Climate Change [Archive] - Debate Both Sides

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 05:07 PM

You realize I have to mention HAARP in this scenario. So let's get it over with. I chose Chossudovsky's assumptive piece to start with. I like how he says there's no proof, yet. Well, I think his latest treatise would say something different, don't you? Notice that this college professor uses Begich's and Bertell's work, even before their latest book, it seems.

It's not only greenhouse gas emissions: Washington's new world order weapons
have the ability to trigger climate change.

By Michel Chossudovsky - Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa and TFF associate, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes.

HAARP IS A MASS DESTRUCTIVE WEAPON - NOT PART OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS

From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include
the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."(2)

Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. "

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s." (3) These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: "US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications." From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. (5)

THE HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM - HAARP

The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska-jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich-actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-describes HAARP as: "A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere (upper layer of the atmosphere) by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything-living and dead." (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (7)

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.(9)

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences: "It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer. (10)

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses: "HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays. Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11).

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". (12)

WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The use of HAARP-if it were to be applied-could have potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate.

Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems. It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. (13)

continued....

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 05:10 PM

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS

According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (14).

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (16) Why then did the UN-disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter-decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACT OF HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj. Britt Theorin-Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament: "Considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of&] the HAARP program." (18.)

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy. Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address
the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.

NOTES

1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective
between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final
Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).

6. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's
Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press,
http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the
HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8. Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5
November, 1996,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of
Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According
to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" is defined by the US
Department of Defense as "military action involving the use
of electromagnetic energyƒ" The Journal of Electronic
Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range
of articles on the application of electronic and
electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York,
1992. See complete text at
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html, (emphasis
added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed,
States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21,
p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99,
14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between
Environment and Defense, European Report, 3 February
1999.

Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.

All rights reserved.

áPermission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.

Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5

Voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415

Fax: 1-514-425-6224

E-Mail: chossudovsky@videotron.ca; (altern. E-mail: chossudovsky@sprint.ca)

>áááááááá On the Globalisation of Poverty and the Financial Crisis:

>áááááááá "Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order"

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/seattle.html

>áááááááá Global Poverty in the Late 20th Century

>áááááááá http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chossu.htm

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/g7solution.html

> ááááááááhttp://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/eco/

>

http://heise.xlink.de/tp/english/special/eco/6099/1.html#anchor1

Recent articles on Yugoslavia at:áá
http://emperors-clothes.com/artbyauth.html#C

NATOÕs Reign of Terror in Kosovo http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/yugo_archive/
19990816mcpaper.htm

Overview of the War: http://www.transnational.org/features/Yuoverview.html

On the role of the KLA: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2743/1.html

Breakup of Yugoslavia: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

________________

The thesis is obvious. Weaponry and weather manipulation may be contributing to climate change.

Personally, I think that the sun has more to do with it than anything. I'll be posting on that thesis, also.

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 05:34 PM

BC seems to have originated this:

" First of all, spraying does not occur in all regions of the planet. Global dimming, therefore, in my view, can only be caused by one thing...... the sun. The sun has caused the polar icecaps to melt and although CO2 is contributory, the sun by far, is the main cause of the effect. That's just my opinion from reading. Methane, as well, due to the Arctic's and Antarctic's melting and exposing mud pits and other sources of methane production, poses another threat to the gaseous equation in terms of radiative potentials and the rising of the atmospheric temperature."

==========

BC,

The Sun supplies most of the energy on the surface of the Earth. The Sun's energy is rather constant, except for the small 11 year cycle variation and some sun spots.

The problem is the energy absorption of the Earth's atmosphere, changing the reflectivity of the land masses, etc. Plus, acids damaging the CO-2 absorption.

Most important of all, the energy absorbing gases are higher in concentration over the poles and this effect leads to the polar melt issue. It comes from the Sun's ionizing radiation making ions that drift by the Earth's magnefic field.

The concentrations of pollutants is not a constant, by elevation, or by latitude. Warmer air means wetter atmosphere and hydrogen getting higher into the atmosphere--this is associated with UV-b effects. While the UV-b effects at the poles come from both ozone depletion and H generation.

All the global warming effects are due to these pollutants in the air, many from man and some being forced out of nature by the positive feedback effects of man's contributions to heat absorbing gases in the air.

I don't think you can rightly say the Sun doing its normal thing is responsible for the polar ice melt. The correct explanation lies in the higher concentrations of the heat absorbing aerosols and gases at the pole.

That is perhaps the most important issue to grasp for getting to the bottom of the pole melt problems.

IMHO,
is

OK, Jim (right?) I hear you. And I accept what you say. However, I have come across ice core research that proves that this exact situation happened before in pre-history including the high levels of CO2. Volcanism probably played into that one. And guess what? Volcanism will probably play a role in this one, too. And I do believe that the sun is not constant and if our scientists knew about the sun's heating up or discharging an unusual amount of energy, do you think they'd tell us? Another theory that seems plausible is considering all the other planets in the solar system heating up and behaving unusually which points to the increased energy of the sun.....seems to be a plausible explanation as well. I will list those links over in the climate change thread. It would be easier for me to continue this thread we're on, regarding climate change, over at the Climate Change thread I started. Perhaps the situation is bigger than you think, solar system wide, rather than planetary alone. You might also consider the changing magnetic pole situation in all of this as well. The earth's magnetism has a role to play, does it not? And another branching theory regards extra solar system bodies entering the gravitational fields and affecting the sun's energy particulates AND the magnetic grids which in turn is governed by the earth's inner core. The earth's inner core could certainly be influenced by both the sun's particulate energy AND gravitational forces from other bodies.

I think exploring all relative theories is in order.

Continue on the Climate Change thread?

Thanks!

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 06:29 PM

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/corelab/images/broda_keigwin.pdf

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/corelab/images/paleo_Keigwin.pdf

http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v40n2/ostermann.html

The Little Ice Age and the Sargasso Sea

http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v39n2/keigwin.html

Generally the combined theses for these readings point to great fluctuations in temperature, both sea and atmospheric, over long and shorter geological time spans.

Excerpt:

When temperatures were calculated from oxygen isotope results on G. ruber from the box core, and when data were averaged over 50 year intervals, I found a consistent pattern of sea surface temperature change (see figure at right). The core-top data indicate temperatures of nearly 23 degrees, very close to the average temperature at Station S over the past 50 years. However, during the Little Ice Age of about 300 years ago sea surface temperatures were at least a full degree lower than today, and there was an earlier cool event centered on 1,700 years ago. Events warmer than today occurred about 500 and 1,000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, and it was even warmer than that prior to about 2,500 years ago.

These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean. Because the Sargasso Sea has a rather uniform temperature and salinity distribution near the surface, it seems that these events must have had widespread climatic significance. The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial. Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago. There is considerable discussion in the scientific literature and the popular press about the cause of warming during the present century. Warming of about half a degree this century has been attributed to the human-induced "greenhouse effect." Although this is not universally accepted, it is widely accepted that eventually changes to Earth's atmosphere will cause climate warming. The message from the Bermuda Rise is that human-induced warming may be occurring at the same time as natural warming—not an ideal situation. Finally, building on the studies of physical oceanographers and climatologists, marine geologists and paleoclimatologists may use the North Atlantic Oscillation as a model for understanding North Atlantic climate change on longer, century and millennial time scales.

________________

Certainly worth considering all of these studies in the larger planetary picture!

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 07:05 PM

Live Online Discussion: "The Irony of Climate"
Thursday, February 24, 2005, 2:00 PM EST

Join Worldwatch Senior Researcher Brian Halweil for an online discussion on February 24, 2005 at 2:00 PM EST. Brian will talk about his article "The Irony of Climate," a feature in the forthcoming March/April issue of World Watch magazine that explores the links between climate change and agriculture shifts. "Farming may be the human endeavor most dependent on a stable climate--and the industry that will struggle most to cope with more erratic weather, severe storms, and shifts in growing season lengths," Halweil writes.

Submit your questions now at http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/103/ and return on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 2:00 PM EST for the discussion.

Problems Without Passports: Achieving Security in an Interconnected World
Worldwatch Institute and GLOBE USA invite you to a discussion on the timely issue of global security and to celebrate the release of State of the World 2005.

Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Cannon House Building
Corner of Independence Ave. & New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20515

BRIEFING: 3:00-4:30 PM, Cannon Caucus Room 345

RECEPTION/STATE OF THE WORLD 2005 BOOK PARTY: 4:30-6:30 PM, Cannon Room 121

PROGRAM

Welcome: Christopher Flavin, President, Worldwatch Institute
Will Ferretti, Executive Director, GLOBE USA
Keynote Remarks: Congressman James Leach (R-Iowa)
Panel Discussion: Michael Renner, Worldwatch Institute
Richard Cincotta, Population Action International
Paul Walker, Global Green USA
Hilary French, Worldwatch Institute
Closing Remarks: Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

Books will be available for all guests, and State of the World 2005 authors will be on hand to discuss their findings.

Download a faxable RSVP form for this event at www.worldwatch.org/press/prerelease/sow05-hill-fax.pdf

For more information, please contact: Courtney Berner 202.452.1992 ext 540,

:shock:

cberner@worldwatch.org

Support the Institute Worldwatch Publications

Join the Worldwatch Institute and help inspire a revolution in global thinking on how we live on planet earth. Benefits of membership include free publications and a free subscription to World Watch magazine. Donate Now!

From our flagship State of the World and Vital Signs publications to the interactive Signposts CD-ROM, Worldwatch publications provide in-depth data and analysis on a broad range of environmental and social topics. Browse our publications.

Worldwatch Institute - 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202.452.1999 - Fax 202.296.7365 - www.worldwatch.org

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:58 PM

The Sun
Since at least the late 1970s, the Sun’s overall radiation emissions (as measured by increasingly sophisticated satellites) have increased by 0.5% per decade, which one NASA scientist said “could cause significant climate change” if such effects were to continue over several decades. [14] Another NASA scientist found that between 1901 and 2000, the Sun’s magnetic field has increased in strength by 230 percent. [15] In 1999, a third NASA experimenter observed high increases in the amount of helium and heavier charged particles released during solar events, showing that a real change is occurring in the solar wind component of the Sun’s energetic output, neatly paralleling the other observed changes.. [16]

Prior to 2003, the two strongest solar flares on record were rated at a previously unheard-of X20, and occurred in 1989 and 2001. Then, in November 2003 a flare occurred that some estimate to be at least 200% more powerful than any ever seen before, at a whopping X40 … or higher.[17] As is expected in such events, a coronal mass ejection soon followed – releasing a huge expanding bubble of billions of tons of electrified gas into the solar system. These and other events in late 2003 caused one NASA scientist to say that the Sun is now more active than in living memory, and “there has been nothing like this before.” [18]

Figure 5 - Largest, Brightest-Ever X40 Solar Flare, 11.5.03, (L) and Subsequent CME (R). (NASA-ESA)

Despite all of the above evidence, the case for a fundamental solar change was never truly complete until late last year, with a study that coincidentally emerged just three days before this massive solar explosion occurred. Ilya Usoskin, a mainstream geophysicist, used polar ice core samples to prove that the Sun has been more active since the 1940s than in the previous 1,150 years combined. [19] The Sun’s subsequent fury, just days later, only served to underline and emphasize the point. Considering that the Sun contains fully 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar system, making the planets look like grains of sand by comparison, these continuing changes will undoubtedly affect everything within the Sun’s formidable magnetic, radiative and gravitational grasp…

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-27-2004/InterplanetaryDayAfter-Part2.htm

Sources:

“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.”

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend that can Change Climate. March 20, 2003. URL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

[15] “…according to Michael Lockwood and colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England… Analyzing instrument measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent since 1964.”

Suplee, Curt. Sun Studies May Shed Light on Global Warming. Washington Post, Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, pg. A13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35885-2000Oct8.html

[16] “A team of researchers led by George Gloeckler, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, published a paper in the Jan. 15, 1999 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) about the unusual composition of the May 2-3 (1998) coronal mass ejection (CME) – a bubble of gas and magnetic field lines that the sun ejects over the course of several hours… Coronal mass ejections carry plasma, or ionized gas, away from the sun at speeds approaching 2,000 kilometers per second…

“We were completely surprised by the highly unusual and unexpected composition in this CME,” Gloeckler says. His team observed, for example, that the density of 4He+ [a form of charged helium] was almost as high as the density of 4He++ for several hours. “Such large 4He+/4He++ratios, persisting for hours, have never been observed in the solar wind before,” they write. They also observed high increases of helium and heavier ions in the CME plasma. The unusual composition of the CME lasted an exceptionally long time, they write… “This is certainly not an average solar wind but an anomalous situation,” Gloeckler says. “Yet such anomalous findings often lead to deeper understandings of physical processes.”

Bartlett, Kristina. ACEing the sun. American Geophysical Union / Geotimes News Notes, April 1999. URL: http://www.geotimes.org/apr99/newsnotes.html

[17] “Craig DeForest, a solar physicist at the Southwest Research Institute, said… “I’d take a stand and say it appears to be about X40 based on extrapolation of the X-ray flux into the saturated period… “That estimate may even be conservative,” he said.”

Britt, Robert Roy. Solar super-flare amazes scientists. Space.com / MSNBC.com, Nov. 6, 2003. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/984388.asp?cp1=1

[18] Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online… "I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times… As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."”

Whitehouse, David Ph.D. What is Happening to the Sun? BBC News Online, Tuesday, November 4, 2003. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3238961.stm

[19] “Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica…

Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford…told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

Hogan, Jenny. Sun More Active than for a Millennium. New Scientist, November 2, 2003. URL: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

:shock:

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 05:50 AM

gaiacomm

02-04-2005, 08:20 AM

Tesla Rules!

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 10:31 AM

Yes, G, Tesla technology could be used to protect the earth from what I've read, but who owns the technology and how will they use it ? is the question.

I'll read that Danish article, Jay.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6970

Alarm bells ring louder over climate change
15:04 04 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter
The risks of global warming are "more serious than previously thought", concluded a major international climate conference on Thursday.

"Major investment is needed now in both mitigation and adaptation," stresses the preliminary report, summarising results presented at the conference, called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, in Exeter, UK.

The impacts of global warming discussed at the meeting sounded like a roll call of disasters. Topics ranged from the collapse of ice sheets in Antarctica to the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice caps; from droughts in Africa to floods in Japan. And fears were also raised over the rapidly changing current-patterns in acidifying ocean .

But the scientists shied away from stating that such climate change was "dangerous". "That's a value judgement to be made by policy makers," said Bert Metz, from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and one of the report's authors.

To help policy makers decide where to draw the danger line, the report echoed some researchers' calls to establish "critical thresholds that we should aim not to cross".

For example, the report drew attention to the results of Jason Lowe, from the Hadley Centre in Exeter. He says that local warming of more than 2.7°C, associated with global warming of only 1.5°C, could trigger Greenland's ice sheet to start contracting.

Dramatic cuts
Collating results from published studies indicated that damage increases as the world warms by between 1°C and 3°C, while serious risk of large scale damage becomes likely above 3°C, the report said. This lends some support to the European Union's target of keeping global warming to under 2°C by 2050. Other presentations at the meeting suggested that only with dramatic emissions cuts can such a goal be achieved.

The report also warned that more research was needed into the effects climate change could have on the frequency of extreme natural events. It cited the European heat wave of 2003 - during which thousands of people died - as an example of an extreme event made more likely by global warming.

The last substantial review of climate change was conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001. But now "there is greater clarity and reduced uncertainty about the impacts of climate change", says the new report.

The meeting was opened by Margaret Beckett, the UK's Secretary of State for the Environment, who said on Thursday: "I think this conference will be seen as a turning point in the perception of climate change. It underlines the need for the international community to take urgent action to combat climate change."

Related Articles
Climatologists pursue greenhouse gas danger levels
01 February 2005
Coral reefs create clouds to control the climate
02 February 2005
A most precious commodity
08 January 2005
Weblinks
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change symposium, Exeter
Summary symposium report (pdf)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

__________________________________

Regarding G's comment on Tesla, I decided to find some documentation on HAARP plans to find something in regard to environmental awareness. This is what I found and it's probably not the newest info:

Air Force Navy Document on HAARP programs

http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html

I could only find this paragraph in relation to the program's attention to
environmental issues:

4.3. HF Heater Location

One of the major issues to be addressed under the program is the
generation of ELF waves in the ionosphere by HF heating. This
requires locating the heater where there are strong atmospheric
currents, either at an equatorial location or at a high latitude
(auroral) location. Additional factors to be considered in
locating the heater include other technical (research) needs and
requirements, environmental issues, future expansion
capabilities (real estate), infrastructure, and considerations
of the availability and location of diagnostics. The location of
the new HF heating facility is planned for Alaska, relatively
near to a new incoherent scatter facility, already planned for
the Poker Flat rocket range under a separate DOD program. In
addition, it is desirable that the HF heater be located to
permit rocket probe instrumentation to be flown into the heated
region of the ionosphere. The exact location in Alaska for the
proposed new HF heating facility has not yet been determined.

