Greta Thunberg, the Savior of the World?

Greta Thunberg, the Savior of the World?

I am getting more and more concerned about the speeches from – and attention given to – Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist. Most recently she was made ‘Person of the Year’ by Time Magazine and it seems she and her ‘Extinction Rebellion’ group is getting more and more financial support from the world’s richest people, e.g. see here:

I have looked at some of her speeches – and it seems they are mostly the same. But, at the end, there is always a clear veiled threat… this one at COP 24:

“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or  not. The real power belongs to the people.” 

Here is the last section of her speech at the UN meeting in New York (23/09/2019):

How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions? With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.”

“There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.  “We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

You see what I mean? Unfortunately, as far as the science is concerned, clearly, Greta is being trained to say what ‘they’ , – whoever ‘they’ may be – want her to say, and she obviously has absolutely no idea of the intricacies involved in climate science. Long ago, I studied the reports from the IPPC [The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], especially those from 2004 and 2007. I found the science showing that carbon dioxide (CO2) is making the earth warmer not supported by convincing evidence. It was still the same science as proposed by Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, ca. 100 years ago. They both performed closed box experiments to show that an increase in CO2 causes warming. However, by looking at a closed box, on earth, you are simply not seeing the whole picture. Let me try to show you what I think is wrong with the theory of manmade warming (AGW), allegedly caused by CO2.

People who have studied chemistry, know that to make a standard solution you need neutral water, free of any dissolved carbonates. Hence, the first instruction is to boil the de-ionized or distilled water for 10 minutes. The reaction can be summarized as follows:

HCO3- + heat = > CO2 (g) + OH- (1)

Understand that there is lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans plus thousands of gigatons of carbonates and bicarbonates as well, due to earlier and on-going volcanic emissions. In fact, according to Ian Plimer, the volcanic eruption in Iceland not so long ago, emitted in 4 days as much carbonates as was ‘saved’ by all our own attempts at reductions in emissions.

When the UV and IR from the sun strikes on top of the ocean’s surface, not only water vapor is formed (H2O g), but also CO2 (g) as per the reaction (1). Hence, we get clouds and rain and the CO2 is getting into our atmosphere. All of this is responsible for life! Remember that everything we eat and drink depends on rain and the sugars formed during photo-synthesis of which CO2 is the principal ingredient.

At the poles and there where it gets very cold, the reaction in the water of the oceans reverses, and CO2 dissolves back into the water. The summary of this reaction is as follows:

CO2 (g) + 2H2O (l) + cold = > HCO3- + H3O+ (2)

Now, imagine earth as a big vessel with liquid on the bottom and gasses on top. There is a natural balance. I am not showing all the reactions that take place in the seawater, but clearly, as per Henry’s Law, [that is not me!], all the dissolved CO2 and all the bi-carbonates and carbonates in the water of the oceans are at an equilibrium with the amount of CO2 in the air. The net reaction that I propose for that, is here:

CO2 (l, in the oceans) + Heat => <= CO2 (g, in the atmosphere ) + Cold (3)

What it means is that the more heat goes into the oceans, the more CO2 comes gassing out into the atmosphere. If the solubility of CO2, & the atmospheric pressure and the pH of the water stays unchanged, then it follows that there must be a correlation between heat and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. As it happens, due to the extra heat coming from the sun and /or the inside of earth [who says that the cooling of earth over time, is an absolute straight line?], we have indeed seen that the temperatuur of the oceans is going up:

[especially so in the northern hemisphere]. We only have good reliable data on CO2 in the atmosphere since about ca. 1964, and indeed, as expected, as per Henry’s Law, we note that CO2 in the atmosphere went up from about 0.03% to 0.04%, see here:

You understand what I am saying? Simply put, the IPCC has put the cart before the horse…The correlation is in reverse. The more heat goes into the oceans the more CO2 comes into the atmosphere… It is a natural relationship. It is Henry’s Law. The IPCC never ever proved that more CO2 in the air also causes more heat on earth.

Now, I know that there are those who have said that not all of the increase observed in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to natural balance, i.e. ‘Henry’s Law’ . They developed some signature test to prove that a substantial portion of the observed 0.01% increase since 1960 is manmade. To this I say: Fine. Let it be so. Even if this is true, it does not really change anything. All it means is that maybe we are running a little ahead of schedule on the eventual balance that will set in as soon as the oceans get cooler again. What could possibly be wrong with that? There is no real change in the natural laws that govern the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

But true enough, the other relevant question here is: would more CO2 in the air indeed also cause more warmth, due to a greenhouse effect?

Let us take a shower. We all know that if we keep the doors of the cubicle closed, some heat lingers in the water vapor around us, long after we have closed the warm water tap. It proves that a greenhouse effect does exist on earth. Unfortunately, what Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see [from a closed box experiment] is that both CO2 and H2O not only have extinction in the part of the spectrum where earth emits, but they also have extinctions in the part of the spectrum where the sun emits. To see the proof of this, carefully look at this report here:

Look at Fig. 6 (bottom), e.g. the green line (CO2) and the blue line (H2O). Clearly you can see that IR radiation from the sun is deflected off from earth by the gasses  CO2 and H2O. So, radiation bounced on CO2 and caused it to go back to space. Note that the radiation (i.e. the peaks between 1 and 2 um) went from the sun => earth (CO2) => moon (i.e. space) => earth. Note that there are also extinctions of CO2 in the UV [this is how we can measure CO2 on other planets!] and between 4 and 5 um [I remember measuring CO2 in N2 at around 4.3 um]

That raises the question: what is more: the amount of heat deflected off from earth by the CO2 due to extinctions of the CO2  in the spectrum of the sun 0-5 um [5500K)], namely those in the UV, and those between 1-2 um and 4-5um, or the amount of heat trapped on earth due to the extinction of CO2 in the 14-15 um region of earth’s spectrum[210K]?

Sadly, there is no report on this…at least none that I could find. Nobody has investigated this problem and made an exact balance sheet of all the plusses and minuses in the correct SI dimensions of how much heat is deflected off from earth and how much heat is trapped by the CO2 on earth.

Looking purely at the spectra, and the number of extinctions in the sun’s spectrum, I would say that the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling, rather than warming…! At best, I give it a zero effect. That corresponds with my analysis of all daily data of 54 weather stations around the world over the past 40 years . Namely, if AGW, were true, due to more CO2, would you not expect that the rate of warming would be the same, more or less, everywhere on the world? Clearly, I find this not being the case.

That brings me back to Greta. She and her leaders are misguided at best or otherwise willfully engaged in misleading the public. Obviously, she might get more and more support, as in spite of the warming, in the next decade, natural climate change will definitely take its toll:

Surely, this will get more and more people, not having faith in God, nor in the hand of God on climate, to ‘accept’ AGW, and be further exploited on their feelings of guilt. Eventually, that might give her and her friends the absolute power that they are after.

Do you trust her?

It being Christmas time soon, let us look at what a girl of similar age said more than 2000 years ago:

“And Mary said: My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on, all
generations will call me blessed……His mercy extends to those who fear him, from
generation to generation….He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has
lifted the humble (Luke 1:46-52).

I wish you a very blessed Christmas season.

Jesus, Born on Christmas Day!

Jesus, Born on Christmas Day!

Wow. It is that time of the year already. Does not time seem to go quicker, as you get older?

Anyway, it means that it is time for my favorite Christmas carol. What do you think?

Let me know which is your favorite carol?

Please be careful on the road and have yourselves a peaceful festive season ahead.




Whenever you feel a bit depressed or facing some challenges, put this song in your mind!

It will remind you that you are never alone and that anything is possible if you realize that He is always there with you and ready to help…..

It has a very simple tune and you will easily remember the words:

He can do Anything!!!

Please, help!

Please, help!

Know that God is doing His work in all 21 homes that are sponsored by Heart for Children made possible by donors like you in South Africa and the Netherlands!

Many thanks to each one of you who share our compassion for orphans and abandoned children.

There are 8 foster homes in the Jeffreys Bay /Humansdorp area that receive regular monthly aid from Heart for Children. They are all run by Victory4All, see

 Unfortunately, to comply with the minimum standard, the one foster home in Koraal str. 7, Jeffreys Bay, needs urgent repairs and if we don’t get the money for this, it might have to be closed. We received a quotation for the work that needs to be done and it comes to R279000. I know this sounds like an awful lot, but I know and trust God that we will raise this amount. First and foremost, I am asking you and everyone who reads this request, if you can help us? Any donation, no matter how great or small will be much appreciated. With your donation or extra donation, please mention your name with Koraal7 in the reference line. Many thanks!

We have already approached the Dischem Foundation and we will also approach other businesses in this regard to hear if they can help us with this project. We are also asking all our supporters again if they are aware of any businesses that can help us? Please let us know.

Henry and Annette in front (middle) of the home in Koraal str.7, Jeffreys Bay.

Heart for Children is an approved public benefit organization. All income & distribution to welfare projects [i.e foster homes] is audited every year. SARS also inspects our yearly income and expenditure statements, and this means that your contributions to Heart for Children are tax deductible! Note that we value and appreciate any contribution you can make! The bank details are:  

Heart for Children, FNB Cheque acc. no 6221 5969 116 (code 250655).

