False Data Justifies Aerosol Geoengineering the Arctic to “Save” the Melting Ice Sheets 3

Comment: Corpse media is happy not to inform you that  methane and natural gas are essentially the same with the chemical formula CH4.  Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and marketed to users as natural gas with additives to optimize electric power generation and domestic use.   Oil drilling releases large volumes of methane into the atmosphere and/or ocean with no requirement to capture it.  Fracking technologies extract large volumes of methane from depleted drilling sites to sell in the energy market.  If your stove burns natural gas your fuel of choice is actually methane (CH4).  (source)

Occupy Corporatism headerSusanne Posel

False Data Justifies Spraying Sulfuric Aerosols in Arctic to Save the Melting Ice-Sheets

Occupy Corporatism
September 3, 2012

Under the Arctic ice-sheets are supposed more than 400 billion metric tons of carbon that is assumed to slowly seep out with methane as the effects of global warming continue. The permafrost of the Antarctic has nearly the same amount stored in the frozen soil.

Methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 and would have drastic effects on the temperature of the earth, say alarmists like Jemma Wadham, professor of Glaciology at the U.K.’s University of Bristol. “There’s a potentially large pool of methane hydrate in part of the Earth where we haven’t previously considered it. Depending on where that hydrate is, and how much there is, if the ice thins in those regions, some of that hydrate could come out with a possible feedback on climate.”

The latest insinuation in alarmist circles is that methane is affecting the temperature of the earth through carbon dioxide emissions. Regardless of the scientific data refuting CO2 as a defining factor in the planet’s natural cycle of rising and lowering temperature, this new ploy appears to have more punch tan just blaming CO2 alone.  *** continue

Global Warming Trojan Horse

Geoengineering Aerosols Migrate to Polar Regions to Warm Atmosphere 1

Geoengineering exposed Header

National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India

“…the presence of aerosols including the Black carbon has already been reported over the Polar Regions”

Aerosol radiation forcing over the Arctic region by measuring aerosol optical depth spectrum and radiation

Atmospheric aerosols are important constituents that affect the radiation budget of the region. Although the polar regions are not the source of locally generated aerosols but due to large scale global circulations the aerosols generated naturally as well as anthropogenic find their way at poles. The presence of aerosols including the Black carbon has already been reported over the Polar Regions. We aim to assess the amount of radiation forcing at Ny-Alesund at the surface and top of the atmosphere by measuring the AOD spectral variation and the amount of global radiation falling on the surface.

The spectral variation of the column AOD, total column ozone and water vapor will be measured using sun photometer (MICROTOPS as they are handy to use). These will then be used in model to estimate the necessary aerosol parameters like single scattering albedo, phase function, etc which will then be used in the radiative transfer model like SBDART to obtain the aerosol radiation forcing. In order to have direct assessment of the impact of aerosols on radiation the ground based measurements of total global radiation will also be done using pyranometer in the broad band radiation range. The impact on UVB radiation will be studied using the UV-Biometer.

The following instruments are proposed to be utilized on a regular basis for the studies proposed:  MORE

NOTE:  It is little challenge to deduce that the net result of atmospheric warming results when GE aerosols and black carbon trap heat and provide less reflective albedo than polar ice.  H Saive
__________________________________

Ny Alesund Science Plan

Arctic Ocean and the surrounding regions are one of the most important areas that not only govern the earth’s climate but also faithfully record its past climatic history. The region is also an excellent harbinger of future change, because the signals or clues that signify climate change are so much stronger in the Arctic than elsewhere on the planetMore

1947 Shock News : “Enormous” “Alarming” “Serious” “Catastrophic” Polar Melt To Drown The Planet. International Agency Needed To Study The Problem 3

Gore Chemtrails is Conspiracy Theory GW is Real
This very interesting find by Steven Goddard deepens the intrigue of manufactured panic having to do with earth’s climate, Arctic warming and global flooding.  I missed this when researching my post from 11/16/2012 – Government Documents Link Global Warming to Advanced Military Climate Modification Technology  HERE
__________________________________________

For almost 100 years, until the 1960’s –  proposals to warm the arctic were met with open arms.

__________________________________________

In 1962, popular meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed a mammoth, draconian project to warm the arctic as late as 1962 – 19 years after Hans Ahlmann’s research found the Arctic was already warming.  It’s interesting that these opposing “climatic” proclamations were announced in the years following WWII when the 1947 National Security Act formed the CIA and “operation overcast” (later named “operation paper clip”) had put many Nazi scientists to work on rocket projects in the US.  This unmistakable push to do something BIG about the climate, weather and atmosphere came about when rockets were being developed to launch payloads of nuclear warheads and chemicals into near-earth orbit including the Van Allen belt, Magnetosphere, Ionosphere and stratosphere.

.
Now, jet aircraft aerosol nano-particles and pathogens infect us in the troposphere where we breathe.

.
Now that the US is revealed as little more than a fascist regime these weather and climate modification schemes are now more obviously instruments of social and population control.  The organized denial of Chemtrails and Tesla technologies by ALL US government agencies serves to cloak the secret deployment of these weather weapons as climate and weather manipulation long enough to subdue organized resistance.  Violent weather,  hurricanes, tornadoes and drought will be manufactured by secret weather weapons to soften the public will to accept climate change, carbon taxes and ultimate financial slave

Excerpt:

Remember when Scientists Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass.  Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)

Wexler’s was last in a long line of ambitious proposals to warm the Arctic.   Coincidently, his proposals were made at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program – a direction in which the military had already embarked in 1958.

“Global Warming” initiatives proposed by Wexler:

  •  To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of  ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
  • To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C could be doable, “by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
  • To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane.  Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5  (source)        

MORE

____________________________________________________________________

Saturday 31 May 1947:  Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. An ‘enormous’ rise from the scientific standpoint. Waters in the Spitsbergen area, in the same period, have risen from three to five degrees in temperature, and one to one and a half millimetres yearly in level. ‘The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis.’ said Dr. Ahlmann. He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.

31 May 1947 – ARCTIC CLIMATE’S ALARMING CHANGE

Arctic Climate Alarming Change 1947

___________________________________________________

Townsville Daily Bulletin Sat., 31 May 1947

ARCTIC CLIMATE’S ALARMING CHANGE LOS ANGEL.ES. May 30 (1957).— A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, and in the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated, said Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist today, at tbe University of California’s Geophysical Institute. Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.  An ‘enormous’ rise from the scientific standpoint. Waters in the Spitsbergen area, in the same period, have risen from three to five degrees in temperature, and one to one and a half millimetres yearly in level. 

“The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis.” said Dr. Ahlmann.

He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.

___________________________________________________

CLICK HERE

Book Climate Change Chilling possibilities

__________________________________________________________

Greenpeace Allegience to UN/IPCC Revealed as Basis for Chemtrails Denial 33

Greenpaece chemtrail blimp

“A widespread deployment of chemtrails could hardly remain hidden from the IPCC.”

– Cyrill Studer- Greepeace, Switzerland

_______________________________________________

Dr. Patrick Moore Greenpeace founder

Dr. Patrick Moore

In his 2010 book:   “CONFESSIONS OF A GREENPEACE DROPOUT – The making of a sensible environmentalist” – Greenpeace founder (1971 to 1986) Dr. Patrick Moore reveals his reasons for quitting the organization he helped to create.  A passage excerpted from the book’s forward follows:

“You could call me a Greenpeace dropout, but that is not an entirely accurate description of how or why I left the organization 15 years after I helped create it. I’d like to think Greenpeace left me, rather than the other way around, but that too is not entirely correct.  The truth is Greenpeace and I underwent divergent evolutions.I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human.”

“Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human.”

___________________________________________

The Great Riddle:  Greenpeace and the Chemtrail Question.

Raum and Zeit Magazine

Source:  It was written by the Swiss freelance journalist and chemtrail activist, Gabriel Stetter.  The first article by Gabriel that is online here at Holmestead.ca:  Raum+Zeit – issue 127 created quite a storm in Europe and he has followed up with this discussion of why the environmental activists of Greenpeace are so silent on the issue of “The illegal high altitude spraying by large military type aircraft of unknown substances – commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails’”.