___________________________________

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 10:32 AM

For those of you interested in the science involved in the new technologies:

Excellent site for research and physics papers: (each line is a paper, active links on site)

http://digilander.libero.it/fuzzylogics/faiallo.htm

Radio wave propagation in the corona and the interplanetary medium.pdf
Enhanced MUF propagation of HF radio waves in the auroral zone .pdf
Ionosphere Plasma Holes--Modeling and Diagnostic.pdf
Modelling of transequatorial propagation of HF radio waves.pdf
Ambiguity of the recnonstruction of plasma requency profiles from a given height-Frequency
characteristics and their discernibility for oblique propagation of HF radio waves in an isotropic ionosphere.pdf
A new model of the oceanic evaporation duct.pdf
Absorption of solar radiation by stratocumulus clouds- aircraft measurements and theoretical calculations.pdf
Excitation of Alfvén waves and vortices in the ionospheric Alfvén resonator by modulated powerful radio waves.pdf
Propagation modes of low- and very-low-latitude whistlers.pdf
The investigation of long-distance HF propagation on the basis of a chirp sounder.pdf
Multiple scattering effects under vertical sounding of equatorial ionosphere.pdf
Aspect angle dependence of HF enhanced incoherent backscatter.pdf
EISCAT data base for ionospheric modelling: F-region and topside ionosphere.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - ATTIVITA SOLARE

The effect of solar UV irradiance variations on the Earth's atmosphere.pdf
Catalogue of coronal mass ejections and associated phenomena.pdf
Shock waves in the solar corona and their radio emission.pdf
Radio astronomical studies of solar activity and its effects on the solar corona and the heliosphere.pdf
Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate.pdf
Long-term trends in the lower ionosphere .pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - VLF

VLF phase and amplitude: daytime ionospheric parameters.pdf
ELF and VLF radio waves .pdf
Sounding the magnetosphere by signal from VLF radio transmitters.pdf
ELF/VLF radio signals caused by ionospheric demodulation of MF/HF radio transmitter signals.pdf
Solar cycle changes in daytime VLF subionospheric attenuation.pdf
The effect of a transverse irregularity on the electromagnetic fields excited by VLF transmitters at ionospheric heights in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide near the terminator.pdf
The generation of ELF and VLF radio waves in the ionosphere using powerful radio transmitters.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - E-SPORADICO

Global sounding of sporadic E layers by the GPS-MET radio occultation experiment.pdf
Sporadic-E occurrence statistics over Indian subcontinent.pdf
Dependence of sporadic-E layer and lower thermosphere dynamics on solar activity.pdf
Using the combined resources of amateur radio observations and ionosonde data in the study of temperate zone sporadic-E.pdf
Es layer and dynamics of neutral atmosphere during the periods of geomagnetic disturbances.pdf
The effect of geomagnetic activity on the dynamics of the upper mesosphere-lower thermosphere and on parameters of the E-layer.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - VARIE

Disturbances in LF radio signals during the Umbria-Marche (Italy) seismic sequence in 1997–1998 .pdf
The formation of ionosphere-magnetosphere ducts over the seismic zone.pdf
Effect of Earthquakes on Lower Ionosphere as Found by Subionospheric VLF Propagation .pdf
Dynamical coupling of the lower and middle atmosphere: historical background to current research.pdf
A case study of subrefractive conditions at Wallops Island, Virginia.pdf
A simple theoretical model for computing omega navigation errors near Antarctica.pdf
Ionospheric Stimulation By High Power Radio Waves.pdf
Shortwave feedbacks and El Nino-Southern Oscillation- forced ocean and coupled ocean-atmosphere experiments.pdf
The development of small-scale irregularities in the ionosphere disturbed by powerful oblique HF radio waves.pdf
Time-critical problem-solving with cached knowledge- a case study in shortwave radio resource allocation.pdf
Observation of HF radio emission bursts of magnetosphere origin at mid latitudes.pdf
The effects of receiver location in two-station experimental ionospheric tomography.pdf

RADIO E SOCIETA'

A geographical analysis of America's ethnic radio programming.pdf
Customized internet radio.pdf
The radio spectrum and the organization of the future: Recapturing radio for new working patterns and lifestyles.pdf
Planning point-to-multipoint rural radio access networks using expert systems.pdf
The communications spectrum: frequency allocations and auctions.pdf
The future of wireless communications beyond the third generation.pdf

RADIOTECNICA

Digital Signal Processing radios: trends, benefits and challenges.pdf
Development of an FM data receiver for various message output devices.pdf

LIBRI

Book Review - Radio propagation and smart antennas for wireless communications.pdf
Book Review - Social uses and radio practices: the use of participatory radio by ethnic minorities in Mexico.pdf

www.radioascolto.org

BC

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 06:20 PM

Hey, Bummerchick,
This woman needs help more than people need information about tesla stuff.
It sounds like things are 'coming to a head' around Carolyn.
Check her out. Another sad piece of work being influenced by you know who to do who knows what. This type person needs to stay offline and make baskets or something..........
http://www.noexoticwarfarezone.com/thedaytheearthstoodstill.htm

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 07:36 PM

On the question of solar variability and global temperatures, you really have to read the Danes.
http://www.dmi.dk/eng/index/research_and_development/danish_climate_centre.htm
I have aspecial connection with the Danish people, as I lived on St. Croix, a former Danish colony. My friend Kai Lawaetz, 94, just passed away a few weeks ago.
http://www.gotostcroix.com/lawaetz/

Kai certainly lived a beautiful life! What a gorgeous place in which to create and commune with nature. How special ! What a lovely place, St. Croix in the Virgin Islands.

Where you stationed there or working there in some capacity?

The Danish site had less information on it than our Woods Hole site, but interesting. I was curious to read some articles, but they didn't have any. Nice to know they're involved with other groups in all areas of climate research.

THANKS, JAY!!!!

bc :D

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 08:37 PM

jayreynolds

02-05-2005, 07:19 AM

Where you stationed there or working there in some capacity?
I see you haven't read my website yet.
I'm rather discouraged by that.
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

For a literature teacher, your retention and comprehension skills seem weak.
I already wrote you that I've never been in the military.
BTw, what about those questions I asked?

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 11:49 AM

I see you haven't read my website yet.
I'm rather discouraged by that.
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

For a literature teacher, your retention and comprehension skills seem weak.
I already wrote you that I've never been in the military.
BTw, what about those questions I asked?

Ouch! I left the question open with "OR" and you had said you were affiliated with a Navy project, so EXCUUUUuuuUUUUse ME!!!

I just visited your site and e-mailed you..... are you happy now? :rolleyes: I will be reading more on your site through time.

What questions? I will check back.

Later................

BC

halva

02-08-2005, 04:05 PM

Bush's global-warming death sentence

By MARY SHAW

ON FEB. 16, the international Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming will take effect with no support from the Bush administration. This should be an embarrassment to all Americans.

Environmental lawyer and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has described George W. Bush as the worst environmental president in U.S. history. During Bush's first term, his administration initiated more than 200 rollbacks of environmental laws.

These moves serve to benefit big corporations, which are no longer inconvenienced by having to comply with strict pollution standards. This kind of environmental irresponsibility is contributing to global warming that, if allowed to continue unchecked, could pose a serious threat to human life around the world.

Despite the assertions of diehard naysayers, hard data now confirms that climate change is dramatic, real and driven by fossil fuels. Weather patterns are increasingly unstable, deep oceans warming, glaciers melting, drought and famine proliferating, sea levels rising and the timing of the seasons themselves is altered.

Increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have resulted in a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last century. That may not seem like much, but the process is speeding up in a big way, and could soon careen out of control if measures are not taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the average global temperature will rise three to 10 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. Other studies suggest an even greater warming effect much sooner. The consequences could be cataclysmic.

Already, climate change is affecting the lives and livelihoods of some of the world's most vulnerable people, threatening millennia-old cultures and literally stealing the ground beneath people's feet.

