menu Home chevron_right
Ground ZeroRecent Shows


Clyde Lewis | January 29, 2020
Sponsored By:


In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result, some scientists suggested that the current interglacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea was been reinforced by the knowledge that smog, particulate from industry and contrails from airplanes, something that climatologists called ‘aerosols’ also caused cooling.

Many of those individuals from the age of 40 and beyond remember that the environmentalists weren’t as militant in the 1970s but were cocksure of their finding as they were planning ahead to an era that would be cooler in the mid-2000s, right around the time we are living in now.

Prior to the mid-1960s, geoscientists believed that our climate could only change relatively slowly, on timescales of thousands of years or longer.

But evidence from ice and sediment cores showed that belief was wrong. Earth’s climate had changed rapidly in the past; in some cases, within mere decades. Recognition that climate could change on human timescales made climate processes much more interesting research topics. It also spurred political interest.

Then came the debate about greenhouse gasses in 1976. It was claimed that NASA had warned scientists that if greenhouse gasses were to be trapped – the ice age that was predicted would eventually shift to a warming trend.

Well, the truth was that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and arguments for Global Warming elsewhere became popular.

Global warming alarmists will tell you that there only 7 papers that were written about cooling trends around the world and how they were linked to decreased sun activity.

However, data about Global Cooling has been rewritten or ignored by the Global Warming crowd.  What is strange is why people attempt to re-write recent history in this way, when their claims can so easily be disproven with extensive research.

Where did all the stories in the papers, TV and magazines come from? Did they just disappear in some climate Mandela Effect?  Were they all just fabricated?

Of course not, they came from scientists who made suggestions which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the Global Warming scare.

Now with the internet, anything can be shaped into the truth that fits a Global Warming bias.

Older people always ask what happened to the idea that the earth is cooling?  Well, it may not be on the radar now – but as climate alarmists recommend that aerosol trails be used for geoengineering –we may see a cooling trend that would put us into the area of extinction level.

Greta Thunberg was again featured at Davos World Economic Forum where many critics have now been very vocal about how eccentric climate activists have propped her up as a superstar at the gathering and have hijacked the forum of world leaders.

While in this outing she did not scold world leaders, her scathing sarcasm has now turned off a lot of people as she prattled on about Net Zero carbon emissions and how we need to meet that goal immediately.  Bill Gates has urged Net Zero Carbon emissions could be achieved by 2025 his ideas also included reducing the world’s population.

Great Britain has set its goals for 2050.

What is confusing is that the extremists believe that Real Zero emissions need to be accomplished now or else we will all be dead by 2030.

Greta Thunberg stated at Davos:

“We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “net zero” emissions or carbon neutrality by cheating and fiddling around with numbers we’re not telling you to offset your emissions by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate.

Planting trees is good of course but it’s nowhere near enough of what is needed and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature and let’s be clear we don’t need a low-carbon economy we don’t need to lower emissions our emissions. Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target.

 And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus that we must forget about Net Zero we need real zero”

It appears that what Greta needs is a real-life experience.

The problem I have with Real Zero and Net Zero terminologies is that they are vaguely defined and as I hear them come out of extremists mouths I can only determine that they are talking about extremist measures – Real Zero means Real Zero and if there are drastic moves to levy emissions to Real Zero that means the elimination of much of the animal and human population that expel carbon dioxide into the air and also release carbon dioxide and methane just by living and using fuels.

The term Net Zero has also proliferated in the media, as well as in political, corporate and academic discussions.

One of the reasons for the popularity of Net Zero targets is that the term itself is a strong message of strong action, openly embracing the need to halt global emissions, and is seen by many as the hallmark of climate leadership.

But it an empty an ill-defined term – that sounds as if we are all supposed to somehow shut down the industrial age and take away life-saving materials and not use transportation and other resources that have improved our lives over time.

To me, Real Zero sounds like extinction.

There’s no shortage of companies publishing Net Zero targets but, as yet, there’s no commonly agreed definition of Net Zero. 

Unlike other terms, such as carbon neutrality, there is no commonly agreed definition of what constitutes net zero emissions.

It is hard to keep up with all of the branding problems that climate activists are dealing with.

Right before Thanksgiving, we reported that there seemed to be a problem with the term, Climate Change as activists saw the term as being too soft on the dire future that awaits us.

Ad Age ran an opinion piece by Aaron Hall, a naming specialist at the global brand strategy firm Siegel/Gale.  In it, he suggested a new name would better “convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action.”

He suggested that giving it a name that would encourage urgency rather than passive attention.

Believe me – branding is not the problem.

The failure of the Climate Change/Global Warming movement to persuade is not, however, due to its brand name, but its brand story. A new shade of lipstick will not change the appeal of the pig. The global warming side of the debate has suffered real damage to its brand story that a name change can’t fix.

When dire predictions of a climate catastrophe, dating back to 2006 have largely not come to pass – the public tunes out the escalating hyperbole after awhile.

Every possible cause and effect has been linked to Climate change – which is ludicrous and intelligent people pick up on it and when they do – they become cynical.