The “chemtrail” question is not a belief system; but an observable scientific fact. Greenpeace and other such organizations bring into question their integrity when they fail to take appropriate action.

We often see “rainbows” in the aerosols and the rainbow is also the symbol of Greenpeace, an organization, onto which many people set their last hopes.

In Gabriel’s own words: “After the huge uproar caused in Germany over the release of my “White Skies” – chemtrail article in the German science magazine, “Raum+Zeit” (January 2004) and subsequent reprints due to public demand, likeminded “seers” joined forces with the aim of gaining the attention of Greenpeace, Germany. Greenpeace in Germany is a huge eco-concern with millions of committed supporters who believe in its integrity, and the logical step for us was to ask them to do some basic scientific analysis, and help in generally clarifying the identity and aim of this ghastly weather modification program.

However, thousands of people were thoroughly shocked when they realised, and were informed by Greenpeace in Germany, Switzerland and Austria that – for some reason or other – Greenpeace has NO INTEREST IN THE CHEMTRAIL QUESTION WHATSOEVER. This obviously had me – and many, many others – piqued, and I decided to do a little research into the possible background of the eco-group`s strange position and its striking evasiveness. This new article, just released in Germany, is an overview of the current state of the chemtrail discussion in “Old Europe” and shows some of the intriguing results of that search…”

For the Greenpeace International web site with links to all countries go: Greenpeace where you may contact them, let your voice be heard and also familiarized yourself with the stated objectives of Greenpeace:

“Greenpeace is a non-profit organisation, with a presence in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific.

To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and foundation grants.

As a global organisation, Greenpeace focuses on the most crucial worldwide threats to our planet’s biodiversity and environment.”

Note that in the section below: Trust in the Light?  the reference to Lucifer is intended to be interpreted in the literal Latin sense of “bringer of light or illuminator” – although the Church has other thoughts on this subject.

September 16,  2004:  As a result of viewing this Holmestead.ca page a visitor wrote to Greenpeace Canada  and received a prompt response – the text of the Greenpeace e-mail is below:

At least the Greenpeace representative admits to perhaps a little barium from the ‘occasional’ chemtrail – so this is worthwhile in that it indicates they are now aware of the term and admit to the issues involved.  But it does appear that it all may be the supporter’s fault for not sending more money!

Even if Greenpeace Canada have no resources to study the “chemtrail” issue it would help a great deal if Greenpeace would make a statement on their web site that acknowledges the existence of “chemtrails” so that *we* don’t have to convince people but simply say: “…look here – Greenpeace knows about it!”

From:(Greenpeace Canada)
To: “J*** C****”
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: chemtrails and Greenpeace

Dear Ms. C****,

Sadly, there are any number of highly toxic pollutants that are discharged from the average jet engine on a regular, frequent daily basis that are far more immediately and terribly deadly than the barium that may or may not be found in the occasional chemtrail.

Many of those other pollutants have been ones that Greenpeace has worked on in the past, but we have never had the resources to work on all of them, everywhere, all of the time. We would probably need an operating budget one hundred times of what we have currently to be able to do so, and the money that we bring in to do the work that we do comes from donors like yourself, we take no government or corporate funding. So it is always an uphill battle for us to raise funds, under those circumstances.

And I am afraid that we would probably need to be working on a lot of other issues that we are only partly dealing with currently before we would even consider the possibility of even looking into the issue of chemtrails. The world is being damaged in hundreds of other more deadly ways that need to be dealt with first if there is going to continue to be a world to live on.

And people tend to look at us as the solution to the world’s environmental problems, but we aren’t, people like you are. You are. We are merely the messenger.

I have looked at our records and it appears that the most recent donation that you have made to Greenpeace was in the year 2000, but if this information is incorrect and there is some actual change that you do need me to make to your file on the database, as to an ongoing donation or some such thing, please let me know.

Kevin Gamble
Member Services
Greenpeace Canada
1-800-320-7183
http://www.greenpeace.ca

*****
6 October 2004:  I have just received by mail from Germany a hard copy of this current issue #131 of the Raum + Zeit magazine.

It is an impressive, high quality publication with a circulation of some 50,000, much on the lines of a traditional scientific journal but as a theme it is apparently devoted to popular scientific issues that are otherwise ignored by the controlled mainstream media.

Specifically, issue #131 contains some sixteen full color pages devoted to the subject of “chemtrails” with, in addition to the well illustrated article by Gabriel Stetter, many letters from readers responding positively to his first article in issue #127.  Many of these letters are illustrated with color photographs supplied by the readers themselves.  Then there is a supplementary article on the same subject and of this total of sixteen pages only half a page is advertising!

If only they published Space and Time in North America!

*****

The article below is used with permission and the text is presented here exactly as originally published in German without any subsequent editing.  Translation of the original version was by Graham Rickett, Stroud, England.

The Great Riddle:  Greenpeace and the Chemtrail Question.

“Greenpeace? I, as well as others, suspect them of (to put it politely) not being ‘sincere’. There have been contacts with them, and they have insulted the intelligence of those asking for their input.”

     Chemtrail activist and ‘Deep Shield’ interviewer Brian Holmes, Ontario. (1)DENIAL AND – WHERE NECESSARY – SILENCE

Since the publication of the article ‘Destruction of the Sky’ (2) and the bringing to light of the spraying programme for ‘stabilization of the climate’ that is being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations Organization (UNO), hundreds of telephone calls have been made and thousands of letters sent to every imaginable office and public authority in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Countless experts – climatologists, flight control officers, even members of the intelligence services, have been asked their opinion. The result can be summed up in a very few words: Despite the fact that his inquiries are based on evidence that is available to any critical observer, that can be explained on the basis of solid fact, and objectively tested and verified, the chemtrails researcher meets up with an impenetrable wall of silence.

It is also disturbing to find that in the discussion sparked off by the article the claims made about chemtrails have not been shown to contain any significant error. This became apparent when, as the author of the article, countless replies from the authorities were sent to me – but only by other people. In the course of a full year’s discussion of chemtrails in the German-speaking world, not a single public authority, professional institution or environmental organization considered it necessary to contact the present author. As a rule, letters from the author to government departments also remained unanswered.

Thus a communication of April 21st 2004 to the press spokesperson for the Federal Environment Agency in Berlin, Dr. Claudia Mäder, was strictly ignored. In it the present writer had merely asked for a statement confirming that “the laying of chemtrails as a weather-changing project is not taking place in the skies of Germany”. To respond to a demand of this kind was asking too much of the Federal Environment Agency.

Whether the complete silence maintained by this authority from then onwards may have something to do with the fact (passed on to us by reliable sources) that Dr. Mäders’s superior, seminar leader Dr. Sartorius, is a high-ranking member of the German delegation to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a question we will leave aside for the time being.

Whether behaviour of this kind on the part of our public authorities is simply a matter of chance, I am gradually beginning to doubt; at any rate, it can have nothing to do with the ‘ridiculous’ or ‘unverifiable’ nature of the arguments that are put forward.

GREENPEACE IN A DILEMMA?

Greenpeace Switzerland, on the other hand, seems to be of a different opinion. Thus its climate and transport expert Cyrill Studer wrote the following statement to his colleagues in an internal memo of March 15th 2004: “I have heard of the chemtrails phenomenon. (…) For the present, Greenpeace (…) will not be following up the theme of chemtrails. There is not a sufficiently solid scientific basis. (…) Greenpeace is not an organization that can undertake the verification of a supposed phenomenon. On the one hand, our independence would not be guaranteed and, on the other, it would overstretch our capacities. In other words, important elements of our climate campaign would suffer, particularly the promotion of energy efficiency and of renewable energies, or our active influence in present-day politics.”

How climate expert Studer imagines that the observations of tens of thousands of Swiss, German and Austrian citizens who have recently become extremely interested in the climate can be based on mere supposition, is a question we will set aside for the present. But to conclude from this, that an internal investigation of the chemtrails phenomenon might deprive Greenpeace of its influence in today’s (environmental) politics seems to derive from a very peculiar kind of logical argument. How could such a thing come about? One cannot avoid the impression that something is being intentionally left unclear. Quite a new light would be shed on the position of the environmental campaigners if it turned out that for Greenpeace a thing ‘cannot be’ if it is `not allowed to be’. But let us pause for a moment and see what else Studer has to tell his concerned fellow-campaigners:

“In the climate debate Greenpeace relies on the insights of the UNO climate research committee, the IPCC. This panel, which comprises around 2000 climate experts, is recognized and independent. The conclusions drawn by them are clear: Global warming represents the greatest danger to humanity. A widespread deployment of chemtrails could hardly remain hidden from the IPCC.”