The Inuit people near the Arctic Circle are seeing deformed fish, depleted caribou herds, dying forests, starving seals and emaciated polar bears. Recently, the Inuit began battling northward-migrating mosquitoes and other infectious- disease-carrying insects, which they had never encountered.

As sea ice melts, rising water is washing away coastal villages. Half a world away, islands in the South Pacific are being submerged by rising sea levels caused by global warming. President Leo Falcam of the island nation of Tuvalu, near New Zealand, described climate change as "a form of slow death."

Even farther inland, the consequences are bleak, as global warming will have a considerable effect on food production. The U.N. climate panel predicts that a half-degree temperature increase would cause a drop of 20 to 40 percent in rice yields in Southeast Asia, and would cut India's wheat yield by up to 20 percent.

LOOKING FORWARD, it gets even worse and hits closer to home. The U.N. Environmental Program projects that later this century, global warming will reduce several of the world's key crops, like corn grown in the midwestern U.S., by some 30 percent.

Adding to this threat is the fact that world food consumption has, for the first time in history, outpaced food production for four consecutive years, according to the Earth Policy Institute. In other words, folks, already there is not enough food to go around.

Flooding and erosion presents a serious hardship in affected areas, but the airborne diseases and malnutrition caused by global warming are matters of life and death. Summing up the situation, the British medical journal The Lancet called indifference to climate change "a form of bio-political terrorism."

The U.S. - with about 5 percent of the world's population - remains the world's chief polluter, generating 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

Humanity must not be made to suffer the consequences of corporate cronyism. The Bush administration, and our state officials, too, must make this issue a priority and take immediate measures to control pollution and fight global warming. We owe that much to our future generations - and to the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jayreynolds

02-09-2005, 06:36 AM

Bush's global-warming death sentence

By MARY SHAW

The Inuit people near the Arctic Circle are seeing deformed fish, depleted caribou herds, dying forests, starving seals and emaciated polar bears. Recently, the Inuit began battling northward-migrating mosquitoes and other infectious- disease-carrying insects, which they had never encountered.--

Bullshit, Wayne. how in hell could "global warming" cause deformed fish?

The idea that the Inuit haven't ever encountered mosquitoes would get you a good laugh in Alaska. The mosquito problem in summertime there is severe, as bad a s anywhere in the world. The Inuit people even have legends about how they come in the summertime:
http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues00/Co09092000/CO_09092000_Mosquitoes.htm

The bottom line is that your article is bogus, written by some hack that can't do proper research, has never been to the arctic, and never bothered to ask an Inuit any questions about mosquitoes.

Wayne, you used to sign each post here with a warning against scaremongering.
your scruples have changed quite a bit.

halva

02-09-2005, 07:11 AM

Just a couple of news items so that we can say to Raynolds:
GO TO RUSSSIA!!!

Blair told to listen to climate change sceptics
Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:25 PM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Douglas Busvine

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair must listen to sceptics in the climate change debate to stop the Kyoto Protocol harming the world economy, a top Russian official has said.

"Have there been any international agreements to limit economic growth and development before Kyoto? There were two: Communism and Nazism," Andrei Illarionov, an aide to President Vladimir Putin, told a Moscow news conference on Tuesday.

Illarionov urged Blair to reject the arguments being put forward by ecological fundamentalists who he said were seeking to hijack the agenda of this year's Group of Eight (G8) summit in Britain.

"For a country which gave the world freedom of speech, it is crucial that its leaders find the strength to free themselves from ... a very dangerous totalitarian sect," Illarionov said.

Despite Russia's decision last year to sign up to Kyoto, Illarionov remains opposed to the U.N.-sponsored pact to curb emissions of "greenhouse" gases like carbon dioxide, blamed by some scientists for global warming.

Putin stripped Illarionov of his post as Russia's G8 summit "sherpa" late last year, but the outspoken economist remains a senior adviser to the Kremlin chief.

Illarionov said he was "deeply grateful" to Putin for relieving him of responsibility for Kyoto, which he said would punish developing nations in an attempt to avert an illusory environmental catastrophe.

Russia's ratification of Kyoto means the 141-nation pact can enter into force next week, despite a boycott by the United States, the world's largest polluter.

Kyoto's backers say people must burn fewer fossil fuels that give off heat-trapping gases like CO2, or else more storms, droughts and floods will result. Melting polar ice caps would force up sea levels, while rapid climate change could ruin farmers and endanger thousands of plant and animal species.

SHUT OUT

Illarionov accused the Environment Ministry of intervening to prevent him attending a debate on climate change at last month's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

He also criticised a seminar in Exeter, southwest England, in January where the British chairman tried and failed to push through a resolution defining crisis levels for rising temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

"The problem is that the so-called scientific basis ... has been proposed by the British government and the European Union for approval by the G8 in order to impose new limits on CO2 emissions," Illarionov said.

The G8 comprises the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.

"When the G8 leaders meet in Scotland in July, they won't discuss the science. They will say that the scientific community has concluded that global warming is happening and immediate action is needed. But this has no scientific basis."

Illarionov sought in a slide show to demonstrate that a rise in global temperatures in recent decades was part of the ups and downs of climate cycles dating back to the pre-industrial age.

Attempts to prove the contrary were based on faulty readings of data or selective use of evidence that ice caps and glaciers were melting faster than ever before, he contended.

"This is not science. It's propaganda," Illarionov said. "And the aggression shown towards those who do not share these views shows they totally lack any foundation."

Very Raynoldian idea content here!!!)

09 February 2005 13:15
Kremlin aide blasts UK role in "totalitarian" Kyoto "sect"

Russian presidential [economic] advisor Andrey Illarionov today called the statement by British scientists on global warming "a falsification".

Great Britain is using this information, he said at a news conference, in order to raise the issue of global warming at the G-8 summit which is to be held in the summer. Illarionov is convinced this is a political decision.

The presidential aide said that at a seminar on global warming which ended a few days ago in Exeter British scientists claimed that two degrees was a critical level for climate change. If we were to accept this, we would have to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide by 50-60 per cent on the 1990 level.

For Russia and former Soviet republics, this would mean reducing emissions by over 30 per cent in the near future and by 90 per cent by 2050. "To achieve this, economic activity in Russia would have to be cut by 70-80 per cent, and GDP (in Russia and former Soviet republics) would have to be cut by half or two thirds by 2050," Illarionov said.

["The G-8 economic forum in Davos fell victim to censorship" by Great Britain, which "influenced the drawing up of the programme for the conference on climate change", ITAR-TASS, in a report at1034 gmt, quoted Illarionov as saying at the news conference today.

"The organizers of the current forum in Davos invited me to take part in a number of sessions, but on 5 January, after long correspondence and a number of personal meetings, I received a letter saying it would not be possible for me to take part in the session on climate change," Illarionov said. He said "the organizers of the forum explained this, saying that Great Britain was part of the G-8 and that it was not its plan to organize discussion of this topic".

In a further report at 1208 gmt, ITAR-TASS quoted him calling the Kyoto Protocol "a sect ideology which is being imposed on the world using totalitarian methods" and expressing the fear that this "ideology" will have more and more influence" in the next few years. The protocol "has nothing to do with ecology", he said.

He also said that "he had not succeeded in pushing through decisions relating to the Kyoto Protocol which coincide with Russia's interests ".]

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow
BBC Monitoring

jayreynolds

02-09-2005, 08:01 AM

For Russia and former Soviet republics, this would mean reducing emissions by over 30 per cent in the near future and by 90 per cent by 2050. "To achieve this, economic activity in Russia would have to be cut by 70-80 per cent, and GDP (in Russia and former Soviet republics) would have to be cut by half or two thirds by 2050," Illarionov said.

Do you really think that Russia has any intention of living up to this, if they sign it, Wayne?

The next question would be to ask how a 5% reduction in CO2 production would be expected to have any effect on "global warming"?

jayreynolds

02-10-2005, 07:17 AM

Boomer Chick

02-10-2005, 08:52 AM

Jay,

Thanks for that link! It's just jammed packed with top notch information!

I especially appreciated your solar links as support for my general hunch that the sun should be the main factor in overall increases in global warmth.

What kind of search system do you use? You certainly have it down!

Here's the solar page for those who doubt the solar aspect of the equation:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/solar.htm

AWESOME! NOT THAT I LIKE THE TRUTH, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NECESSARY FOR ANY ADAPTATION TO OCCUR!

Will be commenting on this as I read more articles!

BC :D

jayreynolds

02-12-2005, 08:53 AM

What kind of search system do you use? You certainly have it down!

