggest driver of climate change is said to be carbon dioxide. This claim is not supported by the facts either. CO2 accounts for just over 0.04% of the gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. The others are nitrogen (78.0%), oxygen (21.0%) and argon (0.9%). The final 0.1% is made up of many other gases, of which carbon dioxide is just one. Even the most rabid of climate change advocates admit that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was far higher in the geologic past than it is today. Yet this didn't lead to catastrophic global warming, never mind climate Armageddon. The demonization of carbon dioxide as a 'pollutant' or 'poison' is both ignorant and idiotic. CO2 is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, nontoxic gas that is vital for life on Earth. It is one of the raw materials for photosynthesis, the process whereby plants and other organisms use energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates to sustain their growth. This is accompanied by the release of oxygen, which has built up in the atmosphere, allowing higher life forms to evolve. Over the last 200 years, thousands of laboratory and field experiments have shown quite conclusively that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have many beneficial effects on terrestrial and aquatic plants. Commercial gardeners add extra CO2 to their greenhouses to boost crop yields. In addition, satellite data shows that between 25% and 50% of Earth’s vegetated lands have undergone significant greening over the last 35 years. So another sacred Shibboleth of the toxic global warming cult falls to the ground.

The End is Nigh

As we said in our introduction, we are daily inundated with dire warnings of the climate crisis which we are told is threatening the world. "The clock is ticking: we only have 10 years to save the planet." Doomsayers have been spouting this nightmarish nonsense for over half a century. As we discuss in some depth in our afterword it all began with the global cooling scare of the 1960's. The sombre predictions of a freezing future continued well into the early 1980s, whereupon, the scientists changed tack and began to blow hot rather than cold. Crazy climate crusaders like U.S. ex-presidential candidate Al Gore made fortunes from promoting the man-made global warming hoax. In 2006 Gore gleefully announced that the climate 'tipping point' was still 10 years away. In 2008 he announced that it was still 10 years away. King Charles III, then Prince of Wales, another doomsday dupe, confidently declared in 2009 that we had just eight years to prevent climate catastrophe. Two years before the predicted deadline in 2015, the princely prognosticator told a relieved public that the apocalypse had been postponed to 2050. The reprieve was short-lived, for in 2019 he changed his mind yet again and proclaimed that we had only 18 months to save the planet. By the time you read this, the End of the World may already be upon us. In which case this article will have been written in a damp cave somewhere in Snowdonia.

In October 2018 the ever-optimistic IPCC issued Special Report 15, which led to claims that we had 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. The report was designed to ramp up support for "unprecedented measures" to transform global society ahead of a climate conference (COP24) held in Katowice in Poland. When we began this article in late 2022, COP27 had just been held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. Clearly the delegates had learnt one important lesson about climate: Egypt is a more desirable location than Poland in December! None of these climate circuses which began with COP1, held in Berlin in 1995, have made the slightest difference to the fictitious phenomena of global warming. Those for whom 'follow the money' has become the overriding key to what is really going on in the world will need no convincing that the climate change hoax has more to do with politics, prestige and trousering pocketfuls of cash than it has with 'following the science'. The emails leaked during the 2009 Climategate scandal exposed the efforts by a well-funded clique of alarmists to manipulate science to fit the catastrophist narrative, and to silence and sideline scientists with opposing views. As we saw during the coronavirus pandemic, all the timeless tools of propaganda, misinformation, and psychological manipulation have been used to ramp up fear about global warming, including the falsification of data, corruption, bribery and malfeasance in science. The deliberate subversion of formerly independent scientists and universities, and the insidious indoctrination of children from kindergarten upwards are perhaps the worst aspects of this continuing campaign of fear. Evil is not too strong a word to describe the cruel hoax which has been perpetrated on mankind. None of this would have been possible without the almost total compliance of the media.

