Tag Archives: global warming

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’
Matt McGrath

Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained “standstill” in the heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before”

The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.

An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.
Transient nature

Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth’s oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.

Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.
Ice The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than forecast

“The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone,” said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.

“The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before.”

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.

But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
Ocean storage

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

“It is a bigger range of uncertainty,” said Dr Otto.

“But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t.”

The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world’s oceans.

Not everyone agrees with this perspective.

Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.

“There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting,” he said.

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

“We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing,” said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

“None. No comfort whatsoever,” he said.SOURCE

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.

National Public Radio (NPR) published an article on its website last month claiming, “Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global warming. … There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of ice.”

NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.

Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story. A Google News search of the terms Antarctic, sea ice and record turns up not a single article on the Antarctic sea ice record. Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low.

Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me.

SOURCE

The Global Warming Revolt

Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

Custom Search

By Karin McQuillan

Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

Everyone “knows” that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists — precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee — who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.

What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama’s recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, “The Whole Country Can Be Rich.”)

President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. “What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”

Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: “dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real — it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”

Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world’s top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists “soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.” Physicists at Europe’s most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof — by a team of 63 scientists at CERN — that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.”

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on climate change is over”“is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.” Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.

In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: “We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist I remain skeptical.” She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

Recently we’ve had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had “settled the climate change debate” and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a “cynical fraud.”

But within a week, Muller’s lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global “temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.”

This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,” Prof Curry said. “Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.” In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller’s false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming “highly unethical.” Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.

Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.” Here is what he has to say on global warming:

It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios … I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming…No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.

That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous. It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming. If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly.

Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears. Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.

The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector. These are good jobs. An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year. A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming’s Jonah Fields. Brazil’s new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there. We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.

When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we threaten America’s economic viability. For global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to fight it. They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming national bankruptcy.

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the possibility that global warming theory might be true. Limiting fossil fuels and promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a “why not be on the safe side,” commonsense approach.

There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument. If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence, and has terrible negative side effects, you don’t perform major surgery. We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.

There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction. Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate. Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.

Read more: SOURCE

To Everything There Is A Reason….Turn…Turn…Turn?

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

Posted by Tory Aardvark

There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers, the blight on people’s lives of noise and the flicker factor and the countless numbers of birds that are killed each year by these blots on the landscape.

The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

The US has had wind farms since 1981:

“Some say that Ka Le is haunted—and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa”– the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm…

The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…
California’s wind farms— comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills…”

The problem with wind farms when they are abandoned is getting the turbines removed, as usual there are non Green environmentalists to be seen:

The City of Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio. But California’s Kern County, encompassing the Tehachapi area, has no such law

Imagine the outraged Green chorus if those turbines were abandoned oil drilling rigs.

It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised. He asks:

“If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end.”

“It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end” therein lies a lesson that is going be learnt by those that sought to make fortunes out of tax payer subsidies, the whole renewables industry of solar, wind and biomass is just an artificial bubble incapable of surviving without subsides from governments and tax payers which many businesses and NGO’s like WWF, FoE and Greenpeace now think is their god given right, as the money is going on Green Climate Religion approved clean energy.

The Green evangelists who push so hard for these wind farms, as usual have not thought the whole idea through, no surprises for a left agenda like Climate Change, which like all things Green and socialist is just a knee jerk reaction:

Altamont’s turbines have since 2008 been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society, 75 to 110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels (falcons) are killed by Altamont turbines annually. A July, 2008 study by the Alameda County Community Development Agency points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont Pass wind turbines. Audubon calls Altamont, “probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project.”

The same areas that are good for siting wind farms are also good for birds of prey and migrating birds to pass through, shame for the birds that none of the Green mental midgets who care so much about everything in nature, thought that one through when pushing their anti fossil fuel agenda.

After the debacle of the First California Wind Rush, the European Union had moved ahead of the US on efforts to subsidize “renewable” energy–including a “Feed in Tariff” even more lucrative than the ISO4 contracts.

The tax payers who paid for the subsidies to build the wind farms, then paid over the odds for an unreliable source of power generation will, ultimately be left to pick up the bill for clearing up the Green eco mess in the post man made Global Warming world.

Updated

In answer to several allegations that the number of abandoned wind turbines was made up, the following quote from the article and link will confirm this figure to be true:

California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.

