Learn More

ORA-CLE Fourth Edition

ORA-CLE Fourth Edition


In this context, the word ‘Normal’ may be synonymous with the word ‘Natural’ but Normal Climate is meaningless for the Earth in a geologic sense because its climate is always changing.

Geologically speaking, our blue planet with marbled white clouds is a very active world with earthquakes, colliding tectonic plates, volcanoes, rifting continents, spreading oceans, tsunamis, floods, heat waves, blizzards, droughts, rock slides, avalanches and changing climates.

In 1955 the Director of Climatology stated: “The layman is often misled by the word. In his every-day language the word normal means something ordinary or frequent.....When (the meteorologist) talks about ‘normal’, it has nothing to do with a common event.......For the meteorologist the word ‘normal’ is simply a point of departure or index which is convenient for keeping track of weather statistics.......We never expect to experience ‘normal’ weather”.

Instruments such as the thermometer have only been used for 170 years. The U.S. National Climatic Data Centre advises that it is a mistake to draw conclusions by comparing various 30- year periods because of changes in computation, instrumentation and how the data was obtained. Global warming alarmists regularly ignore this caution, treating changes from 30-year norms as reliable proof of long term climate trends, citing the 1951-80 period for reference as ‘normal climate’, knowing that this period is generally accepted as a period of ‘cooler climate’.

  • In order for a scientific theory to become widely accepted, it must pass two tests:It must make a prediction that can be tested such that a possible outcome of the test is that the theory has failed. In other words, the predictions a theory makes can turn out to be wrong
  • All predictions that the theory makes must be correct. Just one failed prediction, and the theory has shown to be wrong.

Does this mean that the Global Warming theory is controversial because there is no evidence to support it or is there a lot of supporting evidence that is only controversial to sceptics and deniers?