Hence, it is not generally known that over 1,000 eminent international scientists, of every political persuasion, vehemently disagree with the IPCC consensus on climate change. Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore left the organization in 1986 because he preferred "science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, and fear." He is by no means alone, but you won't find corroboration of the widespread opposition to the IPCC's position on any 'authoritative' website or in the pages of any popular newspaper. This gives us a measure of the almost absolute censorship which continues to silence any voice raised in protest against the toxic cult of man-made climate change and global warming. Before we leave this unsavoury topic, it is worth mentioning that from 1993 to 2013 total U.S. expenditure on climate change amounted to more than 165 billion dollars. The UK expects to spend north of 30 billion pounds on climate change between 2021 and 2025. Across the channel, the European Union has allocated no less than 221 billion Euros on measures to 'fight' climate change from 2021 to 2027. Between 2019 and 2021, annual global expenditure on climate change was $630 billion. If you thought that was rather a lot of money to spend on solving a problem that doesn't exist, you will be even more surprised to learn that one climate change 'think tank' has estimated that the world needs to spend $4 trillion — yes, FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS — every single year to combat global warming. That is roughly five times the annual defence budget of the United States. Follow the money...indeed!

The elephant in the Kosmos

Occult Science teaches that the Sun is the source of Life and Light for our planet and all that dwells upon it. Consequently, it would be strange indeed if it had no or minimal effect upon the climate of the Earth. Yet, this is exactly the position adopted by most climate scientists, though the IPCC grudgingly admits that the Sun may contribute 5% to global warming! This flies in the face of centuries of observation and research into sunspot cycles, the fluctuating solar wind and magnetic storms. It has been known for well over a century that changes in the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth, variations in the Earth’s orientation and rotation rate, as well as the gravitational effects associated with the relative motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets, all affect the climate. Known to an ever-diminishing breed of open-minded scientists that is, not to the clowns who sit on the IPCC and those who promote and support its global warming hoax.

As we learnt in our article about the Occult Sun published in 2016, it is the interaction of the Sun's rays with the terrestrial electromagnetic field which produces the phenomena of heat. Some scientists are starting to acknowledge this occult fact, though most still cling to the theory that the Sun itself emits heat. Such interactions also influence the Earth’s angular momentum, which affects the movement of the jet stream and hence global climate. It has been shown that there is a definite correlation between low sunspot numbers and cold periods on Earth, such as the Oort Minimum (1040-1080), the Wolf Minimum (1280-1350), the Maunder Minimum (1645-1710) and the Dalton Minimum (1795-1825). Sunspot activity is currently at its lowest level since the Dalton Minimum. Past experience suggests that this is more likely to result in global cooling than warming. Our regular readers may recall that we discussed the phenomena of sunspots, their cause and significance in the aforementioned article. We will not repeat ourselves except to say that the Sun is the beating heart of our Kosmos, and like the organ in the human body it maintains a regular rhythm, sending Life coursing through the solar system, and drawing it back again at each contraction of the solar heart. But for those smug scientists who sit on the IPCC the Sun is the elephant in the room, or rather the Kosmos and, so they say, has a negligible effect on climate.

If they even suspected a fraction of what Occult Science knows about the Sun all their theories would have to be abandoned, and with them the very foundations of the science they fondly imagine not only explains the mechanisms which govern climate, but is able to predict it, even centuries ahead. Truly, the arrogance of man knows no bounds, nor is there any limit to ignorance, and climate scientists are the living proof! Let us leave these woeful prophets of doom to their feverish calculations and computer modelling and see what Occult Science knows about climate and the laws which govern it. But before we do so, we wish to make it quite clear that we do not regard all scientists as ignorant and self-seeking as those who promote and profit from the man-made climate change hoax. Many scientists are honest and sincere seekers after Truth, no matter that they look for it in the material realm only. A few, as we shall see in the next section, even come close to agreeing with the facts and laws of Occult Science, though they couch their theories and discoveries in different words. As we said in our article on Scientific Materialism, "we praise with all our heart and mind the great and good scientists, who work for the betterment of humanity in full consciousness of their responsibilities to man and duty to God." Sadly, such scientists are few and daily becoming fewer.

The occult facts about climate

As we said earlier, the dominant factor that controls the climate of the Earth is the Sun. This is determined partly by the amount and type of energy emitted by our parent star and partly by changes in the orbit of the Earth. Science has now discovered what occultists have long known, that the Earth is subject to a 22,000-year climatic-precession cycle, and a 41,000-year axial-tilt cycle, both of which play an important part in the climate of our planet. In addition, the poorly understood 11 and 22 year sunspot cycle also affects the Earth's climate as we shall see later when we come to discuss this poorly understood phenomena. Poorly understood by material science, that is, not by Occult Science.

