The current climatic change: Global warming due to CO2 is a myth

Flooding of Somerset Levels November 24, 2012 (Ben Birchall/PA Wire) Flooding of Somerset Levels November 24, 2012 (Ben Birchall/PA Wire)
Image from a news story posted in

Residential homes surrounded by flood waters in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire UK

Residential homes surrounded by flood waters in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire UK (© EPA)

Image from a news story posted February 13, 2014 at

I would like to share this email exchange between Valerie and climatologist Peter Taylor because it throws light on the severe weather and climatic changes that we are going through at present.  These have very little to do with manmade CO2 increase as Peter explains.  In my opinion, they also have little to do with the possibility of a superwave approaching our solar system, although significant climatic change could occur following a superwave impact.
P. LaViolette, February 13, 2014

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Valerie wrote to Peter:
    “Are these flooding part of an evil agenda as this article suggests, or climate changes that we are undergoing anyway and should rather be ready for? Maybe you have any comments and answers to share? With sympathy for our friends under the flood.

Kindest regards to all,

(See forwarded message at end of this posting which Valerie refers to.)

Response by climatologist Peter Taylor (February 11, 2014):

“Hi Valerie…..apologies for a long absence (in Czech forests!).

Regarding the floods:

* Firstly, yes, the climate is changing – just as it always does in cycles. The recent ‘extreme’ weather is no different than previous cycles in terms of the weather dynamic, but some of these cycles are very long and beyond lifetime experience – for example, there was an infamous train derailment on the levels in the late 1940’s in August caused by ice on the track!  The longest cycles are 1000 years – when White Stork nested in Britain as far north as Edinburgh, and go back 8000 years to the lake village on the levels, and they ate pelican for breakfast!

* Fifty to sixty years ago the levels were famous throughout Britain for their winter floods, and the summer abundance of water birds – holding the few breeding Black Tailed Godwit in the UK; along with Yellow Wagtail, Whinchat, breeding ducks, Snipe and Redshank; go back to Victorian times and the place was a Mecca for wildfowlers. Today!!! A few small reserves where the  water level is kept artificially high – gone are the godwits, curlew and vast numbers of waterbirds – the levels dried out and shrunk even lower and more powerful pumping stations move the water out at low tide – much of the land is below sea-level; add to that the location of housing, caravan parks and industrial buildings, the increased canalisation of the river flow and the more intensive grazing of the upland watersheds, and you have a recipe for ‘catastrophic’ flooding.

* The Environment Agency realised 20 years ago how much had been lost as well as the high cost of maintenance and decided not to dredge the rivers – which are very damaging to wildlife, leaving many riverbeds higher than the ditches which the farmers continually drain and which the pumps drive to the sea!

* Then the ‘rains’ come back! these are driven not by ‘global warming’ (note there has been NO increase in surface temperature of the globe in the last 15 years) or carbon dioxide, but by the returning cycle (see next point) – IF global warming has continued due to CO2, as argued by the defenders of the ‘models’ then (they say) it has been transferred to the deep ocean….I doubt that, but in any case, that warmth is insulated from the surface and hence cannot affect weather patterns;

* The rains are caused by a recent shift in the high altitude jetstream (there are loads of scientific papers on this) which drives storm tracks in from the Atlantic. The eye of these storms is usually tracking north of the Orkney Island and into Norway on a massive ‘loop’, but the loop has flattened and the storms now come directly into SW Britain and northern Spain, at times, even into southern Spain – they carry massive ‘atmospheric rivers’ of moisture from a generally warmer Atlantic (warmed a great deal between 1980-2005 – but now beginning to cool);

* Observant naturalists will note that concurrent with the wetter summers, which began by flooding out the Sunrise Festival on the levels in 2007 or 2008, there have been colder winters – both these patterns are the OPPOSITE of that predcited by the computer models of the MetOffice (and I predicted both accurately and the cause in 2009 in letters to their Hadley Centre and in my book ‘Chill‘ published in that year);

* The shift in the jetstream is also in the opposite direction to that predicted by the models – i.e. southward instead of northward, as expected in a warming world – the models also predict LESS extreme weather due to a smaller different between polar air and air to the south of the polar region;

* There is a strong correlation between shifts in the jetstream and solar magnetic activity – when the magnetic field is LOW, the jetstream shifts southward and becomes more ‘loopy’, allowing very cold Arctic air to flow southward – as happened all last month with record cold and snowfall in the central and eastern USA and Canada (called a polar vortex) – this can also happen in western Europe as late as March, so watch out!