Thus Greenpeace is reliant, so Studer says, on the insights of the IPCC – and thereby of the UNO. The chemtrails article in ‘Raum+Zeit’ he claims to have read; and therefore knows that in it the IPCC is accused not only of involvement in upholding the secrecy of the spraying project, which has meantime spread throughout the world, but of having given its consent to the world’s biggest secret project since the ’Manhattan Project’ of Oppenheimer. However, this does not prevent the Greenpeace activist Studer from maintaining that global warming represents the greatest threat to mankind. Chemtrails, so he believes, are an impossibility, because otherwise the IPCC would be aware of it – and Greenpeace would of course immediately be informed.

For Studer and Greenpeace Switzerland it is certainly comforting to know that BUWAL, the department for Environment, Forest and Rural Affairs of the Swiss Confederacy is entirely satisfied with the seemingly conclusive judgement of the UNO climate authority.

Thus on March 5th 2004 the environment department in Berne responded to the inquiry of Rudolf Rechsteiner, social democratic member of parliament, as follows:

“A number of ideas exist that show how it would be possible to reduce global warming by technical means, at least in the short term. (…) However, these ideas (…) are no more than theoretical. We are not aware of any practical application of these methods, either at home or abroad.”

But it goes on to say: “In Chap. 4.7 of volume III of the IPCC report on its scientific conclusions to date, these measures are summarized under the term ‘geoengineering’ and are commented on briefly (cf. Supplement).” (3)

Included as a supplement with the BUWAL statement there was a short excerpt from the IPCC report “Climate Change 2001 – Mitigation” in English. Obviously, neither Dr. Rechsteiner, who – with undisguised relief – passed the report on to me, nor Herr Studer of Greenpeace had actually read it. In German the report exists only in a much abridged version (IPCC wording: “For policy-makers”). Also entirely lacking are concrete details about geoengineering, like those given by chemtrails informer ‘Deep Shield’, the Academy of Sciences Report of 1991, and the ‘Welsbach Patent’. (2)

So we would still like to apply to the policy-makers in Greenpeace and BUWAL the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, as it remains important for us to try to clarify the mystery, we propose now – exclusively for “Raum+Zeit” readers – to take a look at the small print of the IPCC report.

WHAT DOES THE IPCC REALLY SAY?

In the original English version of Chap. 4.7 we now read the following:

The term ‘geo-engineering’ has been used to characterize large-scale, deliberate manipulations of earth environments. Keith (2001) emphasizes that it is the deliberateness that distinguishes geo-engineering from other large-scale, human impacts on the global environment. (…) Management of the biosphere (…) has sometimes been included under the heading of geo-engineering. (…)

The concept of geo-engineering also includes the possibility of engineering the earth`s climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of carbon dioxide could be offset by an increase of 1.5 to 2% in the earth`s albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space. Because these later concepts offer a potential approach for mitigating changes in the global climate (…), these additional geo-engineering concepts are introduced briefly here. (…)

Most recently, work by Teller et al. (1997) has re-examined the possibility of optical scattering, either in space or in the stratosphere, to alter the earth`s albedo and thus to modulate climate. (…) In agreement with the 1992 NAS (National Academy of Sciences) study, Teller et al. found that about 10,000,000 tons of dielectric aerosols (…) would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by about 1%. (…)

In addition, Teller et al. demonstrate that use of metallic or optically resonant scatterers can, in principle, greatly reduce the total mass of scattering particles required. Two configurations of metal scatterers that were analysed in detail are mesh microstructures and micro-balloons. Conductive metal mesh is the most mass-efficient configuration. (…)

Finally, Teller et al. show that either system, if fabricated in aluminium, can be designed to have long stratospheric lifetimes yet oxidize rapidly in the troposphere, ensuring that few particles are deposited on the surface. (…)

It is unclear whether the cost of these novel scattering systems would be less than that of the older proposals (…) However, it is unlikely that cost would play an important role in the decision to deploy such a system. (…) It is likely that issues of risk, politics, and environmental ethics will prove to be the decisive factors in real choices about implementation. The importance of the novel scattering systems is not in minimizing cost, but in their potential to minimize risk. Two of the key problems with earlier proposals were the potential impact on atmospheric chemistry, and the change in the ratio of direct to diffuse solar radiation, and the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky. The proposals of Teller et al. suggest that the location, scattering properties, and chemical reactivity of the scatterers could, in principle, be tuned to minimize both of these impacts.”

At this point in the argument we must leave it to our worthy readers to connect the conclusions arising from the IPCC report with the observations they have themselves made of the sky above their own homes. It would seem that the ‘ordinary person’s’ powers of deduction – as well as his/her commonsense – is far more developed than that of many “policy-makers” in politics, economy and science, who presume, with their foolhardy chemtrails project, to decide on our behalf what – raining down from the sky in form of fine metallic particles – is conducive to our health.

PHENOMENON, BLUEPRINT OR SPRAYING TRIAL?

Greenpeace, at any rate, as shown by its statements and our own research is itself not clear what it knows about chemtrails – or what it is supposed to know. For whereas in March in the Zürich headquarters the statement “chemtrails as a supposed phenomenon” was still circulating as a (typically Swiss) mild breeze, a rather more blustery wind was blowing a short time afterwards at Greenpeace Hamburg. On June 11th press spokesperson Kristine Läger made a rebuttal in the following terms:

“The idea of reducing global warming by putting chemicals in the atmosphere has been around a long time. There are various proposals in this direction, suggesting the chemicals should be independently sprayed and that they should be mixed with the fuel of ordinary passenger aircraft. Whether in Germany such proposals have reached the point of actual realization is highly questionable. So far as we are aware there are no indications from research and observation of weather and climate that these so-called chemtrails exist. Nor are we aware of any project that has been realized in practice.”

Thus we see that Greenpeace confirms the statements made in our chemtrail report about the spraying procedures. The only difficulty with us chemtrail-believers is that we obviously have a sense-perception problem: While Ms. Läger in Hamburg, despite her knowledge of theoretical ‘proposals’, gazes calmly on a deep-blue sky which is only occasionally disturbed by a lonely vapour-trail, we bleary-eyed chemtrail conspiracy-theorists see, absurdly enough, the precise results of the ‘projects’ Greenpeace describes!

To repeat: Greenpeace Germany does in fact know all about the ‘ideas’; they probably also know the ‘Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming’ report of the National Academy of Sciences, and they may even have taken a look at the Welsbach Patent. But they have no idea what conclusions to draw from the chessboard pattern suspended in the Hamburg sky or the aluminium-enriched “rainbows” (see the ‘chembows’ column). Nor do they seem to have read very throroughly the unabridged IPCC “Climate Change 2001” report (which is about implementation rather than just the ideas), or my article ‘Destruction of the Sky’, for Ms. Läger goes to say:

“If these chemicals are meant to have a real effect in terms of changing the climate, they would need to be distributed world-wide, over large areas, and with great frequency. Otherwise it would have no point at all. It would be a costly project, requiring the investment of vast resources, and carrying with it unforeseeable risks. And in all probability this is not happening. However, we cannot discount the possibility that spraying trials have taken place.”