Science currently believes that the Sun emits two kinds of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation which provides light and warmth and so-called 'corpuscular' radiation which is composed of charged particles (ions and electrons) and constitutes the solar wind. Occult Science says the whole of this theory is mostly wrong. What it is that the Sun actually emits we discussed in the afterword to our article on the Occult Sun. We will not repeat ourselves except to say that Sun Force, as this energy is called by occultists, is a type of Aether. Readers unfamiliar with the nature and properties of these substances are referred to the two articles which describe and explain them (see above links). Some thinking scientists are beginning to investigate Sun Force, among them Canadian molecular biologist, Dr. Paulo Correa and his wife Alexandra, who have coined the term 'aetherometry' to describe their researches into the Occult Aether. They posit that the Sun does not emit electromagnetic radiation as material science believes; radiation that then travels through space and is absorbed or reflected in the Earth’s atmosphere or by its surface, but what they call aetheric ('mass free') electric radiation. This comes very close to the occult concept of Aether.

Another factor affecting climate is dust. As long ago as 1876, oceanographer Sir John Murray published a paper in which he wrote, "There can be little doubt that the air up to a great height above the Earth’s surface is impregnated with dust." Science has since confirmed that the solar system is surrounded by a cloud of dust associated with disintegrating asteroids and cometary debris, probably of interstellar origin. Some scientists have suggested that galactic core explosions could push large amounts of cosmic dust into the solar system, bringing about warming or cooling on Earth. It is also thought the influx of interstellar dust increases when the solar system periodically passes through denser regions of Space. Some ice core studies confirm these hypotheses, suggesting that at certain times during the geologic past dust was accumulating hundreds of times faster than it does today.

In 1992/93, the Ulysses spacecraft detected a stream of very small interstellar grains near Jupiter coming from the approximate direction of the galactic centre. It is now known that the Earth itself is surrounded by a substantial cloud of dust, stretching, in decreasing density, for over 90,000 miles (150,000 km) out into space. Moreover, an estimated 100 tons of cosmic dust rains down on our heads every day. It is found upon the snows of the highest mountains and on the surface of the sea. Over millions of years this increases the weight of the Earth which affects its rotation and revolution. It also increases its force of attraction, and the more this is increased the more cosmic dust, and other bodies, fall upon its surface. What the end of this dusty accretion will be science cannot predict, but it may be one of the causes of the shifting of the poles, a subject we shall explore next, resulting in important changes in climate. Occult Science confirms all these dusty discoveries, particularly the theory that Space consists of regions of varying density which must affect the climate of our planet over time. We shall come back to this important point later.

In The Secret Doctrine, H. P. Blavatsky writes, "According to the old teaching, the axis of the Earth gradually changes its inclination to the ecliptic." This phenomena is known to science as the 'precession of the equinoxes' or 'axial precession.' Blavatsky went on to say that the inclination of the Earth's axis slowly changes by 4° every precessional cycle, which is equal to roughly 25,920 solar years. At present the angle of inclination is decreasing, which means that the Earth's axis, which is currently inclined at 23°26', is steadily moving towards an upright position. Scientists squabble about the precise rate of movement, but it's generally thought to be between 47 to 56 arc-seconds per century. Consequently, the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are receding from the poles and approaching the equator, while the Arctic and Antarctic circles are receding from the equator and approaching the poles. If this 4° shift is correct it means that just over 430,000 years ago the tilt was 90°. In other words the Earth was lying on its side with its axis in the plane of the ecliptic. At that time the tropics were at the poles and the polar circles were at the equator. In just over 150,000 years, the tilt will reach 0°, and the Earth’s axis will be perpendicular to the ecliptic. The tropics will then coincide with the equator and the polar circles will be at the poles. Needless to add, these changes have a dramatic effect upon the Earth's climate, turning tropical regions into frozen wastelands and vice versa. It is noteworthy in this connection that Uranus is the only planet in the solar system to orbit spinning on its side, due to its axial tilt of nearly 98°.

