Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey, who authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate, writes in a guest essay at Climate Depot:
Astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn and a large number of solar physicists would say that now the likelihood of the Earth being seized by Maunder Minimum is now greater than the Earth being seized by a period of global warming.
Their central finding is that regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun’s energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth.
They would answer Sir John’s question by saying: “Yes, the Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save the planet from the utterly foolish global carbon tax.”
I’m obviously not a man-made global warming alarmist, but I’m also not a global cooling alarmist. If I could choose one or the other I’m not sure what I’d pick. Let’s take a look at the options:
1. Man-made global warming is real, Dr Livingston and Dr. Penn are wrong, and there the predicted global cooling doesn’t pan out:
In this scenario, the weather would get gradually warmer, crop yields would increase, and there would be likely be more positive effects of a warming planet than negative. But, the effects of cap and trade and other “solutions” would result in loss of individual liberties, and destruction of the world’s economy.
2. Man-made global warming is wrong, and a new Maunder Minimum brings the dawn of a new Little Ice Age:
In this scenario, the cooling planet would convince the population that Al Gore is just plain nuts, putting the kibosh on the global warming alarmists “solutions”. The result would be retention of our individual liberties and economic freedom that would create more wealth for all. But, a new Little Ice Age would be disastrous for food production, and would likely lead to widespread hunger, and perhaps starvation. Also, skyrocketing heating costs would also devastate the economy.
So, both choices are clear losers. But, we don’t have a choice in the matter anyway. It’s que sera, sera.
Possibly Related Posts:
- “Global warming without warming”: Global warming realism leads mainstream newspaper above the fold
- Arctic native ribbon seal swims to Seattle to escape global cooling
- Fellow man-made global warming skeptic blogger declares victory; puts blog on ice
- The bubble of climate change group-think burst in a cooling world
- Climate change consensus: Exposing the great ‘catastrophe’ myth