SOURCE

Fifteen Foolish Forecasts: How did environmentalists get it so wrong on Earth Day 1970?

Fifteen Foolish Forecasts: How did environmentalists get it so wrong on Earth Day 1970?

What was once Earth Day has now morphed into Earth Hour and Earth Week. The success of the celebration can only be explained by the fact that no one ever bothers to go back to check the accuracy of the eco-wackos’ past predictions.

For example, the predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970 were wrong. No, wrong isn’t a strong enough word. They were spectacularly wrong. Let’s cover all the tenses and say they were wrong, they are wrong, and then make our own prediction and say they will be wrong in the future.

Jim Morrison, gone. Elvis Presley, gone. Michael Jackson, gone. But none of them were killed by the environment.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, remarkably wrong predictions made on Earth Day 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”

• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

• Life Magazine, January 1970

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”

• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Today, Earth Day, the eco-wackos will surely get their day moment in the spotlight and their soundbites on the nightly news. They’ll predict a future even grimmer than they predicted 41 years ago.

And they’ll be just as wrong 41 years from now.

SOURCE

Wind Farms: Monuments to Lunacy

Wind farms: the monuments to lunacy that will be left to blot the landscape


By Christopher Booker

Three separate news items on the same day last week reflected three different aspects of what is fast becoming a full-scale disaster bearing down on Britain. The first item was a picture in The Daily Telegraph showing two little children forlornly holding a banner reading “E.On Hands Off Winwick”.

This concerned a battle to prevent a tiny Northamptonshire village from being dwarfed by seven 410-foot wind turbines, each higher than Salisbury Cathedral, to be built nearby by a giant German-owned electricity firm. The 40 residents, it was reported, have raised £50,0000 from their savings to pay lawyers to argue their case when their village’s fate is decided at an inquiry by a Government inspector.

In the nine years since I began writing here about wind turbines, I have been approached by more than 100 such local campaigns in every part of Britain, trying to fight the rich and powerful companies that have been queuing up to cash in on the vast subsidy bonanza available to developers of wind farms. Having been the chairman of one such group myself, I know just how time-consuming and costly such battles can be. The campaigners are up against a system horribly rigged against them, because all too often – although they may win every battle locally (in our case we won unanimous support from our local council) – in the end an inspector may come down from London to rule that the wind farm must go ahead because it is “government policy”.

I long ago decided that there was little point reporting on most of these individual campaigns, because the only way this battle was going to be won was by exposing the futility of the national policy they were up against. My main aim had to be to bring home to people just how grotesquely inefficient and costly wind turbines are as a way to make electricity – without even fulfilling their declared purpose of reducing CO2 emissions.

Alas, despite all the practical evidence to show why wind power is one of the greatest follies of our age, those who rule our lives, from our own politicians and officials here in Britain to those above them in Brussels, seem quite impervious to the facts.

Hence the two other items reported last week, one being the Government’s proposed changes to our planning rules (already being implemented, even though the “consultation” has scarcely begun) which are drawing fire from all directions. The particular point here, on page 43 of the Government’s document, is a proposal that local planning authorities must “apply a presumption in favour” of “renewable and low-carbon energy sources”.

What this means in plain English is that we can forget any last vestiges of local democracy. Our planning system is to be rigged even more shamelessly than before, to allow pretty well every application to cover our countryside with wind turbines – along with thousands of monster pylons, themselves up to 400 feet high, marching across Scotland, Wales, Suffolk, Somerset and elsewhere to connect them to the grid.

All this is deemed necessary to meet our EU-agreed target to generate nearly a third of our electricity from “renewables” – six times more than we do now – by 2020. This would require building at least 10,000 more turbines, in addition to the 3,500 we already have – which last year supplied only 2.7 per cent of our electricity.

Obviously this is impossible, but our Government will nevertheless do all it can to meet its unreachable target and force through the building of thousands of turbines, capable of producing a derisory amount of electricity at a cost estimated, on its own figures, at £140 billion (equating to £5,600 for every household in the land).

Which brings us to the third of last week’s news items, a prediction by energy consultants Ulyx that a further avalanche of “green” measures will alone raise Britain’s already soaring energy bills in the same nine years by a further 58 per cent.