Madame Blavatsky makes several references to times when the Earth’s axis was more or less upright and enjoyed an 'eternal spring'. This does not mean that every part of the planet basked in spring-like weather all year round, but day and night would always be of approximately equal length and there would be no major seasonal changes such as we currently experience due to the inclination of the Earth's axis. Jupiter's axis, for instance is inclined at just over 3°. So if there were any beings dwelling upon it they would enjoy an eternal spring. In addition to the gradual inversion of the axis, amounting to about 4° per 25,920 years mentioned earlier, sudden, unexpected pole shifts or axial disturbances can occur, resulting in major geological upheavals. It is possible that Uranus suffered such a catastrophe in the distant past which resulted in its present axial inversion, perhaps as the result of a close encounter with another planet or large comet.

Solar cycles and planetary motion

The Chinese have recorded sunspot activity since 364 B.C., long before the 17th Century, when Galileo first saw them through his telescope. Because of the distance of the Sun, the smaller sunspots, which are the most common, are the hardest to detect; the smallest size for practical observation being about 150 miles in diameter. Spots with diameters of 40,000 to 50,000 miles are quite common, and instances have been recorded where a number of spots were so close together that they blended into one area of nearly 7,000,000 square miles. Though sunspots can appear singly or in larger numbers, they usually travel in pairs, the smaller ones lasting for only a few hours or days while the large ones last for a month or more. The number and location of sunspots fluctuates throughout the sunspot cycle which varies from as short as nine years to as long as fourteen years. However, the average is about 11 years. This cycle is actually half of a longer, 22-year cycle of solar activity. Sunspots are usually found in groups, and further, in a two-spot group the leader and follower are of opposite magnetic polarity which reverses depending upon which hemisphere they are in, i.e. in the northern hemisphere the leading spot is a 'north-seeker' and in the southern a 'south-seeker'. What is more, they commence their cycle approximately 30 degrees north and south and near the end of the cycle they have drifted to about 8 degrees above and below the equator by which time the new cycle commences again around 30 degrees north and south, but now the leaders will have an opposite polarity to the first 11 year cycle. Hence successive 11 year cycles produce similar but opposite phenomena, because a complete cycle takes 22 years owing to the fact that the two-spot group leaders reverse their polarity. The significance of these facts will not be lost on the occultists among our readers who know that the Sun performs the same role in the solar system as the heart does in the human body.

This is where things get even more interesting. In the early 1960s a Russian scientist by the name of Alexander L. Chizhevsky reported correlations between cycles of sunspot activity and epidemics on Earth. Even more significant is his discovery that years of minimal solar activity (solar minimum) correspond with great migrations of people, wars, and revolutions. In 2019 NASA reported that the Sun had entered a new solar minimum which is expected to last until about 2030. Another Soviet scientist, Dr Kobyizev, said: "Years of minimal Sun activity correspond with epidemics of other illnesses such as diphtheria and with earthquakes." Many scientists in the West supported these Soviet observations, such as British biophysicist Professor Joseph Cecil Maby (1902-1971). In the United States, Dr Leonard Ravitz, a neuropsychiatrist from Yale University, reported that the phases of the Moon, the Sun's position, cosmic and gamma rays, sunspot radiation, and other disturbances of the Earth's magnetic field have an impact on the force fields around our bodies. At the same time, Dr Robert Becker (1923-2008), now widely regarded as the father of electrotherapy and electrochemically induced cellular regeneration, believed that he had proved that these subtle changes in the Earth's magnetic fields (caused by the Sun, Moon and planets), actually alter the force field of the human body, which in turn affects the nervous system. He published his findings in The Body Electric in 1985. If they affect the human body they must also affect the climate of the body we dwell upon — the Earth.

As far back as 1947 John H. Nelson, a radio wave analyst, began studying sunspots and correlating the results he obtained with the movements of the planets. He reported that sunspots were not the sole cause of magnetic weather conditions. He found that these disruptive forces could be forecast months or even years ahead, so that radio engineers would have ample time to select the best channels to avoid interruption. By plotting the daily course of the six inner planets of the solar system over a period of ten years and correlating this with radio conditions on Earth, Nelson found that:

When two or more planets are at right angles to each other, or in line on the same side of the Sun — or in line with the Sun between them — magnetic disturbances occur more frequently on the Earth's surface.
The most disturbed twelve-month periods are those preceding and following the positions of Saturn and Jupiter in such a configuration with relation to the Sun.
The most severe disturbances occur when Mars, Venus, Mercury and the Earth are in critical relationship near points of the Saturn-Jupiter configuration.
When Saturn and Jupiter have moved away from their critical relationship, there is a corresponding decline in the severity of magnetic weather.
The least disturbed periods occur when Saturn, Jupiter and Mars are equally spaced by 120°.