Since the Agency gives me their worn-out-hand-me-down Crays, I have the equivalent of sevral googles. I am the most powerful debunker in the universe!

Seriously, I've followed Doug Hoyt's site since his erols.com site back in 1997.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 04:23 AM

Getting back to the science on HF or hydrogen fluoride's catalytic effect making its GWP quite high.

Review:

We have all learned that HF is a lite gas with a MW of only 20, this compared to air at MW of 30.
So, we know that HF will float on top of the air in the environment and rise to heights where it is highly affected by UV radiation from the sun. Here the UV breaks the hydrogen bond to the fluorine because the hydrogen has a high capture of UV energy.

Then the extremely electronegative free fluorine atom tends to seek and bond with the next atom around, which is generally oxygen or nitrogen. So, the Sun's UV cooking of the HF high in the sky radiologically makes OFx and NFx compounds, which are heavier than air and sink back into the lower altitudes.

Here the OFx and NFx compounds are not reactive toward much except the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. Reason being is that oxygen binds the atoms of hydrogen in water much more tightly than carbon bonds hydrogen, thus the OFx and NFx reactions only happen with H-C's. When one of these fluorine compounds gets near a hydrocarbon the affinity of fluorine toward hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon takes over and it pulls the hydrogen out of the chain or ring of the hydrocarbon. This forces it to rearrange itself into a simpler shorter hydro-carbon molecule. The hydrogen the fluorine pulled loose goes into HF and then rises back up high into the sky to start the process again. A little bit of fluorine or HF goes a long long way in the making of lite H-C compounds, hence the high GWP associated with HF.

It is this HF catalytic pump effect of generating these lite hydro-carbons that fills the skies with hyrocarbons that float on the atmosphere and which have the high IR absorption spectra from their multiple atom H-C strings.

The effect only occurs due to the synergism of both high emissions of HF from industry and natural sources and due to the very high consumption of hydrocarbon fuels that burn with inefficient processes that drive the entire process. For this reason, in history this is the first time this type of global warming event has happened. And it is the dominate effect in setting up the global warming gas blanket high above the Earth's Surface.

I found this effect way back in the middle 1980's while looking at the Star Wars LASER effects on the atmosphere, the mechanism of the ozone hole, and the mechanism for smog generation. Observations around Oak Ridge due to its high emissions of HF were showing unusual effects on temperatures and with close inspection of the processes I became the first to define the dominate global warming equation and the unusual recycle boundary conditions.

The discovery of this process lead directly to the issues of designing chemtrail methods to pull the HF out of the skies, since it was the easiest to get to with combinational chemistry with metals and via absorption into water molecules. Generation 1 and Generation 2 chemtrail technics are all my invention to stop the formation of the IR blanket gases. HAARP was my idea to deal with the IR gases already high in skies by heating them in such a way as to set up a wave propagation to push some of these gases into space. It was a retro-active approach to lessen the problems.

So, Halva, pass that around to persons like Chem11 and let them have a look---I am sure if there is a level of chemical savy there --- it will click as to the importance of my prime factor in global warming. This leading to chemtrails and to HAARP---of which, I provided the name.

Normally this reaction process happens at high altitudes, but in the case of the K-25 plant disassembly and losses of HF, it also occured due to the same process at lower altitudes and lead to much high temperature air in Oak Ridge in this period and extremely violent storms associated to the effect.

This is why fluoride emissions need to be carefully regulated and the effect made public.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 07:26 AM

halva

02-16-2005, 07:54 PM

Bump.

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 02:13 PM

I don't expect "believers" to read any of this, but if they want to see what they will eventually have to confront, they had better study it and follow it wherever it may lead, as if their lives depended on it.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm

Read some more on the link today! The guy's got a great mind! Love how he attacks the ICPP or is it the IPCC? LOL!

Anyway, he does a great job and overall I would include his reasoning in my own considerations which tend to SLOW the whole GW process down... makes good sense. HOWEVER, it's still wise to do all we can to clean up the fossil fuel crap and provide a balance of carbon sinks and oxygen creating forest reserves of all kinds. Couldn't hurt. I especially liked his attention to the humidity factor.... was just thinking about that as well. Very interesting!

Take care..... :D

BC

jayreynolds

02-17-2005, 07:10 PM

Bump.
Stumped?

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 07:10 PM

I owe Jay a semi-apology. He is right in a way regarding the Senate. But I was right, too, regarding the protocol. It was never given to the Senate.

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE POLITICAL CHALLENGES

Remarks of Eileen Claussen
President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Stanford University Sustainability Days Conference

October 15, 2004

Thank you Jim for that very kind introduction. Let me begin by thanking the organizers of this conference. As most of you did, I watched the presidential debates, and I want to tell you how pleased I am that you did not install any blinking-light system on this podium that might force me to babble on and keep repeating myself to fill my allotted time.

I am going to talk about the politics of climate change—and, more specifically, about the continuing political struggle over this issue. But I also want to suggest a way to begin to resolve this struggle by taking a fresh look and by framing an agenda that can attract broad support.

But first the struggle itself. At the core, I believe it is a struggle between the old and the new, between those who want to put off taking action for as long as possible and those who believe we need to act decisively - now. It is, in essence, a struggle between the past and the future.

But unlike others of this kind, I believe the climate struggle is unique because the stakes are enormously high. Here we are talking about what kind of world we leave for future generations, and whether we can avoid environmental impacts that could potentially be catastrophic. It is a struggle in which we must succeed, and to do so we face the political challenge of finding solutions that can receive the backing of many of the people who are currently on the side of the past.

As I see it, the opponents of action on climate change fall into two camps. In one camp are the ideologues. These are people with a knee-jerk negative reaction to any kind of environmental regulation—or, for that matter, any kind of government regulation. They are also people who never met an international treaty or institution that they felt was worthy of U.S. support – apart, perhaps, from the International House of Pancakes. Getting this group to support U.S. action on climate change and/or U.S. participation in any kind of national or global response to this issue is, in short, a lost cause.

More promising are those in the other camp of climate holdouts – the people who perceive that their economic or political interests would be threatened if we were to address this issue in a substantive way. This camp includes representatives of what I like to call “old industry”—companies and industry sectors whose profits are wrapped up in the status quo. Both of these groups also include elected leaders—whether in the White House or in Congress—who receive support from them or who are them.

In the political struggle over climate change, these two camps are up against a group that believes we need to take this issue seriously and move forward. Many in this group are alarmed about the science and the implications of a warming world, but also perceive real opportunities—both for individual companies and for our nation as a whole—in developing, selling, and using the new technologies that will protect the global climate.

Past vs. future. Status quo vs. change. Profits today vs. new opportunities and a safer world in the days and years to come.

Where does this struggle stand today? Well, in the United States at least, the do-nothing crowd have had several historic victories. The first of these occurred in 1997, when a group of U.S. business interests determined that the international climate negotiations were a threat to their livelihoods and profits.

It was a time when the nations of the world were entering a final phase in their negotiations over an agreement to limit worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. And these businesses did not like it one bit. So what did they do? They launched an enormous advertising campaign, as well as an intense lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. And, in June 1997, their efforts bore fruit in the form of a Senate resolution known as Byrd-Hagel, a resolution that passed by 95 to 0. This resolution stated that the United States should not agree to any binding commitments to reduce emissions unless developing countries also agreed to specific commitments, nor should it agree to anything that might harm the economy of the United States.

Obviously, this was a shot across the bow as the United States prepared to participate in the international negotiations that year in Kyoto, Japan. And, even though the Clinton administration went ahead and negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, the White House never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. In fact, they barely discussed it. Why not?

Because the Protocol excluded developing nations from any new commitments, and because the Administration could not make a convincing case that there would be no serious economic harm to the United States. But electoral politics also reinforced this view. The Clinton Administration did not oppose Byrd-Hagel, and did not work with Congress to garner any support for what it had negotiated. Negotiating and signing Kyoto was simply a gesture without meaning, a way to show that the difficulties the U.S. experienced in Rio would not be repeated. A way to say we did something without really doing anything. And a way, perhaps, to get elected.

At the same time that the events I have just described were playing out at the national and international levels, a number of brave U.S. business leaders were coming together to acknowledge that, yes, climate change is a problem and that it is in the United States’ interest to do something about it.