Our thanks to Ms. Läger in Hamburg for clarifying the situation: It is precisely this world-wide laying of chemtrails with great frequency and covering large areas, that is continually being documented. It is, as we already know, costly and hazardous, and requires the investment of vast resources. We know that Dr. Teller’s Livermore Laboratory estimated an annual cost of one billion dollars before the green light was given. For contrary to Ms. Lägers’s assumptions the cost/benefit analysis has long been carried out. What evidence do we have of this? A press statement of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory dated 19th Dec. 2002 is relieved to inform the public: “Biosphere unaffected by geo-engineering schemes.” (4)

The result in a nutshell? Livermore`s atmospheric scientists led by Kenneth Caldeira and Bala Govindasamy set our fears to rest: “This new work shows that a change in solar flux to stabilize climate would have little effect on the terrestrial biosphere,” Kenneth Caldeira assures us. It is even conceivable, the scientist adds, that an increase in carbon dioxide emissions will benefit plant growth in the long term: “In fact, turning down the sun a bit reduces evaporation and therefore gives the plants more water for photosynthesis so that they may actually grow better in a geo-engineered world than they do today.“

Thus we see: A feasibility study of Livermore Laboratory which offers a prospect of success – though in the view of the present writer produced after the fact – mutates in Ms. Lägers’s hands to a high-risk, and therefore entirely improbable, scenario.

But wait a moment, we almost forgot it: the ‘spraying trial’. Yes, something did happen, but only once, and a long time ago too? The final sentence of this excerpt from the Greenpeace statement is – we admit – the most puzzling: Is it the case that “a deployment of chemtrails would scarcely remain hidden from the IPCC and Greenpeace also”, as Greenpeace Switzerland is still trying to reassure us in March; or may there have been ‘spraying trials’ all the same, as Greenpeace Germany forebodes in June? Or is Greenpeace in Hamburg keeping the back door open for what is known in the USA as “controlled disclosure”: the gradual imparting of information that is distasteful to the general population, in carefully planned stages?

So we see: Question after question arises, contradictions too; maybe even cover-ups. Cover-ups? – What an audacious thought!

SHADOW-BOXING

‘Greenpeace Magazine/4’ (July/August 2004) has just come out. The magazine, published in Hamburg (circulation 120,000), basing its articles on the unspeakable climate shocker “The Day After Tomorrow”, has this time tackled a question that concerns us all: “Before the Flood – Climate Change and its Consequences”. Fifteen pages are devoted to a detailed report on the subject; and five pages to, amongst other things, possible (technological-Utopian) counter-strategies.

So it is with some degree of curiosity that I turn to pages 40-44 where the significant heading “Foam-beaters and Shadow-boxers” seems to hold out the promise of information on the chemtrail phenomenon. As the chemtrails are generally known to be an example of shadow-boxing par excellence, my expectations are correspondingly high. But, oh dear, what do I find in the Greenpeace article? We are told about mirrors in space, golf-balls in the sea, artificial volcanic eruptions; there is even mention of an aluminium-micro-balloon project of chemtrail mentor Edward Teller. But concerning the environmental phenomenon which is causing the greatest concern in the German-speaking world at present, and has prompted the sending of countless hundreds of letters to Greenpeace, there is not a single word, no trace whatever.

From audacious thought – to justified suspicion therefore. Is there really a cover-up, then, after all? The question may be permitted at this point, since the indications are reaching dangerous proportions where Greenpeace is concerned. Or are we to believe that the time of publication has everything to do with “Before the Flood” and nothing whatever to do with “The Destruction of the Sky”?

Maybe – as is so often the case – it is the simplest answer which comes closest to the truth. Supposing the word ‘chemtrails’ appeared in print in the “Greenpeace Magazine”: How many tens of thousands of people more would look up into the sky and recognize that the supposedly Utopian “proposal” has long moved on via “spraying trials” to a systematic, long-term spreading of cloud cover over the whole of Europe? If we call to mind the many clues that lead us to suspect an axis connecting UNO-IPCC-Greenpeace, then the question arises: Could Greenpeace have received “from above” the instruction to carry out an exercise in damage-limitation? Not a comfortable thought, but one that is hard to resist in this case.

TRUST IN THE LIGHT?

Lucis Trust, one of the leading publishers of the written material of the UNO in New York, can boast a very eventful company history. Founded in 1922 under the name ‘Lucifer Publishing Company’ by Alice Bailey, President of the Theosophical Society, Lucis Trust was to help to propagate the writings which Bailey and her esoteric circle believed were helping to prepare the coming of the Theosophical Figure of Light – otherwise known as Lucifer.

Although the Lucifer Publishing Company – for understandable reasons – soon changed its name to Lucis Trust (actually „Trust in the Light“), its offices remained for many years at a highly significant address: 666 United Nations Plaza. The proximity to the headquarters of the United Nations was no accident: Today Lucis Trust – at a new address in Wall Street – is still a noteworthy publisher of both ‘New Age’ literature and of many publications of the UNO administration, and is in charge of the interdenominational ‘meditation room’ at UN headquarters.

One source of funding of Lucis Trust is a finance conglomerate led by former US defence minister Robert McNamara, one of those chiefly responsible for the US military disaster in Vietnam, and later President of the World Bank. Some of this money is apparently channelled to other causes: Lucis Trust is a generous sponsor of humanitarian organizations – Amnesty International, for example, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace International. (5)

What, one is inclined to ask, does this – possibly covert – financing of Greenpeace by organizations which are closely connected to the UNO and the World Bank, have to do with the chemtrails ‘phenomenon’? Maybe nothing at all; or maybe more than many of us will relish.

THE GRIEFAHN CONFESSION

But enough of that. In defiant mood we make a last attempt to find out something about the spraying of fine metallic particles in the skies of Germany, and turn – free from illusion, as befits the situation – to a politician, Monika Griefahn (German Social Democratic Party). Ms. Griefahn, board member of Greenpeace Germany from 1984-1990 and for the following eight years environment minister for Lower Saxony, now chairs the Committee for Culture and Media of the Federal German Parliament. She therefore moves with equal agility on the slippery terrain of environmental politics and in the media quagmire. On July 8th Ms. Griefahn replied to a letter from two chemtrail activists as follows:

“I am in basic agreement with your concerns. Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms. (…)”

Well, a clear statement at last! Ms. Griefahn is not only – like Greenpeace – fully aware that all sorts of experiments are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere. She can even talk about them. Thus the ex-environment minister has joined the ranks of those brave politicians who only remain – ‘half-silent’. The fact that Ms. Griefahn’s years with Greenpeace in Hamburg are some distance removed in the past, has obviously not prevented her from keeping up with developments in environmental policy. She knows what is going on. On the other hand, instructions to the effect that she is to keep quiet are not getting through to Ms. Griefahn. And that is a good thing. For otherwise a statement such as the following would not be possible:

“I share your concern over the use of aluminium or barium compounds which have a considerable toxic potential. However, so far as I am aware the extent of their use is so far minimal. In any case it would be much more sensible (in the logic of such experiments) to place compounds of this kind not in the troposphere, but in the stratosphere, where their exit from the atmosphere would occur far less rapidly.”

At last! There we have it. In the skies of Germany, so Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn tells us, aluminium and barium compounds are being spread just as tens of thousands of concerned citizens have observed, documented and bitterly deplored. So far as Ms. Griefahn is aware the amounts spread have been small, but with all due respect, Honourable Member, we “chemtrail conspirators” know better, because we have, for ages, been looking quite consciously every day.

Thanks for your courage, all the same. Who knows? – Maybe one day statues of politicians like Monika Griefahn or the equally plucky US Congressman Dennis Kucinich will adorn in marble splendour the squares of newly verdant German or American cities. As silent witnesses, perhaps, of the lunacy of an epoch in which the madness of manipulation – of the human being, of plants, animals, of the weather – control-freakery and inner inflexibility, had for a short time taken possession of the human soul?

But we first look forward to seeing how Greenpeace dismisses the ‘Griefahn Confession’.

MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND

Basel, the present author’s town of residence, is – perhaps unsurprisingly – a stronghold of believers in chemtrails; one in ten people, so opinion polls say, have already heard of them despite the media blackout. Several thousand people in the prosperous town at the bend in the Rhine know that the chemtrails phenomenon suggests that something is seriously wrong.

Among them are several elderly, but resolute, ladies and gentlemen, well-to-do people, who because of their environmental awareness have been for a long time, in some cases for decades, members of Greenpeace. (6) They include members of the ’exclusive’ Rainbow Warrior Club who have committed themselves to a fixed annual contribution, and also businesswomen who have made over to Greenpeace substantial legacies in the event of their death. Veteran anti-nuclear activists, campaigners for animal welfare or against electrosmog; in their alarm they had all turned to Greenpeace because of the chemtrails – which are visible everywhere in the skies above Basel. But a painful experience awaited all of them: They were palmed off with the same unsatisfactory answers that we have by now grown tired of hearing. (7)

But ‘is’ can become ‘was’: the consequence drawn by these elderly, well-to-do activists from Greenpeace’s lack of interest was the immediate cancellation of membership of many years, the withdrawal of legacies, and the witholding of payments to Greenpeace until further notice.