A significant part of this crippling increase, helping to drive more than half Britain’s households into “fuel poverty”, will be the costs involved in covering thousands of square miles of our countryside and seas with wind turbines. The sole beneficiaries will be the energy companies, which are allowed to charge us double or treble the normal cost of our electricity, through the subsidies hidden in our energy bills; and landowners such as Sir Reginald Sheffield, the Prime Minister’s father-in-law, who on his own admission stands to earn nearly £1,000 a day at the expense of the rest of us, for allowing a wind farm to be built on his Lincolnshire estate.

Even more damaging, however, will be the way this massive investment diverts resources away from the replacement of the coal-fired and nuclear power stations which are due for closure in coming years, threatening to leave a shortfall in our national electricity supply of nearly 40 per cent. If we are to keep our lights on and our economy running, we need – as the CBI warned in a damning report on Friday – urgently to spend some £200 billion on power supply,

But our politicians have been so carried away into their greenie never-never land that they seem to have lost any sight of this disaster bearing down on us. Instead of putting up turbines on the fields of Northants, E.On should be building the grown-up power stations we desperately need. But government energy policy has so skewed the financial incentives of the system that the real money is to made from building useless wind farms.

Sooner or later, this weird policy will be recognised as such a catastrophic blunder that it, and the colossal subsidies that made it possible, will be abandoned. That will leave vast areas of our once green and pleasant land littered with useless piles of steel and concrete, which it will be no one’s responsibility to cart away.

If the Government really wishes to make a useful change to our planning laws, it should insist that every planning permission to build wind turbines should include a requirement that, after their 25-year life, they must be removed at their owners’ expense. Alas, by that time the companies will all have gone bankrupt, and we shall be left with a hideous legacy as a monument to one of the greatest lunacies of our time.

A way has been found to save our village cricketers

There has been another twist to the year-long battle for survival of our little Somerset village cricket club which, as I wrote last Sunday, has been threatened with closure by a bizarre bureaucratic double whammy.

On the one hand, our local council wanted us to pay rates amounting to more than £100 for every home game we play, more than we can realistically afford. On the other, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs has ruled that we cannot get any relief on this crippling demand because our constitution did not state explicitly that membership of the club is open to anyone “regardless of sex, age, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other beliefs” (it merely stated that membership was “open to anyone”).

On Monday, in a friendly and helpful letter from Mendip district council, it emerged that a way may have been found round this difficulty. If our cricket club is redesignated as a business, we might qualify this year for Small Business Rate Relief, at 100 per cent.

For the moment, it seems, that the threat has been lifted, and that next season we may again be permitted to take the field on Sunday afternoons without having to pay a tax of over £700 a year – thanks to a scheme designed to promote growth in the local economy.

SOURCE

I’ve never ice-skated on the Thames. Have you?

10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: June 15th, 2011

It’s official: a new Ice Age is on its way. In what has been described as “the science story of the century”, heavyweight US solar physicists have announced that the sun is heading for a prolonged period of low activity. This makes global cooling a much more plausible prospect in the next few decades than global warming. Indeed, it might even usher in a lengthy period of climate grimness such as we saw during the Maunder Minimum (when Ice Fairs were held on the Thames) or the Dalton Minimum (which brought us such delights as the 1816 Year Without A Summer).

Here’s how Watts Up With That reports the bad news:

A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all…..

….“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

Oh dear. Or is it “Oh dear?”. Could there yet be a glimmer of hope and joy amid this black, treacly splurge of impending climate doom?

Of course there could, and here are just a few reasons why we should welcome the arrival of the imminent Ice Age.

THE FROZEN THAMES

1. Well I’ve never ice-skated on the Thames. Have you? Also, I’d be quite interested to hear what that “expert” has to say: the one at Alan Howard’s Downing College climate conference who blithely assured us that 17th frost fairs had NOTHING to do with the Little Ice Age. (It was all because the Thames flowed in a much more turgid way back then, apparently….)

2. People will no longer merely be mildly irritated at the way their landscape has been disfigured by bat-chomping eco-crucifixes for rent-seeking toffs (aka wind farms) in the name of saving us from “global warming.” They will be incandescent. Lynch-mob incandescent.

3. As the starving polar bears march southward on the new sheet ice now extending from the North Pole to Gibraltar, desperate citizens will be forced to make tough decisions about which sacrificial victim should be fed next to the ravening beasts so that they leave the rest of us alone. Happily I have a suggestion. His name is Richard Kemp and – apparently – he is Vice Chairman of the Local Government Association. And among his taxpayer-funded functions – again, apparently – is to give quotes to newspapers telling us how grateful and happy we should be that our bins will now be emptied less often.