When the Pew Center on Global Climate Change initially announced the formation of our Business Environmental Leadership Council, the council had 13 members. Today, we have 38. This is a group that includes everyone from Alcoa, BP and DuPont to IBM, Pacific Gas & Electric and Toyota. And it has served as an effective foil to the notion that business is universally opposed to forward progress on this issue.

In the year 2000, the struggle between the forces of change and the forces of the status quo appeared to reach a turning point. During his run for President that year, then-Governor George W. Bush actually pledged to impose the first-ever restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

This commitment was not made, as you might expect, in response to the demands of environmentalists but in response to industry. A group of major power companies had come up with the idea that they would agree to CO2 restrictions if the government would provide some certainty in its regulation of three air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

However, as the President put it when discussing his opponent in the current election about another issue, he was in favor of this idea before he was against it.

Not long after the inauguration in January 2001, the President reneged on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. For good measure, the Administration also unceremoniously noted that the United States was withdrawing from the Kyoto process. According to the White House statement, the treaty was dead.

Why did the President do this? Well, by now it’s obvious that he was choosing sides in the struggle between the past and the future. And he was siding with the past. He was listening to the ideologues and the representatives of old industry, many of whom had supported him in his campaign for the Presidency.

Ask anyone in this administration for an honest opinion on the issue, and they will tell you that restrictions on carbon emissions in this country are inevitable. But the goal of the White House and its allies is to put off that day for as long as it is politically possible to do so.

And so the struggle continues. But in the wake of the White House decisions on CO2 and Kyoto—and, in many instances, because of these decisions—the side of the struggle calling for change and substantive action has become stronger.

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 07:11 PM

At the international level, for example, where the Bush administration’s rejection of Kyoto was seen as a real slap in the face, countries rallied around the Protocol in an act of defiance. And today you have 120 countries signed onto the agreement; its entry into force awaits Russia’s ratification, which is now likely before the end of the year.

Kyoto may not amount to much in terms of achieving significant reductions in global emissions, but it sends the clearest signal yet that much of the world is on the side of doing something about this problem. Much of the world, with the notable exception of the United States, is on the side of the future.

So you have the European Union adopting a carbon dioxide emission trading program. And you have British Prime Minister Tony Blair showing enormous political will both in putting forward a serious plan to substantially reduce emissions, and in his insistence that climate change will be one of two “big” issues that he hopes to address as the Chair of the G-8 process and the European Union in 2005.

And it is not just internationally where the advocates of real action are achieving progress in this struggle. In the United States Senate, we have a bipartisan core of elected leaders who are committed to climate solutions.

The energy bill passed by the Senate in 2002 and again in 2003 would have established a national climate change strategy and required the largest greenhouse gas emitters to disclose their emissions. The Senate’s 2002 farm bill, meanwhile, would have compensated farmers for sequestering carbon. And, perhaps most importantly, in October 2003, 44 Senators supported the Lieberman-McCain bill, legislation that would for the first time establish modest but binding targets for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is bipartisan legislation, the first bill to be voted on that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and its support by a significant number of senators marks an important milestone in this nation’s awakening to the problem of climate change.

Unfortunately, it takes both chambers of Congress to enact a law, and the House of Representatives is still stuck in the past. However, even there we are beginning to see some activity: a House companion to Lieberman-McCain, was introduced recently and it currently has 81 cosponsors, 12 of whom are Republicans.

Looking outside of Washington, we see that the forces of change have found new allies in this struggle in state capitals around the country. Particularly in coastal states, policymakers are justifiably concerned about the toll of climate change on their economies. Western states are concerned about the prospects of worsening drought. And, many states plainly see economic opportunities in efforts to address climate change: by producing and selling alternative fuels, becoming exporters of renewable energy, attracting high-tech businesses, or even selling carbon emission reduction credits.

What are states doing to address climate change? Well, right here in California, your governor recently endorsed proposed regulations requiring a 30-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles sold in the state by 2015. If the California initiative moves forward—and, survives almost certain legal challenges, I see no reason to think it will not—it promises to pave the way for action by other states. And, I was pleased to hear that your governor and the governors of Washington and Oregon are discussing additional measures to limit ghg emissions regionally and cost-effectively.

In the Northeast, 9 governors, led by New York Governor George Pataki, are developing a multi-state regional “cap-and-trade” initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This effort is proceeding well, and we expect them to complete their work, as planned by April of next year, with agreement on a model rule.

These state initiatives are an important development not only because they can help pave the way for federal action but also because of the simple fact that U.S. states are large emitters of greenhouse gases. California’s emissions, for example, exceed those of Brazil. Ohio’s emissions exceed those of Turkey and Taiwan, and emissions in Illinois exceed those from The Netherlands.

The struggle between the past and the present is being played out in the businesses community as well. Many of the companies we work with at the Pew Center are adopting voluntary targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Consider Dupont, which set a target to reduce its emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels before 2010, and by 2002 had actually reduced their emissions by a stunning 67 percent. I could tell you (but I won’t) about how a lot of other companies are doing similar things. But I will tell you this – all the companies cite one important motivation for taking on a target - to improve their competitive position in the marketplace. The bottom line is that increasing numbers of business leaders understand that climate change is a problem, and they are committing their companies to real solutions—even in the absence of U.S. policies.

What else motivates these companies? Well, for one thing, many of them are multinational companies. They have operations in countries that are party to the Kyoto Protocol and that are implementing new regulations and new policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Some may be reluctant to come out in support of tougher policies and regulations in the United States, but these companies understand the science, they see that regulation is inevitable, and in many cases they view the drive for climate solutions as a business opportunity.

But, of course, voluntary action by selected companies is not enough. Nor will a state-by-state approach alone get us to where we need to be. And while a lot of countries are indeed moving forward, the Kyoto Protocol is a baby step at best. This is where we stand today. The past meets the future. The forces for change are fighting a good fight and gaining ground, but it is clearly not enough.

This suggests to me that we need to approach this issue in a new way. We need to confront the political challenges we face head-on, with facts and figures, and, most importantly, with an agenda that can gain broader support.

I would propose that, in both our global and our national efforts, we need four distinct and complementary approaches.

The first is one with which we are already familiar: targets and trading. This is one thing the framers of the Kyoto Protocol got right, ironically at the insistence of the U.S. By harnessing the power of markets, we can reduce emissions more effectively and more affordably. Inspired by Kyoto, the European Union is on the verge of launching the broadest emissions trading system ever established.

It will likely be some time before we establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade system here in the United States—the politics simply aren’t yet ripe. But what might be possible is a series of interlinked trading systems – the east coast with Europe and perhaps with Canada and the west coast as well. Such a “bottom-up” system could be robust enough both to achieve some environmental benefit and keep costs down. And it would be a valuable learning experience for both sides on this issue, hopefully one that would show that taking action on this issue is both practical and affordable.

Secondly, I think it is critical that we begin to think in terms of key sectors. Both globally and nationally, two of the largest and fastest-growing sources of emissions are transportation and power. And it is in these sectors that we have many of those who would like to put off action as long as possible. Let’s look first at transportation. The automobile industry is global, and it is highly concentrated. The 10 largest manufacturers account for 74% percent of the global market. The vast majority of cars are produced – and used – in a relatively small number of countries. Major fuel producers are also relatively small in number.

What if we could get all these key players in a room to agree on a pathway toward a goal of zero emissions from autos in 30-50 years, with some clear milestones along the way? This is not a proposal to dictate specific technologies – each major manufacturer seems to be going down a different technology path – but a way to set globally consistent performance standards with an end-result that we need if we are to be successful in out effort to address climate change. And at the same time, we could launch an intensive public-private R&D program to help deliver the technologies that will make it possible.

No, it wouldn’t be easy, and it will be opposed by many who would argue that it is simply too hard. But is it easier, or smarter, to tackle the problem nation by nation, or state by state? At the moment, there are different auto efficiency or CO2 emission standards or goals in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan. We also have the proposal from California that, if it goes into effect, will doubtless be followed by other states. Added to that we have $52 per barrel of oil. I wonder if the time isn’t close for the private sector to decide that a rational, long-term effort, in which they are “at the table” and can help set the milestones, might not be better than the alternative.

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 07:16 PM

The power sector, equally important, is very different. Power supplies are much more distributed -- there are hundreds, if not thousands of players (far too many to put into a room, let alone around a table), and there are many different ways to generate power. So here we might focus on selected energy sources, the most important of which, both politically and in terms of emissions contribution, is coal. There is no denying that coal will figure heavily in our energy future. It is globally available and it is cheap. Virtually all the new power plants being planned here in the United States will burn coal. China is projected to add as much as 300 gigawatts of generating capacity over the next 10 years, nearly all of it coal.