* The Earth’s magnetic field is strongly connected to the Sun’s field, and it falls to about 10 units (nanoteslas) every 11 years, and rises to 30-35, but since 1995, the peaks have begun to decline and the troughs get longer – the current cycle should have an annual average of 30, but still languishes around 10, and in 2008-2009 dropped to below 5 – unique in the 100 year record – thus, the Sun is changing radically and NASA have been watching this carefully, as its behaviour has confounded all of their models (as I correctly forecast in 2008);

* Thus there is a lot of scientific discussion (and revision of models) going on and some expectation that we may be entering a ‘Maunder Minimum’ of magnetic activity the like of which was last seen in Elisabethan times when the Thames froze every winter and many summers were cold and damp, crops failed and there was widespread famine, disease and misery in Europe and China (where records were kept);

* I am currently talking with the ONLY scientific team who have a good comprehension of the dynamics – and they are based in Prague; the most likely mechanism relates to the low level of UV radiation that is a consequence of reduced solar activity – the visible wavelengths remain much the same with fractional percentage shifts (and the models only used these visible wavelengths). There is ONE revised NASA/NOAA model that now incorporates the UV shift – AND, it predicts no further warming until 2065, and cooling in between. I talked to that team early in 2010, and maybe I had some influence – who knows because they never acknowledged the meeting where I drew their attention to the other work they had missed);

* Recent science is beginning to unravel the likely mechanisms of the past cycles – firstly the Sun is not constant in its output as thought by NASA until 1979; secondly the magnetic flux increased by 230% from 1900 to 1995, and has been falling since – temperatures peaked shortly after in 1998-2005 depending on who is measuring; the UV flux has been measured only since 1979, and is now at an all-time low, after peaking in 2003;

* Concurrent with the warming from 1980-1998 (by the way, the globe cooled from 1945-1980), low-level reflective cloud cover DECREASED by 4% – thus allowing the more visible radiation wavelengths to warm the oceans.  THIS is the proximal cause of ‘global warming’ as I outline in Chill – caused by a measured increase (by NASA) of 4 watts/square metre at the surface, compared to the increased CO2 effect, computed at 1 watt).  That is why I say that global warming is 75-80% natural (and prof John Christy of the IPCC working group agrees, but his colleagues at the UN do not!); the ‘warmists’ argue that the cloud changes are feedback from CO2.  But that is not in the models, nor is there a convincing mechanism – and if this were true, one need only look at what clouds have done since 1998 as CO2 has increased steadily since then – and cloud cover recovered by 2% in a shift during 2001;

* There is a ‘clutching at straws’ argument by the modellers that the loss of Arctic Sea ice in September influences the jetstream in January….but Arctic specialists and the geophysicists here say this is purely correlation not cause – no mechanism exists for that, and in any case, during the Maunder Minimum there was massive ice-cover – the Vikings left their farms in Greenland as a consequence, and the jetstream hit Europe as it is doing today.

So – that is the story!  The Somerset Levels need ‘adaptation’ for sure, but more ‘defences’ will be expensive, politically expedient, but at great risk of making the next ‘breach’ even worse – best is to manage the levels for wetland wildlife and farming methods that can co-exist – but that is NOT politically expedient!  Unless, that is, large sums of money were spent in restructuring (rewilding) and compensation – this is a major undertaking because of the intensive hydraulic manipulation – even the nature conservation areas are tied in to the pumping regimes and they would oppose having higher water levels because they would gain lots of common or garden ducks and lose the exotic reedbed herons!