Now Greenpeace is an organization with a good reputation to lose. This reputation rests upon the quality of its pioneering work for the sake of man and environment, and upon an image which has led one to believe in the highest integrity of the environmental group. But if it were to emerge that Greenpeace – unbeknown to the general public – follows instructions from a higher source, from UNO authorities, for example, and is therefore deliberately burying its head in the sand in the chemtrails question, its good reputation could soon be destroyed.

Such a policy is of no service to anyone, least of all to Greenpeace itself. There is unquestionably a need for environmental organizations of this kind. Greenpeace has the scientifically qualified people, the financial resources and the technical know-how that would enable it to get to the bottom of the chemtrails riddle straightforwardly and reliably, once and for all. If Greenpeace only wanted to.

However, the question remains: Does Greenpeace want, and is it allowed, to do so? For the present the answer seems to be a decisive ‘NO’. But we who feel threatened by the obvious reality of chemtrails, and are shocked by this ostensible lack of interest, have it in our power to get Greenpeace to reexamine its attitude.

For Greenpeace is not only an environment organization, it is also a fund-raising machine. The funds raised keep the engine up and – as in most cases, Greenpeace`s engine still requires oil – running; the effectiveness of Greenpeace is entirely dependent on the money donated. Perhaps you too, dear Reader, have been for years a member of Greenpeace, or support its campaigns? Maybe you too would like to see actions, instead of mere words and cover-ups? Maybe you would become a member – if Greenpeace were only to become concretely active?

Remember, therefore, the power of your purse and do not hesitate to let Greenpeace know of it. Ask to be sent information on what Greenpeace is planning to do about chemtrails. Or strike a bargain with Greenpeace: Membership in exchange for a genuine clarification of the chemtrails question. But also point out what will happen to your membership or your donation, if Greenpeace remains inactive.

‘Money makes the world go round’ – and with it Greenpeace too.

Let us therefore not hesitate to remind Greenpeace of its lofty aims. For only if we do so will Greenpeace fulfil its responsibility towards man and the environment, in the chemtrails question which so deeply concerns us all.

FOOTNOTES

(1) http://www.holmestead.ca – email of B. Holmes, 16.6.04.
(2) ‘Die Zerstörung des Himmels’, Raum+Zeit Nr. 127, Jan/Feb 2004. Available in English from G. Rickett.
(3) ‘Climate Change 2001: Mitigation’ – 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC/Accra, Ghana 1997). Chap. 4.7, Pages 333-334. Full report: http://www.grida.no/climat/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
(4) http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06NewsReleases/2002/NR-02-12-10.html
(5) http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/lucistrust.html
(6) All names are known to the author, and can be sent on request to Greenpeace.
(7) The same statement is sent by Greenpeace to all its branches in Germany.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

THE ‘NATURE MIRACLE’ OF THE ‘CHEMBOWS’ AND THE HALOGENE EFFECT

Wherever these weirdly beautiful ‘rainbows’ appear, the chemtrail-spraying sqaudrons are not far away: Whether in winter with ground temperatures of –10 degrees Celsius or in summer at +40 degrees; the chemical rainbows or ‘chembows’ invariably appear after a day (or night) of intensive chemtrail activity, mostly in the direction of the rising or setting sun.

These reflections – in clouds, which official meteorology has now begun to refer to somewhat helplessly as ‘streaky clouds’ or ‘streaked cirrus clouds’ – turn out to be a genuine nature miracle. The air humidity prevailing when chembows are formed, of invariably less than 40%, shows that we are seeing sunlight which is being diffracted in none other than – aluminium powder! – Instead of ice crystals or water drops.

Another sure sign of concentrated spraying is – something hard to catch in photos – the ‘halogene effect’. Maybe you have yourself been surprised how, on many sunny days, there has been an extremely bright light, comparable to the ‘pallid’ ray of a halogene lamp. This – sometimes slightly glittering – effect arises through the diffraction of the sun’s rays by the fine metallic particles!

And now the final proof: If after heavy rainfall there comes a cool, sunny day without spraying activity, the sunlight immediately returns to its – once normal – ‘golden yellow’ light quality. Enjoy these rare moments, with the feeling they bring of life as ‘in days gone by’.

NIGHT OWLS

Coincidences occur, that simply cannot be! There is a high probability that this summer (2004) – contrary to all the assurances of the ‘experts’ – you could be sure that on clear days for which a marked rise in temperature was forecast (3 to 5 degrees C) there was spraying activity in your area. Because on such days ultra-violet radiation reaches abnormal levels. But – lo and behold! – this is where the burgeoning chemtrail movement is showing its first signs of success. Not that this mad spraying programme has been stopped – no: Before such hot days the spraying is carried out – not always, but more and more often – under cover of darkness. Often the whole night through.

From now on the authorities are saying, in effect: “Watching not permitted either!”

In order to outwit an increasingly wakeful populace in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the opponent acts from the shadows, in more senses than one. Thus he endeavours to make the chemtrail project invisible, just as Greenpeace renders it silent. Thus a further piece is fitted seamlessly into the chemtrail jigsaw.

Are you sceptical? Test it yourself: On such a day, get up at sunrise, and you will see that the sky, from horizon to horizon, is covered with a dense network of chemtrails. But hardly has the day begun, than the spraying is over and the planes have disappeared.

When then, only a few hours later, people set off in pale halogene sunlight on their way to work – or to church, because Sundays are particularly suitable for the activity described – streaks of whitish chemtrail soup are already spread out over their heads. Bon appétit!

+++++++++

Cosmic Rays Replace CO2 as Driver For Climate Change and Global Warming Reply

ipcc-shot-to-pieces-550

” Global warming isn’t manmade and it’s best to be quiet about that.  Scientists after all, mostly run on government funds.” – source

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

Posted by Alec Rawls, 12/13/12

I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below.   Complete PDF report: CLICK HERE

Why leak the draft report?

By Alec Rawls (email)

General principles

The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5’s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

Will some press organization please host the leaked report?

Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.

If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.”  That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.

Below are the Chapters of the leaked report

Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Related articles:

CERN Confirmed Global Warming Fraud before they found the God particle

shhhhhShh…(CERN Proves Global Warming Natural, But Don’t Say So)

By jackcurtis on August 29, 2011

Global warming is now proven natural, not manmade. Experiments at CERN published in Nature have traced earth’s surface temperature to cosmic radiation and the Sun. “New, Convincing Evidence Indicates Global Warming Is Caused By Cosmic RAys and the Sun–Not Humans“ will bring you up to date on the science.  Unfortunately as the article also tells, the politics of global warming are still in play, so much so that the managers at Cern forced the scientists reporting their experiments to hide the inevitable conclusions in a maze of technospeak and bureaucratese so that few would understand. But the results are out and experts will get both messages: Global warming isn’t man-made and it’s best to be quiet about that. Scientists after all, mostly run on government funds.source

_______________________

The Telegraph:  12/17/2012 – “Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up”

Breaking news from the US where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in “climate change” than the scientific “consensus” has previously been prepared to concede.  Here’s the killer admission:

“Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.  continue…

_____________________________

We Are Change Victoria Hosts Climate Change Expert, Tim Ball 1

We Are Change Victoria org

Excellent Presentation on Global Warming/Climate Change

Published on Dec 10, 2012

In this episode of Freedom Free For All Dr. Tim Ball shares his life-long experience surrounding the continuous misinformation trail of climate change and ‘global warming’. Dr Tim Ball’s presentation focuses on the factual science that is omitted by the politicians and academia who profit from the propaganda of man made global warming.

Dr Tim Ball is a climatologist who’s resume far exceeds both Al Gore’s and David Suzuki’s when it comes to climate science and logical approach to modern climate change. But little will you hear of Dr. Ball and his balanced information from the controlled mainstream media and educational institutions.

It is only when you have balanced information that you can then make educated and intellectual decisions – thus is the key of the New World Order propaganda machine!

www.drtimball.com      www.wearechangevictoria.org    

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

John Coleman’s Excellent History of the Global Warming Movement

CLICK HERE

John Coleman's Corner Global Warming

Extinction Level Methane Releases Caused by Aerosol Geoengineering (Chemtrails) 8

Guest – Dane Wigington Published on Dec 5, 2012  GEOENGINEERINGWATCH.org   

dane-wigington-mugOn this week’s End the Lie Radio with Madison Ruppert, Dane Wigington returns with more bombshell information on stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (better known as chemtrials), the dangers of methane, the truly dire situation the globe is facing thanks to continued geoengineering projects and the quest to raise awareness of these little-known issues.

They cover the attempts to shift the attention away from the role geoengineering plays in climate change, attempts to cover up the true nature of the changes in Earth’s climate and the true danger of the situation we face if these practices are not stopped.

Also covered are some of the insane plans to reverse the detrimental effects of these projects, many of which actually involve just doing the same thing that contributed to the problems in the first place.

Dane Wigington features prominently in the phenomenal documentary “Why the in the World are They Spraying?” by Michael Murphy (also a guest on End the Lie Radio) along with the previous film, “What in the World are They Spraying?”. To keep up with the latest news on the dangers of these global geoengineering projects, please check out GeoengineeringWatch.org and spread awareness by purchasing a DVD of “Why in the World are They Spraying?” for your friends or family to help support this extremely important message.

End the Lie Radio airs from 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM EST/7:00 PM – 9:00 PM PST every Monday evening at http://UCY.TV/ Radio.

Dane Wigington’s background is in renewable energy, being formerly employed with Bechtel Power Corp. His personal off-grid residence was featured as the cover article on the world’s largest renewable energy magazine. Dane is also a land investor and preservationist, having set aside almost 2000 acres of key habitat area adjacent to Lake Shasta as “wildlife preserve.” Dane also maintains the  Geoengineering.org website.

For GeoEngineering flyers to go with ‘Why in the World are they Spraying’ DVD handouts, visit, GeoEngineeringWatch.org/ads.

All material(s) used in this video that are not original or are under copyright are used under Fair Use under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

___________________________________

___________________________________

Dane Wigington September 1, 2012 Interview

Published on Sep 1, 2012

End the Lie Radio with Madison Ruppert and guest Dane Wigington who was featured prominently in Michael Murphy’s new documentary, ‘Why in the World are they Spraying,’ discussing geo-engineering, the evidence behind the geoengineering and why raising immediate awareness of these issues is of vital importance to all. End the Lie Radio is live from 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM EST/7:00 PM – 9:00 PM PST every Monday evening at http://UCY.TV/Radio.

Dane Wigington’s background is in renew­able energy, being formerly employed with Bechtel Power Corp. His personal off-grid residence was featured as the cover article on the world’s largest renewable energy magazine. Dane is also a land investor and preservationist, having set aside almost 2000 acres of key habitat area adjacent to Lake Shasta as “wildlife preserve.” Dane also maintains GeoEngineeringWatch.org.

____________________________

Global Warming Skeptic Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Climate Change 1

Morano and Nye

By Noel Sheppard | December 04, 2012
UPDATE: Links added to transcript to give readers background regarding scientific points made by Morano.

Global warming skeptic and founder of the website Climate Depot Marc Morano debated climate change with Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Tuesday.

Video of the entire spirited discussion follows with full CNN transcript:

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Our big story tonight, you are so hot, America. And I mean that literally. The temperature was a balmy 60 degrees this afternoon in New York just outside CNN’s studios. The average high temperature in December is normally 43. A warm front has flooded the lower 48 states with 482 daily high temperature records across the country on Monday alone. Quite extraordinary but is it evidence of manmade global warming?

That’s tonight’s “Battleground America.” Joining me now are Bill Nye, the science guy, and Marc Morano, he’s the publisher of Climatedepot.com. Welcome to you both.

BILL NYE: Thank you.

MORGAN: Let me start with you, Marc Morano, if I may. You are implacably opposed to the concept of manmade climate change. Why?

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Our big story tonight, you are so hot, America. And I mean that literally. The temperature was a balmy 60 degrees this afternoon in New York just outside CNN’s studios. The average high temperature in December is normally 43. A warm front has flooded the lower 48 states with 482 daily high temperature records across the country on Monday alone. Quite extraordinary but is it evidence of manmade global warming?

That’s tonight’s “Battleground America.” Joining me now are Bill Nye, the science guy, and Marc Morano, he’s the publisher of Climatedepot.com. Welcome to you both.

BILL NYE: Thank you.

MORGAN: Let me start with you, Marc Morano, if I may. You are implacably opposed to the concept of manmade climate change. Why?

MARC MORANO, CLIMATE DEPOT: We followed the evidence. There are quite literally hundreds of factors that influence global temperature, everything from tilt of the earth’s axis to ocean cycles to water vapor, methane, solar system, the sun, cloud feedback, volcanic dust. The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is not supportable.

And if you go down and look at the scientific literature, we are finding reams of data. And new peer-reviewed study showing the Medieval and Roman warming periods as warm or warmer than today without our CO2 emissions. So what’s happened here is the whole movement, because now we’ve gone 16 years without global warming, according to the U.N. data [from UK Met Office], and they’ve now morphed into extreme weather.

And we have the absurd spectacle of people claiming that acts of Congress and United Nations can control the weather and make hurricanes less nasty and make tornadoes less frequent, which by the way none of them are showing any trends at all that are unusual.

MORGAN: OK. Bill Nye, your response?

NYE: Well, we start talking about the facts, those —
MORANO: Those are the facts.

NYE: Medieval warming period and the Roman warming period, those are just in Europe. And they’re representative.

(CROSSTALK)

NYE: Let’s see if we can agree on a couple of things. Do you agree that when I was a kid or when you were a kid, there was 340 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

MORANO: Sure. Carbon dioxide is rising. What’s your point?

NYE: OK.

MORANO: No.

NYE: So here’s the point, is it’s rising extraordinarily fast. That’s the difference between the bad old days and now is it’s —

MORANO: Carbon dioxide —

NYE: It’s much faster than ever in history. And so —

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: Yes, let him finish, Marc. Let him finish.

NYE: No. So that’s — it’s the rate that’s of great concern more than the actual —

MORGAN: And what do you put that rate down to, Bill?

NYE: It’s human activity. I mean you go back — this is what I say all the time. So you look in the ice and you find bubbles of trapped gas from 200 years ago, let alone 1,000 years ago. There’s nobody running around with a hypodermic needle injecting bubbles of gas in ancient ice cores. I mean you — that’s the ancient atmosphere in there so you can determine the composition — ancient atmosphere exactly.

This Medieval Warming Period is brought up quite often but it was really a European phenomenon and it’s not — it was global.

MORGAN: And what are the biggest factors, the manmade factors creating the acceleration of CO2 in the atmosphere?

NYE: Well, the biggest thing is when I was 9 years old, the earth’s population changed from 2.999 billion to three billion. Now it’s — in my lifetime, it’s now seven billion. People trying to live the way we lived in the developed — way to live in a developed world and it’s just — we’re just burning — burning carbon and spewing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at an extraordinary rate.

(Note on overpopulation claims: see Fred Pearce on ‘The overpopulation myth’: Population growth is slowing…The idea that growing human numbers will destroy the planet is nonsense‘ and ‘Grist Mag. Going Down: Is too few people the new ‘population problem?‘)

MORGAN: Well, so Marc Morano, if there is a massively increased acceleration in CO2 in the atmosphere at the same time that there’s been a bigger than double the sizing of the population of the planet, why would that not be inexorably linked? Explain to me.

MORANO: CO2 is rising. No one is disputing that. What Bill and I just did was waste everyone’s time explaining that CO2 is rising. The question is what impact does CO2 have on the weather, what impact the CO2 have on climate change. And that, as we you look at the geologic records, we’ve had warmer periods where it’s been — with higher — with lower CO2 and we’ve had colder periods with higher CO2. And you have to go way back for some of that but the bottom line is hundreds of factors are dictating our climate.