How then do we continue to provide power but minimize the impact on the climate? How do we shift investment away from traditional coal plants to newer technologies that will be compatible with the efforts underway to capture CO2 emissions and sequester them deep in the ground? Here, too, I think we need a combination: a global R&D effort, and a clear set of mandates to pull new and better technologies into the market. Many in the coal industry are beginning to see the need for a more proactive strategy, and if they can be assured a place in the future, they may begin to give up the technologies of the past.

A third kind of strategy we need is one that integrates climate and development. We cannot expect developing countries to become full partners in the climate effort if it continues to be seen as a purely environmental issue, a constraint on economic growth and development. Frankly, this is true in developed countries as well. We need policies that speak both to climate and to core development priorities. The place to start, I would suggest, is with national energy policies. Each nation needs to accept that climate change must be one of the drivers of energy policy.

Here, I think the British are way ahead of most of the rest of the world. For them, energy policy has three drivers: security of supply, price and climate change, and they have developed an energy blueprint for a 50 year time period that attempts to accommodate all three. There is no reason why other countries cannot also move forward in this way, and should they do so, I believe we will begin to see a genuine effort to limit emissions while meeting the energy needs of a growing global economy.

Finally, because some degree of climate change is now unavoidable, responsible climate policy must also help us to adapt. Climate change is happening, and it is going to accelerate in the years ahead, no matter what we do. We can minimize its effects, but at the same time we will need to adapt. Taking a proactive approach is necessary for minimizing future costs. That includes thinking about everything from development patterns and zoning to water systems in a new way. It is not too soon for governments at all levels and the private sector to begin incorporating climate change risks into everyday investment decisions.

The bottom line is that climate change is not simply an environmental issue; it is fundamentally an issue of economics and development. And this is why I believe we must succeed in marrying the old and the new: because we need both sides to succeed. Those that now perceive that their economic or political interests are threatened are the ones that can ultimately drive this issue, once they see that their interests will also be served by shaping and implementing climate solutions.

But how do we manage this? To build the coalitions we need, we will have to depend on a variety of factors: public awareness, media attention, elections, and even the weather. But we will also have to create approaches that can attract broad constituencies, that can invite people, businesses, governments – everybody – to play a part in this effort, and that can treat everyone fairly and with respect. And, finally and most importantly, we will need strong political leadership to pull it off.

Are we there yet? No, but I believe we are making some headway. Some political leaders are beginning to emerge on this issue, and there is great experimentation with different policy approaches. We will get closer still as people begin to understand that this is about more than climatology and atmospheric levels of CO2. This is about all of us, and the choices we make: the cars we drive, the representatives we elect. It is a about the future we choose, and the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren. Choose well.

And thank you very much.

http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/speech_transcripts/stanford.cfm
_________________________________________

Well, I'd say she has it right, although some things have changed since she gave this speech.

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 07:36 PM

This is an amazingly thorough site regarding especially the US, climate change, and what we're doing about it!

http://www.pewclimate.org/

BC :D

eckartjr

02-23-2005, 07:39 PM

[COLOR=DarkSlateGray]Here we go again

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HAARP To Install
516 More Antennas
2-13-5

Note - That's over and above the 132 that were just installed last year. And that's over and above the original 48 antennas that were perfectly adequate to fry the earth many times over.[B][COLOR=Red]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/
Antenna Products Corporation Awarded Contract

Feb. 7, 2005

FORT WORTH, Tx (BUSINESS WIRE) -- PHAZAR CORP announced today that Antenna Products Corporation in Mineral Wells, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary, was recently awarded a $3,723,531 firm fixed price subcontract from BAE SYSTEMS ATI for the production of 270 Low Band Antenna Matching Unit Assemblies and 346 High Band Antenna Matching Unit Assemblies. This equipment will be manufactured at Antenna Product Corporation's plant in Mineral Wells, Texas, and deliveries are scheduled to begin in June, 2005 and continue monthly through September, 2005. The equipment will be shipped to the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) ionospheric research site near Gakona, Alaska, the site of the recently completed installation of an array of 132 crossed dipole antennas built and installed by Antenna Products Corporation in 2004.

As the result of this order, Antenna Products Corporation's backlog of orders as of Feb. 4, 2005 was approximately $5.9 million.

Information on PHAZAR CORP is available on the Internet web page at www.phazar.com and at www.antennaproducts.com.

The common stock of PHAZAR CORP is listed on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market under the trading symbol "ANTP." This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Section 29A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performances and underlying assumption and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. Certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements and, accordingly, involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results, or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. The Company's expectations, beliefs and projections are expressed in good faith and are believed by the Company to have a reasonable basis, including without limitations, management's examination of historical operating trends, data contained in the Company's records and other data available from third parties, but there can be no assurance that management's expectations, beliefs or projections will result, or be achieved, or accomplished.

Contacts
Antenna Products Corporation
Kathy Kindle, 940-325-3301
Fax: 940-325-0716
kindle@antennaproducts.com
_________________
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a friend of mine"
~ Che Guevara

halva

02-27-2005, 02:43 AM

Published in Greek American Review (January 2005,) page 5, and on Hellenic Communication Services http://www.helleniccomserve.com/bestwishestous.html

Best wishes for 2005 to our US cousins: but we still fear your government policies!
By Andrew Leech (aleech@ath.forthnet.gr)

This article was inspired by Peter Makrias’ reply to a greetings Email I sent recently. “It was a pleasure to hear from you after such a long time, with a message full of love and not hatred for the United States.” It made me think, and realise, that the prevalent European fear of the current leadership of the USA was being perceived by some US citizens as a blanket attack on them – which, of course, it is not - though we have some difficulty in understanding why you voted Bush in for a second term!

It is an article I did not enjoy writing, but it is one I felt necessary to write; not just to put the views expressed in it forward (after all, who am I to criticize what appears to be, legally, the wish of the majority of enfranchised US citizens - especially having Americans among my own family?), but to show that they are part of a general feeling. Why do thousands, if not millions, of Europeans feel this way towards the USA they previously so loved? As a friend of the US, I also feel pain when I see you ostracised by so many!

The prevalent anti-US feeling in Europe is, generally speaking, confined to those current US government policies which are perceived as anti-social (globally), serving only the interests of US ‘big-business’, and are to the detriment of other nations sharing this planet. It is certainly not directed against the American people - our cousins - whom we feel are equally threatened by those same policies we, ourselves, fear. This seems to be the general view expressed by European newspapers, magazines and those who think; though a few others may have reacted differently, blindly hitting out at everything with a US tag, in a sense of inarticulate frustration.

From birth, the last two European generations have been brought up to respect the US, to look on it as a bulwark for freedoms, to deeply appreciate the help – and American blood - given us in the past 64 years. Greeks, in particular, remember the Marshall Plan aid that saved many from starvation! We loved, respected, cared and cherished those US citizens who came over and risked their lives - often dying - to help us preserve those freedoms we were trying to re-establish. That is a debt we cannot – and will not - ever forget.

But now we see that same saviour, that same gentle giant, starting to behave in a somewhat similar manner to those who sought to repress us in the past. This surprises you, perhaps? Well, bear with me; I shall explain. First came the disregard for the legal standing of the United Nations in the case of both invasion of the Balkans (in the mid-nineties) and, more recently, Iraq. It is true that the media position taken in both those cases fuelled the outrage of US citizens (and many European) and persuaded them that direct, military intervention was the only resort left in the interest of human rights. It is also true that various US governments can claim they acted on the pressure being applied by those vocal citizens; and it is, furthermore, probably true that military intervention was thought the only way to save lives. But it is equally true that in both cases those decisions were taken in violation of United Nations decisions. This is very worrying as disregard for the law and binding treaties has always been the kick-off point for any form of future domination, or dictatorship. It is always perceived as highly threatening by smaller or weaker nations.

However, what has intensified these negative feelings towards the White House and Pentagon, is that in the years that passed after these actions (i.e. the decade from the mid 1990s to today) we see that they seem to have merely been springboards for US ‘big business’ aspirations and many Europeans feel that it was the business interests, rather than concern for the human element that was the main lever governing government intervention. In fact, many people are starting to feel that the US government, today, is nothing more than a front for those businesses whose only consideration is extending their power and spheres of influence with little regard for ethics. Look at your newspapers – I read the New York Times, daily, as well as European papers – for evidence of this statement.