with best regards

 ———- Forwarded message which Valerie referred to ———-

From: charles  Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014

Hi, I thought it extremely important to forward this email to you.
     Last night just before leaving to attend a lecture in Glastonbury, I saw Landlord Jim of The King Alfred in Burrowbridge on ITN TV news, clad in a STOP THE FLOODS T shirt, talking wisely and standing up for the stricken people of Burrowbridge and the area in general. He was also cleverly scathing of the visits of Lord Chris Smith and especially David Cameron, who arrived on the scene weeks late! I think there is something strange about these men; they seem to be removed from the utter devastation, strangely programmed into a mind set and seem to find it hard to say sorry or show any meaningful compassion. In short, these men appear to carry a huge burden of guilt that is evident in their body language. Last night I left my house feeling that just maybe, there is another agenda, far graver than we can even imagine.
      Shortly after, I arrived at Glastonbury Town Hall to attend an open public meeting of the inaugural TRUTH JUICE GLASTONBURY GROUP. The speaker was David Limm and the subject, Aircraft Pollution and Chem Trails. During his excellent presentation he covered many things, particularly Agenda 21(being gradually implemented by the EU) and one of the tools being used to further that agenda…WEATHER MANIPULATION. The large crowd in attendance were horrified by the implications and it was not long before THE GREAT SOMERSET FLOODS became central to the discussion. Everyone felt that the information being presented MUST come out as soon as possible and felt that contacts, groups, farmers etc in the Langport and Burrowbridge areas, as well as other locations in Somerset and the South West, can bring all this new information out in the open…”

11 Responses to The current climatic change: Global warming due to CO2 is a myth

  1. Jeffrey Van Middlebrook says:

    I “know” Peter Taylor in the sense I’ve devoured his 2009 book several times and read many of his erudite climate articles, and we met in the flesh at Christmas time in 2007 when my former Glastonbury fiancé introduced us because she knew how much I love TRUE SCIENCE (my academic background is geology and engineering). Peter’s HQ (humility quotient) is quite high, evidenced by his refusal to be regarded as a “climatologist”. The fact is — and this is one of my pet peeves — that the study of climate is an eclectic, multi-discipline field that includes physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, botanists, naturalists, oceanographers, paleontologists, et al. It’s just as scientifically correct to refer to Peter as a climate scientist as it is to refer to anyone of any scientific discipline who studies climate as a climate scientist. And……among those who study climate dynamics Peter Taylor is one of the best.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I quite agree with you that climatology is an interdisciplinary science and agree that Peter Taylor is on the cutting edge. I met him at a Glastonbury conference I think in 2007 where I had a chance to here him speak and talk with him afterwards.

  2. Aleisha says:

    I constantly spent my half an hour to read this blog’s articles all
    the time along with a mug of coffee.

  3. Peter Taylor says:

    C: I am not competent to help with your main question regarding metallic aerosol and conductivity – but the following may be relevant to your concerns-

    * my current ‘best guess’ as to the mechanism at work in the solar minimum relates to the fluctuations of far-UV, not visible wavelengths, which have only a small change. The mechanism under discussion involves the capture of UV energy by ozone in the stratosphere, leading to stratospheric heating and transfer of this heat to the troposphere – particularly at the poles – this effects the strength of the polar vortex as well as the disposition and speed of the polar jetstreams. At solar minimum in the 11 year cycle, and during the LIttle Ice Age (prolonged solar minimum)…the lower UV causes the polar vortex to expand and the jets are pushed southward (in global warming theory they are supposed to move northward).

    * There are some specialist geophysicists working with the idea that there is a direct magnetic field effect – but the mechanism is not known – in which case, I suppose electrical conductivity might have some bearing;

    * However, I do not favour geo-engineering. We simply dont know enough to get things right and the consequences of getting things wrong could be worse than the ailment we seek to alleviate. I doubt in any case we could disperse enough material for long enough to have an effect – sulphates have to be injected into the stratosphere in millions of tonne quantity to effect the global temperature (as with very powerful volcanic eruptions) – and the effect lasts only two years because these substances fall out rapidly;

    * there are ‘chemtrail’ experiments going on – using silver iodide in the USA (to seed cloud and alleviate drought), maybe also in China; and barium sulphate in Russia to study cooling effects (and combat global warming) – but I have seen no convincing evidence of larger scale climate modification – and in any case, the main driver of global climate is the vast Pacific Ocean…..the air-lanes are a tiny proportion of the planetary surface.