The astrologers among our readers will note that Nelson carefully avoided the use of such astrological terms as 'Square' (90°), 'Conjunction' (0°), 'Opposition' (180°), and 'Trine' (120°) to describe the angular configurations (aspects) of the planets. This is not surprising when we consider that astrology was (and still is) regarded as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. Nelson combined his planetary observations with a daily telescopic inspection of the Sun's surface, obtaining an accuracy of 85% in his daily forecast of good and bad radio weather. He also predicted major magnetic terrestrial disturbances two years in advance. It is noteworthy that Piers Corbyn, a contemporary British amateur meteorologist, uses similar techniques to Nelson's to make his weather predictions. The fact that these are often more accurate than the forecasts issued by the Met Office is never mentioned by his many critics.

So far as we know Nelson's work has never been followed up, though the effect of the angular configurations of the planets has long been known to Occult Science. Since time immemorial astrologers have predicted the weather by observing the changing positions of the planets. Many organic farmers and keen gardeners still observe the phases of the Moon to determine the best times for sowing and harvesting. The writer's grandfather, for instance, would never dream of sowing seeds during a waning Moon. This may account for the fact that his garden produce was the envy of his neighbours! Astrological weather forecasting is known as Astrometeorology and has a long and illustrious history going back to the Roman astrologer Ptolemy and before. It is still practised today by a small but dedicated number of astrologers. The present writer studied it in his youth and found it to be astonishingly accurate. Regrettably we don't have the time or space to discuss this fascinating branch of astrological lore in this investigation, but interested readers may wish to try to obtain the out-of-print book about it included in our Further reading list. Unsurprisingly, a search on the Internet for definitive information or books on astrometeorology returns no worthwhile results. Wikipedia, for instance, gives us the helpful information that astrometeorology is a pseudoscience. Well, as we have seen in this investigation, we view so-called climate 'science' in the same light!

Conclusion

Before we conclude this investigation we wish to revisit a point mentioned earlier: that Space consists of regions of varying density. Our solar system orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy; our local Universe. The same applies to all other solar systems within this or any other galaxy, such as our near neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy. If you look at pictures of this magnificent object (shown below), you will see there is a massive, glowing object at its heart.

A similar glow has been detected at the centre of our own Milky Way Galaxy but intervening dust clouds hide it from view. This contradicts the prevailing scientific theory that there is a massive 'black hole' at the centre of our galaxy. So what is this mysterious glow? Occult Science says it is the concealed Sun, the true source of Life and Light throughout our galaxy of which our Sun is the mirror. In The Secret Doctrine we may read that the concealed Sun "is the central body in the milky way, a point unseen and mysterious, the ever-hidden centre of attraction of our Sun and system." The amount of energy emitted by this body must be truly enormous. As our solar system travels around the glowing heart of our galaxy, it must pass through various climates which may account for the so-called Ice-Ages, or Tropical Ages which the Earth experiences during its journey of many billions of mortal centuries. The Universal Hermetic law 'As above, so below' discussed in part eight of our 12-part investigation of the true teachings of Hermes Trismegistus affirms that variations of temperature must occur within interstellar space, outside the temperatures of our solar system, just as they do within it. At present we may be in a more or less temperate zone in the galaxy, but no one can tell when we shall reach another one in which the temperature is hotter or colder. These things too are subject to cycles, utterly unknown to those pushing the cult of Net Zero, who in their blindness and arrogance assume that lowly man — that evanescent illusion — can alter the climate of the tiny speck of dust he inhabits for a brief moment in Eternity. O! The presumption and folly of men!

Search our website

Scientific sophisms

In our afterword we review the exaggerated and histrionic predictions made about the changing climate by scientists during the last half-century

Scientists, politicians and princes have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. As we shall see, none of their apocalyptic prophecies have come true. When they fail they are quietly consigned to the wastebasket of news and never mentioned again. It took some considerable digging for us to find the collection of wild and wacky predictions we would like to share with you in this afterword.

