Is There Any Chance Our Changing Climate Is A Natural Cycle?


The short answer is NO. Mathematically speaking there is absolutely no chance that our current warming is in any sense a part of a natural cycle. There are still many clinging to the notion that the human race has had little or nothing to do with the rapidly warming climate, but all available data and mathematical statistics say otherwise. Human activity has completely altered the biosphere in countless ways, especially in regard to the climate system. Of all the anthropogenic factors affecting the climate, the ongoing climate engineering programs are the single most significant source of disruption and decimation. To say the changes to our biosphere are "natural" would be like pushing someone off a cliff and then saying "people die, it's natural". So what are the odds of the changes in our climate being just a "natural cycle"? The Associated Press hired statisticians to find out, the results shown in the article below should paint a very clear and sobering picture. The fact that climate engineering is not mentioned or considered in the article is irrelevant. Climate engineering is still a form of human activity so the equation remains completely accurate.
Dane Wigington


Go Figure: Figuring The Odds Of Earth's Global Hot Streak

Source:, article by Seth Borenstein

​The global heat streak of the 21st century can be explained with statistics that defy astronomical odds.

First, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration calculates global average temperature going back to 1880. That's 135 years. So if no other forces were in play and temperatures last year were totally at random, then the odds of 2014 being the warmest on record are 1 in 135. Not too high.
But record and near record heat keep happening. Climate scientists say it's not random but from heat-trapping gas spewed by the burning of coal, oil and gas. You know, . And one of their many pieces of evidence is how statistically unlikely it is for the world to have warmed so much.
So how likely are these temperatures to be random? The Associated Press consulted with statisticians to calculate the  of this hot streak happening at random. Here are some statistics and the odds they calculated, with the caveat that  tend to persist so that can skew odds a bit:
The three hottest years on record—2014, 2010 and 2005—have occurred in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening randomly are 3,341 to 1, calculated John Grego of the University of South Carolina. Kai Zhu of Stanford University, Robert Lund of Clemson University and David Peterson, a retired Duke statistician, agreed.
Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the . The odds of that being random are 650 million to 1, the statisticians said.
Thirteen of the 15 the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years. The odds of that being random are more than 41 trillion to 1, the statisticians said.
All 15 years from 2000 on have been among the top 20 warmest years on . They said the odds of that are 1.5 quadrillion to 1. A quadrillion is a million billion.
And then there's the fact that the last 358 months in a row have been warmer than the 20th-century average, according to NOAA. The odds of that being random are so high—a number with more than 100 zeros behind it—that there is no name for that figure, Grego said.
Source:, article by Seth Borenstein

3 Responses to Is There Any Chance Our Changing Climate Is A Natural Cycle?

  1. Christina Parousis says:

    "Climate engineering is still a form of human activity so the equation remains completely accurate."   Absolutely. This is usually my response to anyone who is anti-geoengineering and claims that climate change is not anthropogenic. It's all manmade and we humans have to take some kind of responsibility. 

    The redundant talk about Al Gore is just an excuse for people to not look at the facts and assess the situation objectively. Why should others dictate how we perceive the obvious reality around us? What ever happened to using our own logic and observations, first and foremost? How cut off are we to not feel the impact of human activity on nature, hence the climate? From polluting the waters to deforestation, amongst all the other ways humans ravage the Earth. This impact has a direct link to the climate, geoengineering aside. Refusing to acknowledge this simple cause and effect equation is negligent. 

    Unfortunately, many in this battle don't only deny that the planet is warming partially due to human activity, but they adamantly deny that the planet is actually warming at all. This makes the situation a lot more confusing and makes you wonder if any common sense is being applied in coming to such a conclusion. Just another form of denial, that ultimately undermines the gravity of the destruction caused by these programs. How can we tell people that geoengineering is wrecking the planet and the weather is manmade but climate change is natural? This does not make even remote sense, it's just discrediting. And the term 'global warming hoax/fraud' must stop being used. If people believe that global warming is not 'manmade' but rather only a result of geoengineering (which is still manmade), then they should find a better way to explain this instead of dismissing global warming altogether with these very broad, misleading terms. 

    At the end of the day, we can't blame only those who are engineering the climate and not ourselves, this is about taking responsibility as a species. Highly recommend the documentaries by Michael Ruppert, Collapse and Apocalypse Man.

  2. Kenneth Elder says:

    This is an excellent article. I hadn't heard of the statistical analysis before. I think Al Gore should be praised for so strongly bringing up the global warming issue. But I think if he had spoken up about the chemtrail geoengineering then he would be much more effective.

    • Dane Wigington says:

      Hello Kenneth, in regard to Al Gore’s data, the irony is that the actual climate situation is far worse than what Gore presented (with climate engineering helping to fuel the fire). Gore is unfortunately a big part of the problem as his hypocrisy is so immense that he in many ways did more harm than good with his film. His massive resource consumption, owning stocks in the very companies he claimed to by exposing, pushing carbon credits, all were inexcusable. Now people hate Gore so much they take the oposite position of anything Gore has ever said.

Leave a Reply

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