  4. C says:

    Dr. LaViolette – A very salient piece and probably the best concise argument for non-anthropogenic climate change I’ve read in a sitting. I would further toss in the GISP2 data to hammer home the ANCIENT nature of these cyclical phenomenon! Regarding the regrettably named ‘chemtrails’ I am wondering if the alluded-to presence of metallic nanoparticulate could serve to offset the solar minimum fluctuations and their correlative effect with over-the-horizon technology. This would be in opposition to the viewpoint that claims a motive of overt weather manipulation (though they may be correlative to some degree). Is it possible that a presence of aerosolized aluminum, strontium and barium salts could offset solar minimums in regards to tropospheric conductivity and it’s relationship on military procedures? In your further opinion, are these magnetic flux data low enough to necessitate such a campaign? Should this prove true, such a concept falls in line with other decisions of selfishness made by the High Priests of Technology. Regardless, an awesome article by Mr. Taylor… thanks to you both. -C

  5. Mary says:

    Dr. Paul,
    I have concern regarding the recording and preservation of your theories and research and what if any action has been taken to assure that this is done for future discovery perhaps hundreds of thousands of years from now.
    We have of course, ancient architecture, encoded crystal
    sculls. The crumbling dead sea scrolls, the cuneiform cylinders, the unreleased full Mayan codex collection, and Tesla’s stolen research and records. Has any consideration been directed toward the immense importance of an enduring record of your similarly inspired and downloaded theory of Subquantum Kinetics and the plethora of accompanying knowledge? Some may think my inquiry is absurd, however I have a “knowing” that anything conceivable must be possible. I would meditate, pray and ask for an answer regarding this .

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The various books I have published are in people’s homes and libraries in either hardcover or paperback scattered throughout the world. So that should help to back up these ideas. This WordPress website and the Starburst Foundation WordPress website can be backed up in electronic form. So this may be another way to protect any knowledge. If a future EMP knocks out the internet, then once things get going again, the sites could be uploaded.

  6. Peter Taylor says:

    David…. some points you raise, not in order of appearance:

    * although there is an almost 50% reduction in Arctic summer sea ice extent in the period 1980-2012, this is compensated for globally by increased cover in Antarctica (which the media ignores, even when their ship gets stuck in the ice!);
    * there is new data showing ozone loss is also affected by the increased solar wind (as well as CFCs, and hard to tell how much is natural);
    * since the Maunder Minimum, the proxies for geomagnetic field strength show a 230% increase from 1900 to 1995, and a fall since, in line with the sunspot numbers (roughly) – however, there was a sudden fall in 2006, since maintained at a low level….and the Earth’s field is fed by the solar/interplanetary field, so the low point is due to a solar fall off in magnetic flux, with slower solar winds and fewer UV flares and less powerful CMEs;
    * yes, the reduced magnetic field means even low CMEs have strong auroral effects…and a really big CME – a Carrington event, would be devastating to the electric grids;
    * I don’t think reduced northern ice cover increases temperature that much because what is happening is that the uncovered ocean loses heat to space…the T increase is temporary, and the heat source is changing ocean currents channeling more heat from the tropics….so, bizarrely, a warmer Arctic means the planet is beginning to cool down!

    happy to answer further questions, btw I would not describe myself as a ‘climatologist’….I am an ecological scientist with an analytical interest in global ecosystems – but I did write a 400 page referenced book – Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory that rather got up the noses of most climatologists who wanted to give the impression the ‘science was settled’ ! Far from the truth!

  7. Mary says:

    Great food for thought…
    Best regards Dr. La Violette

  8. Caroline says:

    Thanks for this Dr. LaViolett. I have shared this page with Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers. (The middle 0 is a zero)

  9. David Alexander says:

    Although as mentioned by the climatologist it appears that we may be entering a period of reduced magnetic activity similar to what occurred during the Maunder Minimum, it also seems like the overall reduction in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field since the Maunder Minimum may make the effects of the reduced magnetic activity different this time. I have read that weakening of the earth’s magnetic field can increase the impact even from a weaker CME in terms of ozone loss and this effect could more than offset the effect of a reduction in CME strength related to reduced magnetic activity. There could also be effects if the earth’s magnetic field becomes more strongly connected to the magnetic field of the sun which it seems could possibly be related to the sun being in a highly magnetized region of space which it also seems could make the impact of a superwave worse. To the extent that increased stratospheric ozone loss results in tropospheric warming especially near the poles, even with reduced magnetic activity a reduction in ice cover could continue to tend to increase temperatures especially if it becomes associated with methane release. Although the breakup of the polar vortex has caused cooling in some parts of the northern hemisphere this winter, the breakup has mainly caused brief surges of cold rather than sustained cold. In addition, a weaker polar vortex related to warming near the poles is more likely to break apart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.