Were it not for the Internet and its annoying habit of retaining information the custodians of orthodoxy would rather people didn't know we doubt whether we would have found the mountain of evidence which exposes the half-truths, misinformation and downright falsehoods about the Earth's climate which have been fed to the public over the past half-century.

So, put the kettle on, pull up a comfy chair and lay in a stock of your favourite nibbles. This survey of the sophisms of science could take some considerable time. We begin fifty-six years ago with a headline from the Los Angeles Times which warned its readers in 1967 that, "the time of famines is upon us and will be at its worst and most disastrous by 1975."

Two years later in 1969 no less a voice of authority than the New York Times reported: "unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years." What ever did they mean by 'blue steam'? Cigarette smoke? Forest fires? Boiling seas? Smog? A surfeit of clouds? Too few clouds? Your guess is as good as ours. Not that it matters; like all the doom-laden predictions we dug up, this one never came to pass.

After a scientific conference in December 1972, the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University in the United States wrote to the then U.S. President Richard Nixon to warn him of 'glacial temperatures in about a century'. Two years earlier the Boston Globe had carried a headline: 'Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century'.

In 1975, Newsweek portentously announced 'The Cooling World', forecasting a subsequent dramatic decline in food production and widespread famine. On this side of the 'Pond', the normally sober Geographical Magazine published continuously since 1936, asked: "how will technological man adapt to the next inevitable glaciation?" Fortunately he didn't need to as the following summer of 1976 was the hottest Europe had experienced in the 20th century, as we mentioned early on in our investigation at left.

There was quite a heat wave in 1972 too. Almost 900 people died in the North-eastern United States of America. This did not stop the forecasts of the time on both sides of the Atlantic warning that a new ice age was imminent. 'Space satellites show new ice age coming', the Guardian told its readers on 29 January 1974. Science News in the U.S. was more cautious, asking 'The Ice Age Cometh?' In Washington, the Associated Press reported that the Arctic Ice cap had expanded 12% for the first time in the 20th century. It went on to state ominously, "One statistic stands out: a study of temperatures around the globe shows the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for 30 years."

The scaremongering by the press lurched between implausible and preposterous for another ten years. But by the mid-1980s it became clear to even the most fanatical of 'global cooling' adherents that cat was not only well and truly out of the bag, but looking decidedly hot and bothered. The climatologists realised that something had to be done if they were to maintain their authority and credibility.

What they did was take a leaf out of the book that has become the 'go-to' manual for 21st century politicians and plutocrats — Nineteen Eighty-Four — and substitute new lies for old. Global cooling was out and global warming was in. There had never been any predictions of a new ice age. The public were to banish all thoughts of global cooling from their minds and buy more air-conditioners and ceiling fans.

Science has never allowed a few embarrassing facts to get in the way of its cherished fictions and delusions. But when the facts become so overwhelming as to make its theories unsustainable, it quietly drops them. So it was 'goodbye global cooling and hello global warming'. Not that anyone bothered to tell the polar bears. They could expire of heat exhaustion for all the climate scientists cared.

Happily for them (the scientists that is, not the polar bears), the gullibility of the public and the shortness of its collective memory knows no bounds. This ensured that the new cult of global warming, or 'wobble glooming' as one wit has dubbed it, soon won almost total acceptance and became the new scientific 'fact'. Very few people now are even aware there was a previous cult of global cooling, never mind remember the mountain of so-called 'scientific' evidence trotted out in support of it.

Yet, try as they might, the climatologists have been unable to entirely make away with the embarrassing Mammoth in the permafrost. They are not yet able to completely rewrite history like the Party did in George Orwell's dystopian novel. In it Winston Smith learns that "Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally."

Orwell continues: "There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy." Substitute Eastasia for global warming and Eurasia for global cooling and the climate scientists' volte-face is plain for all to see. They didn't admit that any change had taken place either.

The cult of global cooling began in the 1960's. One of its champions was American biologist Paul Ehrlich. In 1967 he warned journalists, "we will freeze to death in the dark," adding that "global cooling will cover North America in ice and snow by the year 1990." Ehrlich went on to assure the public that between 1980 and 1989, some four billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the 'Great Die-Off.' They didn't.

A few years later, in 1970, Ehrlich predicted that America would be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980. It wasn't. Some might argue, and climatologists probably would, that Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climate scientist. This is typical of the knavish ways in which the supporters and promoters of the global warming hoax dismiss any criticism of their position and stifle honest and open debate. Today this is called 'cancelling' and it works very well indeed as many honest scientists and journalists have discovered to their cost.

Not to be outdone by the lugubrious Ehrlich, another American harbinger of doom, James P. Lodge Jr., a scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), warned that air pollution may obliterate the Sun and cause a new ice age by the 21st century. He was not the only scientist predicting a global freeze.

In 1975, one John P. Holden, later to be appointed as ex-president Obama's science adviser said, "The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave unprecedented in recorded history."

Even back then, scientists were just as happy blowing hot as blowing cold. Holden went on to do just that by cunningly hedging his bets. "If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter. Again, the exact form such consequences might take is unknown; the melting of the ice caps with a concomitant 150-foot increase in sea level might be one of them."

You see, you can have it both ways! In predicting both catastrophic global freezing and frying without committing himself to either scenario, Holden assured himself a prime seat on the lucrative climate change bandwagon. Four years earlier another slippery scientist, Dr Rasool of NASA had warned, "The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age." That would take us to 2030, so there is still plenty of time for this prophet of poppycock to be vindicated.

The British were not slow to catch up. On 29 January 1974, the darling of environmentalists, the Guardian, reported, "Worldwide and rapid trends towards a mini Ice Age are emerging from the first long term analyses of satellite weather pictures. Research carried out at Columbia University in New York by European climatologists Doctors George and Helena Kukla indicates that snow cover of the Earth increased by 12% during 1967-1972."

The climate change 'sceptics' and global warming 'deniers' among our readers will be tickled pink to learn that kukla is the Russian word for doll or puppet. Does this mean that George and Helena Kukla were having their strings pulled by perfidious puppeteers working behind the scenes? You may very well think so; we couldn't possibly comment!

In 1979, the New York Times reported that "Rapid increases in fuel burning and a consequent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide indicate that mid-latitudes in the United States, Eastern Siberia and Western Europe would be cooled by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit [9°C]." Hang on a minute. Isn't excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere supposed to be responsible for global warming, not cooling?

As we said in our investigation, the media was still banging on about the coming ice age well into the 1980s. "Something strange is happening to the weather throughout the world," wailed the United States press in March 1984. "Chills and droughts in recent years have hit not only here, but also in Europe, Africa, Asia, New Zealand and South America. Even near the equator, in subtropical Brazil, snow and frost repeatedly have devastated the coffee plantations."

It's just as well the Brazilian coffee plantations recovered or a million baristas would be out of work and the dictionary would never have acquired a new word for 'coffee shop assistants.' Just imagine a world without 'skinny lattes' and 'flat whites'. People might go back to ordering a plain cup of coffee. It doesn't bear thinking about!

Now, of course, all talk of global cooling and ice ages — mini, midi or maxi, has been silenced in favour of the mantra of global warming. Thank goodness most people have such short memories or the climate change lunatics now in charge of the asylum would be out of a job and we would not be facing economic meltdown due to our Government's commitment to the lucrative cult of Net Zero.

In 1989, a senior environmentalist at the United Nations (or possibly just another very well paid climate change lunatic), announced that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000." Only last year, the BBC, that utterly predictable bastion of climate change propaganda, wailed ominously, "Rising sea levels threaten 200,000 England properties."

In America, NASA did the same, predicting that sea levels along contiguous U.S. coastlines would rise by as much as 12 inches by 2050. Cynics may question the accuracy of this prediction given that ex-presidents, media moguls and other members of the billionaire global elite all own palatial properties along the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Do they know something NASA doesn't? Or are NASA telling porkies? Once again, we couldn't possibly say!

On 14 December 2008, at the COP15 Climate Conference held in Montreal, Canada, the former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be completely free of ice in five years. It wasn't and it isn't. Which is good news for polar bears but not for climate change scientists. Not that they or the public care as the same predictions are still being trotted out today. Or, rather the goalposts are being constantly moved.

On 9 July 2009, the then heir to the throne, Prince (now King) Charles told an audience of industrialists and panic-stricken environmentalists at St James's Palace that, "we have just 96 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it." Ninety-six months is twelve years which takes us to 2021. If the climate and ecosystem collapsed irretrievably two years ago we must have missed it. Perhaps we were too busy being locked down (or up) at the time to notice?