He said: “Weekly rubbish collection is dead and finished. I’m delighted reason has prevailed. It’s not what most local people want, it’s not what most local councils want and it’s certainly not what the advisers want. What local people want is a system that helps maximise recycling and helps to promote healthy living.”

Feed, my hungry ursine brothers! Feed!

4. Never in our lifetimes will we have to read another tendentious story about how daffodils are coming up three months earlier than usual/lambs are being born in December instead of spring/wildebeeste could soon be migrating across Salisbury Plain as a result of “global warming.”

5. The 10-foot maneating Oceanic Whitetips which have been drawn to Cornwall’s waters by the Concept Formerly Known As Global Warming will now be replaced by 30 foot maneating Greenland sharks. Which will kind of serve the Cornish right for being such impassioned early adopters of wind farms.

6. New edicts will be issued by world leaders including President Ryan of the US, Prime Minister Farage of Great Britain and Aussie premier Plimer, scrapping High Speed Rail, abandoning all renewable energy schemes (apart from, maybe, hydroelectric) and making the ownership of 4 x 4s or similar gas-guzzling vehicles compulsory by 2015. Stringent punishments to be introduced for those whose carbon footprint falls below a certain agreed minimum level.

7. Monbiot the Musical (libretto: James Delingpole; music: James MacMillan) – a light-hearted celebration of one of the late 20th century’s great comic figures – opens simultaneously on Broadway and in the West End to enormous acclaim.

8. Woolly mammoth steaks are said to be surprisingly delicious. They taste like chicken, apparently.

9. Britain now stands a reasonable chance of cleaning up in the medals at the 2022 Winter Olympics. As, unfortunately, do Jamaica, Bora Bora, Egypt and, of course, the 2022 Olympics’ host nation, Dubai.

10. The Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, David Cameron, Leonardo Di Caprio, Ed Begley Jr, Sir P Nurse of the Royal Society and Britain’s second most famous celebrity mathemetician Simon Singh will be among the many former Warmists who put their names to a grovelling apology published in all the world’s newspapers explaining how incredibly bad and stupid they feel for all the economic damage they have inflicted, all the careers ruined, all the unnecessary fear promoted as a result of their misguided promotion of the “Man-Made Global Warming” myth. Yeah, right. Hell will freeze over before that happens. But wait: what are all those spike-tailed, horned, red figures doing gliding on blades across the surface of the Styx?

SOURCE

Obama’s Plan To Tax Americans For The Number Of Miles That They Drive

Barack Obama’s Plan To Tax Americans For The Number Of Miles That They Drive Is Part Of The Radical Green Agenda Being Shoved Down The Throats Of The Entire World

Do you know what a trial balloon is? It is when politicians will float an idea in the media to see what the reaction of the public will be. Well, right now one trial balloon that is being floated is the idea that we should tax Americans for the number of miles that they drive. This proposal showed up in a draft bill that was being circulated within the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget. You can view a copy of this draft bill here. Of course the Obama administration is denying that this proposal will be in the final draft of the legislation. The Obama administration is stressing that this was just “a draft” of the bill. But this is what happens very often with trial balloons. They are put out there and the politicians will say things like “this is being studied” or “this isn’t a serious proposal yet” and then one day we all wake up and it is suddenly being implemented. The fact that there is even draft legislation that would tax Americans based on the number of miles that they drive should be incredibly sobering for all of us. If the global warming alarmists have their way, there are going to be lots of these kinds of taxes in our future.

The following is how an article posted on The Hill describes some of the specifics of this proposal….

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

Doesn’t that just sound lovely?

How many of you are going to line up to be the first ones to have this tracking equipment installed in your car?

Sadly, if this ever does become law, the tracking equipment will probably be installed on all new vehicles.

This is just another example of how our politicians love to tax things that they don’t like.

The Obama administration is full of global warming alarmists that want to penalize Americans for anything that increases emissions of carbon dioxide.

It doesn’t matter to them that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life on planet earth, and that our atmosphere is already starved of carbon dioxide.

It doesn’t matter to them that reducing levels of carbon dioxide will make it harder for crops to grow and could set off a global famine.

It doesn’t matter to them that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming.

It doesn’t matter to them that over 95% of all carbon dioxide emissions would still occur even if humans were not present on Earth.