The Medieval Warm Period was both southern and northern hemisphere. On my Web site there’s literally [scores of studies] — it demolishes the idea of a hockey stick, new peer-reviewed study, so the idea that Bill Nye is just going around saying CO2 is up, therefore global warming is dangerous, we should be concerned, it’s not. It’s not dangerous. The bottom line is all these factors —

MORGAN: Well, let me — let me —

MORANO: — dwarfs the effects of CO2.

MORGAN: OK. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. How do you explain that the Eastern Seaboard, for example, is getting some of the warmest weather it’s ever had at the same time that California has been plunged into storm after storm in the last week and you see New York last month had the worst hurricane it’s ever endured and so on and so on?

MORANO: Sure. Great.

MORGAN: How do you explain that we’re getting so many of these freakish weather patterns if at the same time you’ve got all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere and all these people now guzzling up power and energy and emitting gases that weren’t there before?

MORANO: No.

MORGAN: Surely that is evidence, isn’t it?

MORANO: No. You go to the peer-reviewed literature. You’re looking at anecdotal evidence. This is now the level of your daily horoscope. Basically global warmists like Bill Nye say global warming will cause many bad weather events and guess what? Bad weather events happen all the time so people look and they say look, there’s more proof, there’s a bad weather event.

Bottom line, big tornadoes, F-3 and larger since 1950s have dropped dramatically. Bottom line, we’ve gone the longest period without a major U.S. category 3 or larger hurricane hitting the U.S. since 1900, maybe the civil war.

Bottom line, new study in the “Journal Nature,” peer-reviewed, no change in U.S. drought in the last 60 years. Bottom line, a new study out shows that drought has not changed in 85 to —

MORGAN: OK. Let me give you —

MORANO: Hundred and 26 years.

MORGAN: Before —

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me add one more — let me add one more bottom line before I defer to Bill Nye.

MORANO: Sure.

MORGAN: He knows more about this than I do. But another bottom line, the world is indisputably getting warmer. The U.N. Weather Agency said last week 2012 is on track to become one of the top 10 hottest years on record. And all the weird climactic changes we’re seeing.

Bill, over to you.

NYE: This is a — this will be the hottest two decades in — in recorded history. And so when you throw around a statement like the U.N. says it’s not the hottest 20 years —

(CROSSTALK)

2010 tied for “hottest” year? It is “purely a political statement.” Even NASA’s James Hansen admits it is “not particularly important.”

NYE: I got to disagree with you. There may be some surface data shows that in certain cities.

MORGAN: Well, here’s my point to you, Marc. It’s a straightforward one, really. If you are wrong, then the implications for the planet are utterly catastrophic. In other words, if you and the climate change —

MORANO: Not at all.

MORGAN: Well, let me finish. If the anti-climate change brigade win the argument and nothing is done because you convince people nothing needs to be done and you’re wrong, then in 100, 200 years, we’ll have caused devastation for the planet that will then be irretrievable.

If, however, you are right in what you say and this is unnecessary and overreaction and so on, what you’re seeing is a bit of economic hardship in the short term to deal with what may not be as big a problem as you think it is.

MORANO: Why it’s the wrong argument? Because every proposal ever done including the United Nations Kyoto Protocol would not even detectibly impact the temperatures assuming you buy into their science. What we’re talking about —

NYE: We’re not talking about the temperature.

MORANO: We’re talking about a climate bill in the United States. President Obama was going around telling people it will keep the planet four or five degrees cooler for our grandchildren. His own EPA said it wouldn’t affect global CO2 levels let alone temperature. And if you actually do —

NYE: CO2 —

(CROSSTALK)

MORANO: Right now the developing world is getting 1,000 plus coal plants, there are 1.3 billion people don’t have running water and electricity. If we actually go the route of trying to stop carbon- based energy which has been their lifeline, which would lower infant mortality and long life expectancy, it would be the most immoral position you can take. So the bottom line is even if the skeptics are wrong the solutions that the global warming alarmists have proposed would have no detectible impact on climate.

MORGAN: Let me let Bill Nye respond to that. NYE: If we — if we were to begin to reduce carbon emissions, have the United States, for example, lead the way in this new technology, especially energy transmission, energy storage, electricity, we could change the world. We could get everybody a much higher quality of life than they’d otherwise have. The problem is so many people live near the coasts and these are — they are very old economic reasons.

People lived on rivers since the beginning of human history, so as sea levels — as the world gets warmer and I take it he doesn’t disagree that the world is getting warmer —

(CROSSTALK)

NYE: So ice is also falling off the ice sheets so that ice is up on land. This is also going to cause the sea level to rise. So, for example, in the case of Sandy, which was not an especially big hurricane, the economic impact was $30 billion and that’s in the developed world where we have the resources to deal with it.

When you have people displaced on a continental scales, these are — we’re not talking about a few people trying to get through a fence at a border between countries. We’re talking about 30 — tens of millions of people trying to move north, trying to move out of Southeast Asia. You’re going to have trouble.

MORANO: Where — when is this happening? This is —

NYE: So the sooner you get started on that problem, the better.

MORANO: These are all predictions based on climate models —

NYE: Well, our argument is —

(CROSSTALK)

MORANO: These predictions of Bill is based on climate models —

NYE: I appreciate your yelling. That’s good.

MORANO: … that violate 81 one out of 87 of the basic principles of forecasting.

NYE: So —

MORGAN: Marc Morano, do you accept that the ocean levels are rising, that the planet is getting hotter, that CO2 emissions have dramatically increased in the last 50 years, and —

NYE: And ice sheets are shrinking.

MORGAN: Ice sheets are shrinking and the planet population is doubling and accelerating at a terrifying rate, and that the combination of all these things is likely to be a major problem for the next two or three generations, and therefore, doing nothing shouldn’t really be a sensible responsible option.

MORANO: Doing nothing — first of all the United States did nothing, our CO2 emissions are dropping as we move to fracking away from coal through technology so the idea of nothing — there’s nothing to do. The idea of — there’s no way you can solve a nonproblem. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. There’s no acceleration. The Dutch Meteorological Institute said there’s no acceleration. You can look at the data, the land base data.

NYE: Boy, I just —

MORANO: There’s no acceleration of the sea level.

NYE: We just don’t agree on the facts. So we’re not going to get anywhere.

MORANO: Where it goes — the scary and where the horror story is in all these predictions. And they come out and say it’s worse than we thought. Why —

MORGAN: Well, I respect —

MORANO: Because the predictions get scarier and scarier.

MORGAN: OK. Look, I respect that you have views. I don’t think they’re facts and there are many scientists who would take issue with you about the use of the word facts.

NYE: Based on studying Venus —

MORGAN: I’m going to have to wrap it up, I’m afraid. It’s been a spirited debate. And I appreciate you both coming on.

MORANO: Thank you.

MORGAN: Marc Morano and Bill Nye. I’m sure it will rumble on. Thank you.

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/climate-realist-marc-morano-debates-bill-nye-science-guy-global-warmi#ixzz2EOvIZ7eq

HAARP and Military Geoengineering Weapons Are Capable of Creating Global Warming Hoax 1

HAARP Facility

Holes in Heaven

HAARP Heats the Ionosphere With a Billion Watts of Power

HAARP has the ability to work  with a number of ionospheric heaters installed in a global matrix to create covert acts of climate change activities that mimic what the IPCC refers to as global warming with the capability to create real arctic ice melts.

At one time there were only 2 ionospheric heaters on earth but in 2012 there are many devices all over the planet.  When powerful ionospheric heatters are not coordinated or are used in weather warfare between countries the result can be catastrophic to the environment.

HAARP has the capability to cause atmospheric and environmental changes.

HAARP and Military Geoengineering Weapons Are Capable of Creating Global Warming Hoax

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

This documentary examines the controversial military program based on Tesla technology – its possible effects on weather and use in mind control. H.A.A.R.P. is a scientific research facility, located near Gakona, in the remote Alaskan outback and is a joint Navy and Air Force project.

This facility is used to study the earth’s Ionosphere, the electrically-charged belt surrounding our planet’s upper atmosphere, ranging between 40 to 60 miles from its surface.