Many thanks for your support! We wish you God’s richest blessings,

Henry and Annette Pool

Giving orphans, vulnerable and abandoned children a chance for a better life!

Please contact us!

Annette: 0834696875 Henry : 0836297690

(Note: no land line number)

Email: Email:


Revisiting the 87-year Gleissberg solar cycle

Revisiting the 87-year Gleissberg solar cycle

The Dutch version of this article, was recently published here:

Sometimes God imparts us with knowledge and at some stage you realize that He has given us this wisdom for a reason: it is for us to help survive the future….Then, by warning the people around you and the community at large, you become a living part of His great picture (our puzzle) that He is [still] building, to make a better, new world.

Unfortunately, many times people do not like to hear the prophetic word, as it was also with most [biblical] prophets in the past. If I remember correctly, it took me [and many others, of course, e.g. Prof. Heyns] at least 18 years of praying & working to get most people to agree that, indeed, apartheid was a sin.

Most lately, I notice of course that requests to pray for rain [in South Africa] have been replaced with the theory that the droughts are caused by manmade climate change, putting blame and guilt on totally innocent people. I am hoping that my post here will enlighten you! [do you still remember what it means to be ‘verlig’?]

To start of with: Did you ever wonder how it was possible for Joseph to accurately explain Pharaoh’s dream and correctly predict drought time?  I am willing to bet that there was some science involved in it….and I don’t think that would make the miracle of Joseph’s ascend into greatness from zero to hero anything less! The Egyptians were known for keeping an eye on the level of the river Nile and it seems possible to me that the prison that Joseph ended up at, may have been at or near to the Nile river. If so, then it seems probable that Joseph oversaw making the measurements of the height of the Nile as well as having access to old records. That could have given him all the clues he needed…..

Namely, there is a report about this from 1985 by William Arnold. [This was of course before they started with the nonsense that climate change is caused by a completely innocent trace gas, carbon dioxide].

If you turn to page 9, you will note that William predicted the river Nile to be at a minimum level in 1990. I looked at this from 4 completely different angles and I re-calculated this date. In all cases I came to a date of 1995 or close. This was by looking at

  1.  My own statistical analysis of all daily data from 54 weather stations from all around the world.
  2. The solar polar magnetic field strengths.
  3. The position of certain planets.
  4. The general increase in ozone, especially since 1995.

You will understand that over the past few decades many big dams and irrigation systems have been installed in the Nile and of course this will interfere with the measurement of the level of river Nile as it now stands. However, the principle remains the same, namely that there will be periods of more – or less – rain around the equator due to a decrease or increase in the intensity of a certain type of radiation from the sun, coming through the atmosphere, due to a 80-90 year weather cycle as proposed by Arnold and his predecessors, Wolff and Gleissberg. We are now moving toward a period of much more rain around the equator. A logical consequence of this is that there will be less rain and clouds available for the higher latitudes, 40-50 . [It may also have to do with the maximum amount of water vapor that can be available in the atmosphere which is a function of actual average global temperature]. Hence, one reason for me to predict droughts coming to the higher latitudes.

The existence of the Gleissberg cycle was known by a number of scientists long before the start of the new millennium, as shown by the reports below:

However, there are also more recent reports, like these,

  1. The ‘persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last 12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes’
  2. A simple conceptual model to interpret the 100 000 years dynamics of paleo-climate records showing the Gleissberg cycle at 86.5 years – which closely corresponds with my own measurements of the current GB cycle:

All of this is apart from my own investigations, which clearly [and independently] revealed an 87-year cycle [to me]. I believe that in 2014 we have started a new Gleissberg cycle. We note that normally this cycle is around 86-88 years, but apparently it can vary upward or downward by a few years. Looking in the past, particularly at drought times on the great plains of America, we find an astounding repetitiveness in serious drought times that were encountered every 87 years:

  1. The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. The main problem is that this very same area is currently counted as the breadbasket of the whole world, largely determining the price of wheat…
  2. Exactly 87 years earlier we had a similar problem in the USA, the drought time apparently being linked to one of the causes of the decimation of the bison:
  3. Again 87 years earlier, there is evidence from certain records of serious drought time experienced in Virginia in 1758 causing the government to take some special actions on taxation to provide relief for the farmers….

If you did your sums and followed my reasoning, you’d realize that we can expect major droughts and perhaps food shortages in the world in the decade to come on the 40-50 latitudes…The question is whether at the end of the next decade there will still be people left who realize that the disaster caused by the drought times is not man made?