For those that are “true believers” in the radical green agenda, no amount of common sense will stop them from pressing forward with their militant crusade.

In Europe, the European Commission has unveiled a plan to ban all cars from major European cities by the year 2050.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In Europe, the mantra that “carbon dioxide = evil” has become gospel. This banning of cars from city centers is all part of a draconian master plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Europe by 60 percent over the next 40 years.

The sad truth is that the radical green agenda is at the very heart of the tyrannical New World Order system that the global elite very much desire to impose on every nation on earth.

Just watch the video posted below. It was originally produced by the Forum for the Future, a major NGO funded by big corporations such as Time Warner and Royal Dutch Shell. In this video, the Forum for the Future presents their chilling version of the future. Are you ready to live in a “Planned-opolis”? Are you ready to use a “calorie card” and to have what you eat determined by a “global food council”? This is the kind of tyrannical future that these radical environmental organizations want to impose on you and I….

Are you frightened yet?

You should be.

Who could forget the “Green Police” advertisement that was run during a recent Super Bowl?

It is a very funny commercial, but the underlying message is very serious. Audi is trying to communicate that their cars are “good for the environment” and that if you want to be a good “global citizen” you will consider their line of vehicles….

This is the direction that the world is heading.

Are you going to sit there and do nothing or are you going to speak out?

The radical green agenda is already being heavily implemented in the United States.

Today, the federal government has become so obsessed with reducing carbon emissions that now they even tell us what kinds of light bulbs we are allowed to buy.

In some areas of the United States, government snoopers actually sort through the trash of residents to ensure that environmental rules are being followed. For example, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio authorities have announced plans to have “trash supervisors” go snooping through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.

Is that the kind of “Amerika” that you want to live in?

This is happening all across the United States.

If you plan to say something, now is the time.

Later might be too late.

You know what? The international community is even considering doing some “radical geoengineering” to the earth in order to fight global warming.

INCREMENTALISM

October 2009 article on mileage tax.

In a recent article, I documented 12 of the stupidest ideas that authorities have come up with to fight global warming….

#12 One “researcher” actually seriously proposed that we should dump millions of tons of Special K into the oceans of the world. This would supposedly alter the “reflectivity” of the oceans, thus reducing global warming.

#11 The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, says that UN scientists will now be looking into “geoengineering” methods for fighting global warming which include placing mirrors above the planet to reflect the sun’s rays back into space, sprinkling huge amounts of iron filings into our oceans and creating “man-made volcanoes” that would shoot sulfate particles high into our atmosphere.

#10 There are some scientists that are proposing that we should have our cows eat massive amounts of garlic to keep them from farting so much. It turns out that global warming alarmists are terrified of methane, and new research shows that garlic may help reduce the amount of methane that cows produce.

#9 On a similar note, Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the leading “experts” on climate change in the UK, says that everyone should simply stop eating meat so that we do not need to have as many cows and pigs around. The idea is that if there are less cows and pigs there will be a whole lot less farting and thus a lot less methane in the atmosphere.

#8 Dr. Jason Box, a scientist from Ohio State University, is actually proposing that we should wrap Greenland in a gigantic blanket. He believes that the blanket would attract the sun’s heat, and therefore the melting of Greenland’s glaciers would be slowed down.

#7 The U.K.’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers wants to cover our buildings with massive amounts of algae. Their theory is that the algae would absorb lots of carbon from the atmosphere and therefore help reduce global warming.

#6 James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only “a few people with authority” should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.

#5 Paul J. Crutzen of Germany’s Max Planck Institute says that we should pump massive amounts of smog high into the earth’s atmosphere. The idea is that the sulfur dioxide in the smog would reflect solar radiation, thus cooling the planet.

#4 The Optimum Population Trust, based in the UK, says that preventing the birth of one child in Africa is enough to “offset” the carbon footprint of one flight from London to Australia. So they propose providing huge amounts of condoms to the developing world to “help” them have less children.

#3 Professor Kevin Anderson, the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, says that wealthy nations should implement World War 2-style rationing in order to cut carbon emissions to acceptable levels.

#2 Some “climate scientists” are now actually being so bold as to propose the “forced relocation” of entire human populations. The executive summary of a key report that was discussed at the recent international climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico proposes “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.” Considering what “forced relocations” have looked like throughout history, that statement is more than a little chilling.