Not to be upstaged by a green-fingered scion of the aristocracy, a few months' later, on 20 October, the Independent quoted the then Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown as saying: "We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe." Perhaps he was referring to himself? He was out of office barely six months later after losing the General Election in May 2010.

In 2016, the Guardian quoted Peter Wadhams, Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, who predicted that, "next year or the year after the Arctic will be free of ice." We're sure it's nothing more than a fortuitous coincidence that Professor Wadhams’ book A Farewell to Ice was published at the same time as the Guardian article. This enthusiastic champion of 'climate engineering' has since noted that "climate model predictions have been overly conservative regarding sea ice decline."

Whether this amounts to a retraction of his prediction, a modification of it, or an actual apology, is open to question. Cynics might argue that an admission of error by a scientist is about as likely as a turkey voting for Christmas. Consequently, we cannot be sure whether the good professor is 'following the science' or the money. Our readers will no doubt have their own views on which is the most likely.

Whatever the truth may be, it is clear that the 'science' was by no means 'settled' when Professor Wadhams made his prediction. In a study published in Geophysical Research Letters barely two years later, the authors stated "We project an increase in winter Arctic sea ice growth over the coming decades..." Yet, at the other end of the Earth, the ice was already growing. In 2014, the Daily Mail reported that, "Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING: Big freeze breaks records — but scientists claim the rise is caused by global warming."

You couldn't make it up. But as we have repeatedly seen in this afterword, scientists continually do make it up. Why is a question outside the scope of this article, but we gave you one hint when we said that 'following the money' may be more important than 'following the science', or as the American writer Upton Sinclair famously put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

By 2017, the 16°F 'cooling' reported by the New York Times in 1979, had magically morphed into 1.8°F of 'warming', according to former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, three top climate scientists and two 'sustainability' experts from the 'business' sector. How can such highly respected authorities possibly be wrong? Like a dog wedded to its bone, the global warming cultists never let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way of profitable fictions.

In April 2020 several British newspapers reported that the Arctic Ocean will likely be ice-free before 2050. The source of this chilling prophecy was a 'computer modelling simulation' made by German researchers and published in Geophysical Research Letters. This is the same journal which barely six years earlier published the report mentioned above which predicted sea ice was increasing.

If this does not convince even the most ardent man-made climate change believer that the Emperor has no clothes, we don't know what will. Still, perhaps we can take some comfort from the canny choice of the word 'likely' chosen by the German modellers. It's 'likely' one or more of our readers will win the lottery before 2050, but luckily we won't be around to complain to if they don't!

Such histrionic predictions continue to be enthusiastically announced by the mainstream media despite the fact that not a single one of them has ever come true. As we were putting the finishing touches to this afterword in January 2023, the Daily Mail reported that the posh riverside homes of top celebrities were in danger of being flooded by the rising waters of the Thames. As we said in our investigation of the 'Doomsday' and 'Rapture' prophecies of 2017, "It never ceases to astonish us that otherwise sane and intelligent human beings continue to fall for the most implausible predictions of doom and destruction..."

One honest alternative media website we consulted for this investigation summed up the climate change hoax in a single sentence: "Climate alarmists, and alarmists in general, are incompetent, dishonest hacks — who change their story every time the wind shifts. And no matter how many times they are wrong, they never lose credibility with the press." Sad, but true, we're sure you'll agree.

As we conclude this afterword the British press are warning of snow 'chaos.' Who could possibly imagine it might snow in January in England? Next, we'll be told to expect heat in July! Every change in the weather is now proof positive of global warming, climate change or climate catastrophe. Around the world each cold snap or heatwave, drought or flood, hurricane, thunderstorm or forest fire is hailed as a sure sign of impending doom and destruction.

Man-made climate change has been blamed for causing an endless range of problems, including cancer, heart attacks, strokes, murder, prostitution, rape, cannibalism, car thefts, and school closures. Should you think we're exaggerating, or worse, telling porkies, the list collected by the practical environmentalist will convince you otherwise. If it doesn't, you should probably stay in bed indefinitely and never, ever leave your cellar until the BBC or CNN tell you it's safe to do so.

occult mysteries