Thermophobia — Fear of Global Warming and Ignorance of the Current Ice Age

Thermophobia: Book Cover
Cover of my new book, Thermophobia

Thermophobia means a fear of warmth. It’s also the title of a book published last year. And I have a series of videos in the pipeline on this very same topic.

Of course, thermophobia comments on the current global warming hysteria making governments give up their sovereignty and tax their people Trillions of dollars to stem the tide of the terrifying warmth.

The way they talk about it, you’d think the planet was burning up. NASA calls it “Earth’s fever.” Yet, the big elephant in the room no one seems to be talking about is the startling fact that we’re in an Ice Age. Yes, you’ve heard about those little white things at the poles. As long as they persist, we’re still in an Ice Age.

The truly uncomfortable fact about this is that when the Holocene ends, then we’re back to 90,000 years of glacial cold. That’s the real danger. According to W.S. Broecker, in his article, “The End of the Present Interglacial: How and When?” he presented the notion that the Holocene is running about 600 years over the average length of an interglacial in the current Ice Age.

Warmth is good. Life thrives in warmth.

All of the so-called “extreme weather events,” are ordinary and statistically uninteresting. We are not getting a frightening increase in any of them. Floods, droughts, tornadoes and tropical cyclones—none of these are on the rise. Not yet. We may be able to thank global warming for that.

Droughts, tornadoes and hurricanes tend to increase with global cooling. For one thing, cooling means less evaporation and less precipitation (rain, snow, etc). Storms derive their energy from temperature differences. Like an electrical battery, the stronger the thermal difference, the stronger the storm potential. During the Little Ice Age, storms were stronger and more frequent. The reason may be simple: there was a greater thermal potential between the poles and the equator, because of the greater cold in the higher latitudes and relatively little change near the equator.

Thermophobia—The Wrong Direction

Thermophobia: Icebergs
Thermophobia has us inadvertently wishing for a return to this: Icebergs and continental glaciation. Photo: Christopher Michel (CC BY 2.0) via Wikipedia.

Fear of warmth (thermophobia) is the wrong direction. We should sober up to the serious threat of global cooling, and embrace global warming. The largest downside of warming is rising oceans. It may seem cruel, but people should not be so attached to real estate. We can move the coastal cities. Growing crops in the snow when the Holocene ends will be impossible.

If the Holocene were to end later today, it might take as little as 50 years to settle into the next glacial period of the current Ice Age. What would that mean? First, it would mean 90,000 years of frozen climate.

All that cold will turn off most of the rainfall. Deserts will take over the landscape. What isn’t covered by ice and snow will be dry and desolate, for the most part.

Many of the cities which people want to protect from rising oceans will be covered by glaciers in a few generations, unless we can end the current Ice Age.

The corn and wheat belts of the world will likely either be covered by permanent snow or desiccated by the lack of rain. At the risk of sounding like a fear monger, Billions might die from the cold directly, from starvation or the inevitable food wars. But there is hope.

The Cure for Thermophobia—Facts Instead of Lies

There are so many lies being pushed by Corporate news media, governments and NGOs. For one, their use of the term “climate change” to describe their so-called modern problem is deceitful. Why? Because climate has changed for billions of years. Climate will always change. Their use of the term creates confusion. Perhaps this was intentional.

The so-called “scientific consensus” is also bogus. It should not shock anyone to find out that science is never done by consensus. To claim that it is proves to be an argumentum ad populum type logical fallacy. Science is never a popularity contest. That lunacy was supposed to have ended with the Renaissance. But scientists have egos, and today’s scientific community is too easily bought with corporate and NGO funding. Anyone who says that this is not an implicit corruption, is not paying attention. Scientists know they won’t get funded if they don’t satisfy their benefactors. No honey, no money.

Another cure for thermophobia requires more work—namely, ending the Ice Age. Once people see the benefits of a warmer world without polar glaciation, they will wonder why they waited so long. We would need to move the cities, or build dikes. San Francisco would be perfect for this. Move the crops to the appropriate latitude. Help ensure fauna can migrate easily to a more comfortable habitat.

Some scientists have estimated that it would take something like 5,000 years to melt the polar ice. Regrettably, we may not have that long before the Holocene ends. And we still do not yet know what controls the climate. CO2 certainly doesn’t. It’s a factor, yes, but correlation between CO2 and temperature only appear on the scale of tens of thousands of years. On the decadal and million year scales, they only occasionally coincide and without seeming cause-and-effect. The Svensmark study provides a possible major driver—the forces which control cloud formation: cosmic rays and the solar wind which controls cosmic ray access to Earth.

But what can we do to end the Ice Age? Is it even possible? Here are some thoughts:

  • Orbiting reflectors to direct more sunlight down into polar waters. This will increase the evaporation and precipitation, growing the glaciers, at first. Would it melt the glaciers in the long run?
  • Low albedo slabs, manufactured and installed on top of existing glaciers, especially Greenland and Antarctica. How many millions would be needed?
  • Ocean stirring to keep the thermohaline conveyor from shutting down as it was theorized to have done during the Younger Dryas “big freeze,” twelve thousand years ago. My website, Mission: Atlantis covers this physical stirring as a possible driver for the sudden Younger Dryas end.

How much of these would be enough? If we focused our planetary efforts on this, rather than paying $Trillions in “carbon tax,” could we do it? If 7+ Billion people pitched in, would we have enough of a workforce?

Perhaps someone should raid the upcoming Paris climate conference and turn their agenda on its head. Promote global warming instead of thermophobia.

Do you have any other suggestions?

This article was originally published 2015:1102 on


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s