#1 For many climate scientists, the number one reason why there are too many carbon emissions is because there are too many humans. Therefore many involved in the fight against climate change see “population reduction” as the key to humanity’s future.

Sadly, this philosophy is now even showing up in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement….

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

It seems like population control is very much on the minds of the folks over at the UN these days. This was very clearly seen once again when the United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate”.

The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document….

1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

1) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

If no human is “carbon neutral”, that means that each and every one of us is part of the problem.

To those that are obsessed with the radical green agenda, the fact that you are alive and breathing air is a problem.

Many radical environmentalists would actually cheer if a large percentage of humanity suddenly died off.

Yes, there are lots of people out there that are actually like that. They see humanity as a “disease” the is “infecting” the planet.

If you doubt this, read my article entitled “The Green Agenda Is About Getting Rid Of As Many Humans As Possible”.

You or I would never think like this, but many of those that are true believers in the “green movement” are absolutely obsessed with rescuing the Earth from evil humans.

Look, there is certainly nothing wrong with protecting the environment. There are very real ways that the environment is being absolutely destroyed every single day.

Unfortunately, the radical green agenda almost totally ignores most of the real environmental issues and instead focuses on things such as carbon emissions, global warming and “overpopulation”.

The solutions proposed by those advocating the radical green agenda would actually be severely damaging to the planet and would leave humanity living in a futuristic, tyrannical hellhole.

If you do not want to live in a “Planned-opolis” where your life is completely dominated by a bunch of control freaks you better say something now, because this is the direction that the world is headed.

So is anyone else out there concerned about these things? Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….

\
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/barack-obamas-plan-to-tax-americans-for-the-number-of-miles-that-they-drive-is-part-of-the-radical-green-agenda-being-shoved-down-the-throats-of-the-entire-world

What do HAARP, Chemtrails, and Global Warming all have in common?

What do HAARP, Chemtrails, and Global Warming all have in common?


By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Chemtrails are bad news. They contain barium and aluminum, which have the potential to destroy ecosystems around the world. But what if this destruction is merely an inevitable and acceptable consequence of a much larger program? A program intended to be part of an all-in-one solution to global control and manipulation?

HAARP

A link to the patent (4,686,605) at the patent office website is here.

What is the purpose of HAARP? To understand this, we can look to information in the patent:

This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.

Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles, which will act as a lens or focusing device.

Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like.

Transportation of entities can also be realized when advantage is taken of the drag effects caused by regions of the atmosphere moving up along diverging field lines. Small micron sized particles can be then transported, and, under certain circumstances and with the availability of sufficient energy, larger particles or objects could be similarly affected. Particles with desired characteristics such as tackiness, reflectivity, absorptivity, etc., can be transported for specific purposes or effects. For example, a plume of tacky particles could be established to increase the drag on a missile or satellite passing therethrough. Even plumes of plasma having substantially less charged particle density than described above will produce drag effects on missiles which will affect a lightweight (dummy) missile in a manner substantially different than a heavy (live) missile and this affect can be used to distinguish between the two types of missiles.

A moving plume could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth.

Surveys of global scope could also be realized because the earth’s natural magnetic field could be significantly altered in a controlled manner by plasma beta effects resulting in, for example, improved magnetotelluric surveys.

Electromagnetic pulse defenses are also possible. The earth’s magnetic field could be decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or eliminate the magnetic field in high Compton electron generation (e.g., from high altitude nuclear bursts) regions. High intensity, well controlled electrical fields can be provided in selected locations for various purposes. For example, the plasma sheath surrounding a missile or satellite could be used as a trigger for activating such a high intensity field to destroy the missile or satellite.

Further, irregularities can be created in the ionosphere which will interfere with the normal operation of various types of radar, e.g., synthetic aperture radar.

The present invention can also be used to create artificial belts of trapped particles which in turn can be studied to determine the stability of such parties.

Still further, plumes in accordance with the present invention can be formed to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a “heave” type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device. Thus it can be seen that the ramifications are numerous, far-reaching, and exceedingly varied in usefulness.

In a nutshell, we can see that HAARP is intended to do the following:

Destroy, deflect, or confuse missiles or aircraft
Modify the weather
Change the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, by increasing or decreasing ozone, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and/or nitrous oxides
Increase the drag on a missile or satellite
Focus vast amounts of sunlight on selected portions of the earth.
Alter the earth’s magnetic field for things such as surveying
Create high intensity, well controlled electrical fields in selected locations for various purposes
Create irregularities in the ionosphere, which will interfere with the normal operation of various types of radar, e.g., synthetic aperture radar
Create plumes to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a “heave” type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device.