More specifically, H.A.A.R.P. is a controversial high frequency radio transmitter, or “ionospheric heater”. The military intends to use this billion-watt pulsed radio beam in our upper atmosphere, which will create extremely low frequency waves, or ELF waves.

This technology will enhance communications with submarines and will allow us to “see” into the Earth, detecting anything from oil reserves to hidden underground military targets. H.A.A.R.P.’s roots can be traced back to work of Nikola Tesla, a Yugoslavian scientist, who’s achievements include the Tesla Coil or “magnifying transmitter” which is still used in televisions and radio today.

Project HAARP: http://mysticalmusingsandpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/01/project-haarp.html
The Geo-Engineering Conspiracy: http://mysticalmusingsandpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/02/geo-engineering-conspi…

HAARP - VLF Wave Injection Experiments

More Geoengineering Weappons now at the South pole

 

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri Presents Chemtrails at Global Warming Conference 1

As expected, the Global Warming conference hosted by the Massachusetts Law School found almost all attendees ignorant of “chemtrails” and covert geoengineering.

Environmental writer, former university professor and scholar, Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, is the author most recently of The Uterine Crisis. This book is the result of 15 years of her independent research linking women’s reproductive illnesses with invisible environmental toxins. London’s “The Ecologist” magazine calls this book “an inspiration.” Dr. Perlingieri continues to take a cross-disciplinary approach to all her research. She has a background in both science and art. In addition to her graduate academic degrees, she also has had formal herbal training and studies in the US, London, and Italy. She is a practicing herbalist for more than three decades; and she notes that plants and herbal remedies have thousands of years of safe usage and are an excellent choice….More

Perlingieri Chemtrails Video

Click Here to begin at Perlingieri’s presentation

Radiation Support for Your Immune System: We are Under Invisible Siege (Part 1)
Posted by Brian Andrews Featured, Remedies Friday, April 1st, 2011

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” ~Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I have had countless calls asking for more suggestions on how we can support our already compromised immune systems, as we are exposed daily to untold levels of radioactive elements that are now traveling world-wide. Due to our already highly polluted air, we now have a multi-pronged attack on our immune systems. We were never meant to be sponges for an assortment of highly hazardous and unregulated chemicals and nano-technology, genetically modified organisms, aerosolized Chemtrails, pesticides, and artificial and poisonous additives to our food supply. This has been going on for most of the twentieth century; and now laws, in place for decades to protect us, have been gutted…..More

__________________________

Radiation & Chemtrails Assaults: Additional Support for Your Immune System (Part 2)
Posted by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

We are now living under daily radiation, chemical and biological siege. Because so much of this is invisible, it may be difficult for many people to comprehend the enormity of what is happening throughout our environment. The on-going catastrophe at Japan’s Fukushima ruined nuclear reactors continues to affect our entire planet. From the very beginning and behind the scenes of this epic crisis, the real reasons were deliberately covered-up. Safety factors were omitted, citizens

continue to be put in harm’s way in Japan, throughout North America, and the rest of the planet. Mainstream Orwellian news is worthless in terms of reporting the magnitude and real dangers involved; so the public has never been properly informed. As with the on-going BP Gulf of Mexico oil-rig catastrophe, all we get as citizens are distortions and deception. Safe ways of handling this nightmare or real precaution were deliberately not part of any “emergency” plan  ….More

.

.

UN Climate Conference: A Trojan Horse for Global Government 1

Marc Morano Interview – ClimateDepot.com

________________________________________

Selected excerpts from November 26, 2012:

By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Morano: “Climate activists think we need more taxes & regulation to somehow stop bad weather…Mayor Bloomberg said we need to take immediate action to prevent bad weather. This has now reached the level of the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus.

The NYT has picture of stature of liberty underwater and warming of the end times. This is not science, this is the doomsday stuff of the Mayan calendar and we have no business masquerading it as science. When I was in U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, I got to go to Bali, S. America, Africa, My r/t ticket to Kenya in 2006 was $16,000 business class. The UN likes exotic locals…

To use Hurricane Sandy as the poster child for global warming — as the UN and Gore are now doing –makes as little sense as you can possibly imagine. We have gone longest period since the Civil War without a major cat 3 or larger hurricane to hit the U.S. If anything, global warming would prevent — at least Atlantic hurricanes — from making landfall.

The World Meteorological Organization said there is no evidence of a human footprint in hurricane activity. For warmists to pick hurricanes as a poster child means they are completely devoid of science. Obama said Americans can ‘do something’ about floods, hurricanes, droughts tornadoes, as though, you can at the ballot box, you vote yourself better weather. They are implying we can legislate better weather.”

WWW.CLIMATEDEPOT.COM

______________________________________

______________________________________

Interview with UN Climate Change Enforcer, Christiana Figueres

The top UN global warming climate change negotiator Christiana Figueres, who is in charge of arm-twisting industrialized countries to fight greenhouse gas emissions, framed her real agenda in plain language that everybody can easily understand.

These are her actual words, as reported by the Washington Examiner:

Christiana Figueres, who leads the United Nations negotiations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, described the climate change she seeks as a world-encompassing “revolution” engineered by “centralized” governments.

“We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken,”

Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, commented in an interview published by The Guardian last week.

WWW.CLIMATEDEPOT.COM

GeoEngineering the Planet: THE FIX IS IN 4

Science News

Controlling the Controllers: A Timeline of Geoengineering Rules and Regulations Worldwide

When it comes to attempts to actively steer the environment toward a desired outcome via geoengineering, there are some international treaties and national regulations—but most have no teeth

By Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato  | October 25, 2012

When American businessman Russ George dumped iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean last July as part of an elaborate geoengineering plan, environmental organizations around the world cried foul. But did he really do anything illegal? The body of legislation that governs geoengineering on a global scale is sparse and full of loopholes.

CONTINUE…

Related Article:

Has the Time Come to Try Geoengineering?

By David Biello | August 15, 2012


Earth’s average temperature has warmed by 0.8 degree Celsius over the last 100 years or so. The reason is increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 has now reached 394 parts-per-million in the air we breathe—and would be even higher, roughly 450 ppm, if the oceans weren’t absorbing a good deal of the CO2 we create by burning fossil fuels, clearing forests and the like.

Ken Caldeira article How Far Can Climate Change Go?   How far can we push the planet?

More…

.

Big Oil Using Weather Modification to Melt Ice For Access to Huge Arctic Oil Reserves Reply

EXOPOLITICS with Host Alffred Webre – Aug 30, 2012:  Guest is  Lauren Moret, PhD who reports:

Big Oil at BP and Shell are beneficiaries of HAARP and Jet Aerosols involvement in melting ice in order to gain access to huge arctic oil reserves.

HAARP Involvement in Hurricane Isaac and New Orleans Flooding on 5th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

Weather Modification/HAARP producing drought with Nation’s food supply in CA at peril due to water restrictions.

Moret declared on March 21, 2011 that the “Japan Earthquake” and “accidents” that occurred March 11, 2011, were deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare. She claimed further that the “attack” was carried out using HAARP technology by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Energy, and British Petroleum on behalf of London banking interests.

More…

Cliff Carnicom: Geoengineering Aerosols Warm the Atmosphere and Aggravate Global Warming 33

A Global Warming Model – Part I

Clifford E Carnicom – Carnicominstitute

Santa Fe, NM – Apr 13 2007

Click on image for full size graph

 


From a Special Report on April  1, 2007 from CBS 60 Minutes, entitled, The Age of Warming: (video)

“Over the past 50 years, this region, the Antarctica peninsula, the northwestern part and the islands around it has been going up in temperature about one degree every decade and that makes the region the fastest warming place on earth. …And it’s not unique. More than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating….”


A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result.  The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere.  Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4.

More…

IPCC Pushing to Implement Geoengineering Technologies as Climate Solution 1

IPCC asks scientists to assess geo-engineering climate solutions

Leaked documents ahead of key Lima meeting suggest UN body is looking to slow emissions with technological fixes rather than talks  ( Source )

Read the documents here

Geoengineering or climate engineering solution to climate change: marine cloud whitening

One of the geo-engineering solutions to climate change is to spray seawater droplets into marine clouds to make them reflect more sunlight. Photograph: NASA