Not only that but there have been “Climategate” data manipulation scandals and high profile climate study errors that have undermined perceived credibility.

There is also a matter of hypocrisy that can be detailed and documented about limousine liberals who virtue signal and yet do not practice what they preach.

We have seen Leonardo DeCaprio’s prodigious use of a private jet, we hear of the Obamas spending $15 million on an estate that allegedly will be underwater in a few years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes of Green New Deal fame spending tens of thousands of dollars on SUVs with an office 138 feet from a subway station.

These are only a few examples of problems with the climate change brand story. Until the Global Warming movement can better “live the brand,” changing the brand name will not make a difference. There is no consistency and ill-defined terms and fear-mongering that is also contributing to the plan to geoengineer the planet into cooling.

This is dangerous and needs to be exposed.

Keep on telling yourself that those behind this climate extortion plan are looking out for our future and your children’s future.

Their greed is turning them into eco-terrorists and fearmongers that have a plan to not only reduce the population but create recourse scarcity and geoengineer the planet using Stratospheric Arial Injections.

Regardless of what Global Warming extremists tell you, the climate is not a black and white issue and that climate is something that takes years to monitor – we have had a warming trend in the last century but the cooling is coming as was planned and predicted in the 1970s.

To geoengineer the planet with their version of chemtrails is going to cool us even more.

There has never been a time in modern human history when our planet has been changing as rapidly as it is changing right now.

The sun is behaving very strangely, freakishly cold weather is breaking out all over the world, however, ocean temperatures continue to rise, volcanoes all over the globe are shooting ash miles into the air, Australia is experiencing the worst wildfires that they have ever seen.

Now before you go saying that these fires have started because of Global warming think about this.

The smoke from the fires in Australia is circling the globe and will make what is already a cold winter colder. Not to mention the volcanic clouds that will contribute to cooler temperatures this year– the trend will begin because of many factors.

According to NASA, solar activity has dropped to the lowest level in 200 years.

At first, the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold.

But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11-year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11-year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years.

The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

When solar activity gets really low, it can have the effect of a “mini ice age.” The period between 1645 and 1715 was marked by a prolonged sunspot minimum, and this corresponded to a downturn in temperatures in Europe and North America.

When solar activity gets very low, it has traditionally meant very cold and very snowy winters, and right now we are seeing snow in places that are extremely unusual:

The Egyptian capital, Cairo, was also turned white at the start of the month, despite the city not having snow in 112 years, and experiencing less than an inch of rain each year.

Many parts of Greece were covered in snow in early January, with low temperatures and strong frost. When things start cooling down a\because of lack of Sun activity – it is called a Maunder minimum.

The transition from a period of solar activity called ‘grand maxima’ (the situation in the latter 20th century) to a “grand minima” –Maunder Minimum conditions is a chaotic process and difficult to predict.

In both the scientific literature and wider discourse, discussion of the Maunder Minimum is sometimes accompanied by mention of the Little Ice Age, a term used to loosely describe a period of cooler global temperatures. Maunder minimum ice conditions have been shown to cool the planet in both the 13th and the 20th centuries.

More broadly, claims are often made about the general correspondence between solar activity and global climate variations in 100 year intervals.  This means that real scientific studies on climate and how it varies usually take anywhere from 40 to 100 years to determine a trend in global warmth or global cooling

Of course, the planet would be heating in Grand Maxima –and is probably why scientists were seeing a global warming trend in the latter part of the 20th century but now with the sun weakening the trend may change abruptly.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the 21st century. What effect would this have on Earth’s climate?

Simulations of the climate response if the sun did fall to Maunder Minimum levels find that the decrease in temperature from the sun could be minimal at first but we would be seeing a continued cooling trend and may put a bit of a wrench in the stories of overall global warming due to greenhouse gasses.

Soon Climate cultists may have to change their models from Global warming to “dead certain” models.

What is the dead certain model?

To put it simply, cold will make everything die – it is certain.

A warmer climate may be inconvenient but ice will kill most of the life on the planet –

That is Dead Certain. There you will have Real Zero – maybe even below zero.

Anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has been seeing colder winter –coldest in a century. Baghdad is now having snowstorms on a regular basis. North America has the most snow cover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

Then we have the spikes of warmth where temperatures soar into the 70’s and then plummet – this can be a signal that there is geothermal heat somehow seeping through the cracks of the earth and messing with weather systems.

This could be why the oceans are heating up – volcanic activity cools the air above but heats the oceans and the earth below.

Even though there have been early difficulties in measuring ocean heat, we know that oceans absorb about 93 percent of the earth’s warmth.

While there was what scientists call a cool bias with regard to measuring ocean temperatures, what once claimed that glacier melt was cooling the oceans has now changed to claims of oceans being warmer than normal; again, the data is predicated upon an agenda.

Crucial analysis of true climate trends goes anywhere from 10 years to 105 years and while some science papers are saying that 2019 was one of the hottest years on the planet – there is still the possibility that there will be a substantial drop in core temperatures within the next 5 years.

Faith in Global Warming is already collapsing in Europe as for the past four years winters have extended into the spring months indicating a cooler overall picture for these areas of the globe.

This is inconvenient data for the Global Warming crowd but in order to have a true analysis, one has to be open to the possibility that after years of a warming potential the pendulum is swinging because of earth events and solar minimum realities.

Global Warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years may give way to global cooling. When this happens Climate watchdogs my lose faith in the 53 scientists that weighed in on the global warming trend — that was the alleged sample of scientists asked if global warming is a threat — and the myth goes that 99% percent of the sample agreed that the planet was warming when in the 1970’s the majority of scientists were pushing the dead certain model of a mini Ice age and Maunder Minimum.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of one Maunder Minimum. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water.

That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Previous solar minima, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945 when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years.

According to a recent study the world’s oceans hit their warmest level in recorded history in 2019… Climate change watchdogs are calling this evidence that the earth is warming at an accelerated pace.

But it may not be all about mankind’s industry causing this – the planet is reacting to a solar minimum and no one wants to acknowledge it.

During the first half of 2020, volcanoes all over the world have been roaring to life and have been shooting giant clouds of hot ash miles into the sky. For example, in the Philippines, the Taal volcano shot ash nine miles into the air.  It has also been shooting scorching hot lava half a mile into the air, and the ground around the volcano is starting to crack wide open.

The particulate and clouds of ash and smoke are now mixing with the smoke of the Australian fires to bring down temperatures even more and trigger a butterfly effect that may mean more violent storms in the next few months as cooler air masses are clashing with warmer flows which created force multiplied super storms.

Some scientists firmly contend that rising temperatures and the onslaught of drastic weather events — as well as the destruction of the overall ecosystem resulting from both, make advanced geoengineering to manipulate the planet’s atmosphere and reduce the solar impact a paramount priority.

The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who has for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory.

This is more than just a preponderance of documented evidence about government-sanctioned chemtrails – this is an endgame strategy that will backfire and cause a major climate collapse.

The end game project is known as Global Dimming, and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt Global Warming.

The idea of artificial aerosols using chemtrails adding to natural aerosols is fool hearty.

New research published in Science by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor Daniel Rosenfeld shows that the degree to which aerosols cool the Earth has been grossly underestimated, necessitating a recalculation of Climate Change models to more accurately predict the pace of Global Warming.

Cloud composition is largely determined by aerosols. The more aerosol particles a shallow cloud contains, the more small water droplets it will hold. Rain happens when these droplets bind together. Since it takes longer for small droplets to bind together than it does for large droplets, aerosol-filled or “polluted” clouds contain more water, live in the sky longer (while they wait for droplets to bind and rain to fall, after which the clouds will dissipate) and cover a greater area. All the while, the aerosol-laden clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, thereby cooling the Earth’s overall temperature.

Doing a massive geoengineering campaign on the planet while we are heading for a cooler climate will disrupt the cycle and will eliminate the blue sky.

Our current global climate predictions do not correctly take into account the significant effects of aerosols from wildfires and volcanoes on clouds and on the Earth’s overall energy balance. 

This indicates that all of your climate scares are being pushed politically out of greed and those that are falling for it are contributing to our extinction.

Tell your kids that they have a future, only if they can get the dialogue to change and that they tell the politicians that they are well aware of their end game plans of geoengineering us into oblivion.

Speak out against every politician that speaks solely on the platform of creating new jobs relating to wind power and solar – they care nothing about climate or anything else, only filling their pockets with money and using what resources they can for their private jets and lavish lifestyles.

They are hypocrites and criminals and need to be exposed.

Everything nature does is just the sum of chemistry, biology, and physics. It’s completely amoral; it doesn’t care about politics or climate summits or whether or not you are a Global Warming denier. You can’t negotiate with nature and you can’t spin it and you can’t evade its rules.

If they tamper with the climate and accidentally lower the temperatures worldwide we could see a flash freeze similar to what befell the wooly mammoths.

We are already seeing how disasters such as the wildfires of California and the devastating fires of Australia are not only being exploited by Climate change cultists but are secretly being monitored in order to have an excuse to commercially use chemtrails as a way to cool down the earth.

It is not enough that we all have to fit in as a species and be mindful of the eco-system. We all know and can concede that when a species doesn’t learn to fit within with Nature, it gets kicked out.

That is Real Zero – I am Dead Certain.

Written by Clyde Lewis

Search Ground Zero


  • play_circle_filled

    Ground Zero Radio

  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled

    Episode 86 – How To Succeed In Faking An Alien Invasion Without Really Trying!

  • cover play_circle_filled

    Episode 85 – TIN FOIL HATE

  • cover play_circle_filled

    Episode 84 – BLOOD AND SOIL

  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled


  • cover play_circle_filled

    Episode 78 – METEOR RIGHT

  • cover play_circle_filled

    Episode 77 – Elenin’s Requiem: Guest Donny Gilson

  • cover play_circle_filled


play_arrow skip_previous skip_next volume_down

Ground zero


get all the ground zero news
directly to your inbox