Does any of this send chills up your spine? Well, it should. But this did not start with the HAARP patent. Ten years earlier, a patent was obtained which contained a “method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes.”

U.S. Patent # 4,042,196 1977

There is disclosed method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in ionospheric characteristics of the earth and measuring certain selected characteristics of the earth. Substantial energetic particle precipitation is triggered through injection of low energy ionized gas, such as hydrogen, in the region of large fluxes of energetic particles in or near the magnetic equator. The loss process is known to occur naturally but a triggered change is achieved through injection of larger amounts of low-energy ionized gas than are naturally present, preferably in the cusp region, which usually extends inside the synchronous orbit for several hours about local midnight.

With this information in hand, the inventor of HAARP was ready to reveal technology that contains one of the most dastardly plans for global manipulation possible – selective weather modification.

What do chemtrails have to do with it?

According to Dr. Michael Castle,

HAARP is utilized for many clandestine missions, of which weather modification is a fundamental objective. Microwave, Extreme Low Frequency (ELF), Very Low Frequency (VLF) and other EMR/EMF-based systems are transmitted into the atmosphere and reflected by the ionosphere back through the Earth’s Stratosphere/Atmosphere where various airborne chemical particulates, polymer filaments and other electromagnetic frequency absorbers and reflectors are used to push or pull the prevailing jet-streams to alter weather patterns. In many instances, drought inducement technologies have been found in patented systems. Drought inducement occurs, according to reviewed technologies, by heating the stratosphere with microwaves, placing airborne chemical particulates in the airspace and thereby changing the base-line moisture gradients via microwaves from HAARP and desiccating regions chemically with barium titanates, methyl aluminum and potassium mixtures.

In a nutshell:

Jets spray chemtrails consisting of barium titanates, methyl aluminum and potassium mixtures in the stratosphere. These chemtrails are used to reflect and absorb radio and electromagnetic frequencies that are induced by HAARP, and reflected back from the ionosphere. This activity is used to push or pull jet streams, which alter weather patterns. This manipulation can result in all sorts of different weather patterns, including storms, drought, extreme cold, heat, etc.

In the late 1950?s, it was discovered that naturally occurring belts exist at high altitudes above the earth’s surface, and it is now established that these belts result from charged electrons and ions becoming trapped along the magnetic lines of force (field lines) of the earth’s essentially dipole magnetic field. The trapped electrons and ions are confined along the field lines between two magnetic mirrors, which exist at spaced apart points along those field lines. The trapped electrons and ions move in helical paths around their particular field lines and “bounce” back and forth between the magnetic mirrors. These trapped electrons and ions can oscillate along the field lines for long periods of time. (HAARP patent)

HAARP technology for weather modification, in conjunction with chemtrails, use the ionosphere and particulate matter in the stratosphere (chemtrails) to reflect energy back and forth in order to control jet streams, which in turn cause the desired weather patterns.



The global warming scam

So what to do? Well, like any good entrepreneur, you can take advantage of disaster capitalism to make a few bucks. Want to make a bit of money by creating a global warming scam? Spray a few chemtrails, melt a bit of ice, take a picture of a polar bear surrounded by water, and WALLA! a global warming crisis that can be used to manipulate the public into accepting a carbon tax for breathing. Or how about creating storms that wipe out cities that can be rebuilt in a more pleasing manner for the rich and powerful? You could wipe out local farming communities by creating drought in certain areas, declare a particular fish endangered, then take the farmers’ water in the name of ecology, and allow them to go bankrupt. The land could then be used for a more suitable purpose such as a wildlife preserve so that the rich and powerful can have a playground.

The possibilities are endless, and the cost? Well, the American people can pay for it with their tax dollars. The ramifications? What are a few billion deaths from chemical poisoning, starvation, malnutrition, and disease? Why, a much needed benefit, of course. After all, according to the Georgia Guidestones, the population needs to be reduced to 500 million in order to maintain the earth in the manner that the rich and powerful New World Order mafia would like it to be.

(C) 2010 Barbara H. Peterson

Weatherman admits chemtrail spraying on air!

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050: Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

Bruno Waterfield
By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed