Report: Ice Age About to Freeze Out Global Warming

A Cooling World

A Cooling World

But a professor of geological sciences at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, characterized the report as telling a “rather sensational story.”

By Paul Walsh

Earth is “on the brink of entering another Ice Age” that will last for the next 100,000 years, reports the Russian Pravda Online newspaper, attempting to counter the widespread view that human activity is contributing to an unwanted and dangerous warming of the planet.

Based on a “large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science,” Pravda reports this week, “many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change” indicate that the current 12,000-year-long warming trend is coming to an end.

Pravda points to three astronomical “Milankovich cycles” for the coming cool-down:

• The tilt of the Earth, which varies over a 41,000-year period.

• The shape of the Earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years, “separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.”

• The Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s “wobble,” which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years.

Read the rest of this story at Star Tribune.

15 Responses to Report: Ice Age About to Freeze Out Global Warming

  1. Neil F. January 14, 2009 at 6:37 am #

    Where do I start? This is all ridiculous. I’m not even going to get into it because I have to get ready for work, and I don’t have time to write 100 pages. I’ll just say that this highlights the fact that nobody knows what the hell they are talking about. This is junk science 101.

  2. Neil F. January 15, 2009 at 6:53 am #

    If you are not familiar with what junk science is, here is the short course from Steven J. Maloy’s Even if you know what junk science is, you might get a kick out of this anyway.

  3. Neil F. January 18, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    I just came accross this interview with James Hansen. This is really what we are up against.

  4. Tom F. January 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Neil – You are one of those paid bloggers that go to all these boards and spew propaganda? I hope you meant we are up against these idiot puppets trying to destroy our economy and not this “climate change” thing. Let me tell you something… THE WORLD’S CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING SINCE INCEPTION… Junk science indeed.

  5. Whit January 19, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    Hi Neil, respect your opinon but i disagre, as my belief is the issue isn’t global warming (because the sun is doing the warming) but global polluting. Agree something needs to be done, but not by taxing the people, just fixing the issues with pollution and CO2 isn’t polluting.

  6. alan c January 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    Either way, a lot of people in the world are going to be surprised when they find out they were wrong. Hotter or colder.

    Recently, I haven’t found too much to have faith in our federal gov.

    I do know we’ve been riding this big blue ball through space for a very short time compared to all the cycles it has been through. For humans to think they have ANY control over it’s future is only a way to control us. However being an open minded person I checked out the links Neil F. provided.

    I got here via a link at:

    Look at it this way to put some perspective on it. Everytime you celebrate a birthday you are starting your ride around the sun all over, ENJOY

  7. Robert F January 19, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    The climate modeling is based upon the assumption that CO2 is the sole greenhouse gas driving the observed temperatures. Even the assumption that there is an average global temperature that has any meaning is questionable. The modeling is thus zero order ignoring all of the feed back loops surrounding water and water vapor in the atmosphere. The relative stability of temperatures on earth have passed through vastly differing CO2 levels in the past, most likely due to the water/atmosphere linkages ignored by the approved model. Even NOOA in their web site notes that “the complex feedback loops of water vapor are poorly understood”.

  8. Matt P January 19, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Neil, if you really want to get bent out of shape about something, take any college class at any college. I recently re-enrolled at North Dakota State (I am thirty years old) to finish my 4 year degree, and was shocked to find that this Global Warming religion had more or less infected the entire school. I expect to hear this junk from biased green science teachers (which we do, to no end), but our upper level english class is taking the green’s side and pushing a whole semester of writing papers concerning global warming. Sick! The only professor I have had so far that has the right idea was, in fact, our Climatology professor. Funny…

  9. David M. January 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    Well Neil, I dont have time to get into details either seeing as how I have to be up rather early for work but the true “junk science” and ones with the agenda really seem to be the liberals, activists, and huge companies trying to make a dollar from this b.s. There is a ton of evidence countering the claims of global warming coming from many well known scientists and climatologists but they are basically crucified for daring to speak out against the lies being spread by complete idiots like Al Gore. What happened to those people being tolerant.

  10. Neil F. January 22, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    Hold on thar! I thought Global Warming was a scam the first time I heard about it ten years ago. I think my intention here has been misconstrued. What I meant by “this is what we are up against” is the alarmism and blatant lies that are spewed forth by people like James Hansen et al.
    Now, my comments about junk science were meant to convey the fact that I think this article (not the James Hansen interview) is a prime example of junk science coming from, in this case, both sides of the debate. The Russians are saying we’re heading for an ice age! This may be true, but I really don’t think we’ll be seeing the glaceirs moving south in our lifetimes. Do you? To say so is junk science in my opinion. The professor on the other side is talking about CO2 and other nonsense (I read it last week and don’t remember exactly what he said) that was just a recitation of all the junk science that has been relied upon by proponents of AGW.
    That’s all I was trying to get at.
    I am heartened to see the responses to my posts though, misguided as they were. But I guess it was my vaugeness that misguided you. For that I apologize.
    Let me just state for the record: I, Neil F., do solemnly swear, that I am a Global Warming Denier. And will be so until the day that I die.
    To Tom F. I wish I were a paid blogger! I’m not even a blogger. I’m a refrigerator repair guy that works for Sears Home Services. I just have some strong opinions about AGW theory.

  11. Neil F. January 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Matt P. Sorry, I also wanted to say to you that the reason the religion of AGW theory is in most of the colleges is that it is a political movement. Science has nothing to do with it. It is all based on emotion, and that’s why it is so enmeshed into the lefty Liberal idealology. It’s an emotional argument. Who could be against saving the planet?
    I wish you well.
    The best advice is to just go with the flow and do what your teachers want you to do.
    But, if you can handle a very rough ride, you can challenge them with facts, and really good questions. But, like I said, that could be a very rough road, and you will be demonized, and scorned for your beliefs. And your grades may suffer.
    It’s up to you. I would hope that you stand up and tell them that the AGW theory is full of holes, and proceed to tell them what those holes are. But like I said, you won’t be making your experience a pleasant one. So good luck!

  12. sunsettommy February 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    “In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.”

    Actually is the PDO,ENSO and the NOA that most influences the melt rate.Plus the overall glacial ice change is also quite small.

  13. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    Thanks to all you geniuses who post here! Now I can sleep well at night, knowing you are all-knowing and gifted to de-bunk such things…! Bless your humble little hearts!

  14. Neil F. March 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Rob: I’m just as qualified to say that there is no AGW, as you are to say that there is. Maybe even more so because I had to take environmental sciences in school to get my diploma. So I may have a better grasp on the scientific basis of all this than you.
    I think the only way you feel good about yourself is to place yourself above others, you do this by putting people down with snarky little comments as the one above.

    I would like you to either back up your arguments with facts, or go away. You don’t give opinions – You lash out with insults and sarcasm. Why are you so angry? Could it be that you are trying to silence voices that disagree with you? That’s what facists do you know.


  1. In Which We Learn That Only One Man Can Save The World: And He Is The Goracle - January 29, 2009

    […] The earth’s climate does what it does, and it’s really kind of embarrassing when it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to. […]

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.