Crying ‘Wolf’ and the Polar Bear
Have dire media warnings about declining Arctic sea ice, and the consequent danger to Polar Bears, actually been “cries of wolf”?
According to Britain’s Daily Telegraph, the answer is ‘yes.’ In an October report, Science Editor Sarah Knapton points out that prominent climate scientists Peter Wadhams of Cambridge, U.K., and Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, had been regularly forecasting the loss of Arctic sea ice by September, 2016, and their predictions had been widely reported by the BBC and other media. The sad plight of the Polar Bear without ice has touched the hearts of millions. As late as the summer of 2015, Wadhams was predicting an ice-free September 2016. Surprise! Nothing of the kind happened. In fact, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the total Arctic ice on September 10 was 21% greater than at its low point in 2012. Other sources corroborate that data.
The complete failure to correctly forecast ice conditions in the Arctic sea has prompted other scientists to complain publicly that policymakers facing the very serious risks of real climate change, are not well served by the readiness of some researchers to “cry wolf.” Dr. Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meteorology, at the University of Reading, U.K., told the Telegraph, he expects ice to decline in the years ahead but to do so at an irregular rate, “like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill.”
But, as the proverbial boy ‘who cried wolf’ discovered, dangers, once overstated, may not be taken seriously when they should be.
Climate Change Blamed on a ‘Wobbling Earth’
The doctrine of ‘African genesis’ has been updated lately. Previous difficulties in accounting for just what may have caused modern humans to leave Africa for destinations in eastern China and southern Europe about 80,000 years ago (as evidenced by genetic research) were caused, we are told, by ‘climate change.’ According to a September 2016 study in the journal Nature, the culprit was ‘Earth wobble’—what some might call ‘precession’, and others, a ‘pole shift’.
The study, of course, does not mean your grandfather’s ‘pole shift.’ Instead, the authors Axel Timmermann, and Tobias French of the University of Hawaii point to something called Milankovitch Cycles, which in 21,000-year phases caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, modifies the sunlight falling on various places, thus changing rainfall, temperatures, sea levels, glacial ice, vegetation, carbon dioxide, etc. A computer model produced by the scientists makes their point just fine.
Since it makes no assertions which might prove embarrassing to mainstream science, the new theory could get some traction, but independent researchers should be forgiven if they now recall the pole-shift theories of Charles Hapgood and others, including Albert Einstein, who have argued that such movements were responsible for many catastrophic ancient events, including, possibly, the destruction of Atlantis.
Bumble Bee ‘Brain’ Bedazzles
Not only, can bumblebees learn to use tools, but they can teach the trick to their colleagues. That is the finding of a new study in the journal PLOS Biology published in October 2016. Lars Chittka at Queen Mary University in London shows that bees can learn how to pull a string to release sugar water, and that other bees that merely watched the first ones would also pick up the trick.
For materialistic scientists, it all shows how powerful the tiny bee brain must be, but anyone who read William B. Stoecker’s article, “Animal Technologies,” in Atlantis Rising Issue #120 knows that there are other, indeed, more credible explanations. As biologist Rupert Sheldrake has argued, the brains of animals, from bees to humans, are not the source of intelligence, but rather—like radios or televisions—are mere receivers. In fact, argues Sheldrake, a trick successfully learned by any creature increases—through what he calls ‘morphic resonance’—the speed with which their entire species can acquire a new skill or habit.
Something like that certainly appears to be at work among research scientists, who quickly learn what kind of studies will benefit their careers and which will not.