Rightly or wrongly, many feel that the actions of the current president give those people overseas the impression of his being a front-man, or patsy, for these business groups and that the wishes of the majority of ordinary US citizen are rarely taken into account, perhaps even stifled, when they conflict with these stronger interests. And this, in spite of those who voted Bush in for a second term. I could use the constant refusals of the US to sign the Kyoto treaty as evidence here, where it refuses to join the other 127 countries who are trying to reduce global warming emissions and reverse some of the damage already done to this planet; much of which has actually been caused by the USA. It is remarkable to note that I have yet to meet a US citizen in Greece who has anything positive to say about his government. Do only world-orientated Americans travel abroad?

Regarding the slide of the dollar I could offer the viewpoint of William Pesek Jr, (Bloomberg News, 21 Dec 2004, in International Herald Tribune) where he considers the reasons to be couched in US foreign policy. Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist of Banc of America Capital Management in New York thinks the U.S. image as a "rogue nation" is a key force behind the dollar's decline. "The message from the foreign exchange markets" of late "seems to be simply this: The free ride for the rogue nation is over," The sinking dollar, Quinlan says, "could be a sign that the world is no longer willing to underwrite the designs of U.S. foreign policy. To a large extent, we believe a rebound in the U.S. dollar could hinge on a revamped foreign policy."

Some long-time Asia watchers like Marc Faber (Hong Kong-based head of the company that bears his name) have also been warning investors that U.S. foreign policy will hurt the dollar. Faber has focused on the possibility that the United States will attack Iran and that what he views as "continuous human rights abuses" by the Bush administration in Iraq and elsewhere have made China's human rights record "look like Cinderella." That perception, he says, increasingly worries investors who wonder about Bush's plans for the world during his second term.

The dollar's declines, Quinlan says, "mirror America's plunging approval rating with the rest of the world." The nation's image has been hurt not only by the Iraq war, he says, but also by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental treaty, its strained relations with international institutions like the United Nations and its mounting visa restrictions. "It seems as if America's popularity with the rest of the world has never been lower," Quinlan says. "Little wonder, then, that the U.S. dollar is as unloved as it is today."

It is interesting that the British legal profession, and the people, have rebelled against Tony Blair’s total support of the US government. Now the highest legal authority in Britain, the Law Lords, has ruled that international law does not permit the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects (done in Britain as well as in the US) and sternly declared that laws abridging liberties posed a greater threat to a democracy than terrorism itself.

However, there are some pointers that show encouragement for the future. First, many American people are waking up and beginning to realise that their government’s policies are often not in their own interests. They are beginning to feel that their government is only interested in their opinion at voting time and that for the rest of the four year term they are being sidelined, like silent observers, to what is being done in their name, overseas. They are beginning to resent being ‘tarred’ for actions they feel they are not part of. I refer to articles in US newspapers for this observation.

They are also beginning to understand how much the US media sanitises and alters their view of the outside world to suit domestic requirements (e.g. CNN shows a different version of the news in Europe). They are realising to a greater degree that they are not alone in the world and that their personal comfort may result in another’s hardship. They are starting to develop a real sense of ethics and responsibility that I see is often at odds with their government’s stance. In short, they are starting to display the viewpoint of the true global citizen.

halva

02-27-2005, 02:44 AM

jayreynolds

02-27-2005, 08:47 AM

For this awakening, I am grateful and hopeful. At last Europe is beginning to see what may be the real inner American spirit and we are with you all the way. We want to see, again, the America we have always loved, the America we have always respected. We want to see an America governed and directed by that inner democratic and fair sense we have always known, seen and respected in the average American we met. We wish those far-seeing American people to once again legally hold the reins of that wonderful country they live in. That is Europe’s – and possibly the world’s - wish for 2005: that the American citizen can once again equal the moral strength it evidenced in 1775, and show the world that a government cannot control or stifle its citizens, that big business cannot dictate or bully its consumers or its government; and that “big business” must be made to understand that the dictum “the customer is always right” still applies in this day and age. After all, repudiation of US policies also means repudiation of US business - which is certainly not good for business! Go to it, cousins, we are with you all the way in showing the world where the true American spirit lies!!

What a crock. You have previously stated you wished the US was a monarchy, and that we should annex Canada and Mexico.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28794
You have also dismissed our constitutional protections for free speech, asserting that totalitarian restrictions are "superior".
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=248598&postcount=6791

You are a liar and a hypocrite, Wayne Hall. a sapper and miner against our contry and freedom itself. If you had your way, the earth would be a totalitarian nigtmare.

halva

02-27-2005, 09:39 AM

What are you talking about?

That was just the end of the preceding article, which was written not by me but by a gentleman I happen to know.

It was just over 10,000 characters and wouldn't fit in one posting.

eckartjr

02-27-2005, 10:12 AM

This is an amazingly thorough site regarding especially the US, climate change, and what we're doing about it!

http://www.pewclimate.org/

BC :D
pewclimate has not a single reference to HAARP. Perhaps just another case of keeping the public in the dark about that which really matters, via the usual PR campaign also known as propaganda! Ladies and gentlemen we must eventually start looking and thinking out of the box. For instance there are this ancient stigmas about Creationists and Evolutionists - but what about a third option?
The same with "blue' states and 'red' states no third color? Give me a break what about 'purple'?
you see we are always lead to these limiting arguments: this side or that side as though there were no other alternatives, preventing fresh thinking and inquiry.

foot_soldier

02-27-2005, 10:28 AM

ekartjr wrote:
.....you see we are always led to these limiting arguments: this side or that side as though there were no other alternatives, preventing fresh thinking and inquiry.....
I think a lot of people are fully aware of the trap which you are describing here.

Just so you know.

halva

02-28-2005, 08:05 AM

This is the other side of the recognized debate in Britain.

It's quite right that we have to introduce new parameters.

SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE

NEWSLETTER

28.02.05

Welcome to the Scientific Alliance’s newsletter. The Newsletter contains an update on the Scientific Alliance’s work and a selection of environmental science and policy news that has appeared in the UK during the last month.

ABOUT US

Formed in 2001, the Scientific Alliance is a non-profit membership-based organisation based in London. The Alliance brings together both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today.

As a membership based campaign organisation, the Scientific Alliance welcomes donations from individuals, scientific and academic institutions, societies, trusts, companies, trade associations and other organisations. Donations and support are crucial to enable us to carry out our work, but they are only accepted without conditions and afford no influence over the policy of the Scientific Alliance.

NOT A MEMBER?

As most of you know, the Scientific Alliance is a non-profit membership based organisation and relies on donations from supporters. If you are interested in our work and support our views, we would very much welcome your membership. By joining the Scientific Alliance, you will contribute to our activities and simultaneously receive various benefits. You will secure your own active involvement and support for the Alliance, helping to shape our future direction, and receive invitations and reduced rates to our regular events and conferences. Should you like to sign up now, simply go to our website at http://www.scientific-alliance.org/support_us_membership.htm

EVENTS

Apocalypse No: Assessing Catastrophic Climate Change, 27 January 2005

January saw the Scientific Alliance hosting a conference designed to raise awareness about the scientific uncertainties surrounding the theory and practice of climate change. It addressed a range of questions concerning scenarios of catastrophic climate change including rising sea levels, extreme weather events and glacial melting. The conference took place in advance of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research conference; Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases, and helped to raise the profile of some of the alternative less alarmist positions currently held within the climate change debate.

We were pleased that the debate generated at this conference was not only highly informative but also appeared to generate real interest and excitement amongst the audience and the media. The Scientific Alliance would like to thank all the speakers for their excellent contributions and hope that all those who attended found them as informative and beneficial as we did.

We will shortly be producing the final draft of proceedings from the event, and will notify you when these proceedings are available on the website.

The Scientific Alliance is currently finalising plans for a number of forthcoming events. Further details will be available soon on the Alliance’s website and in the next edition of this newsletter.

COVERAGE OF ‘APOCALYPSE NO: ASSESSING CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE’ FROM THE UK AND AROUND THE WORLD

Global warming? We need it to prevent an ice age – Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/01/31/ecrqed.xml

There was a time when people were cheered by the first signs of spring in their garden or local park. Not any more: the mere appearance of a budding tree is seized on by environmentalists as proof positive that our seasons are being driven haywire by climate change – and It's All Our Fault.

‘The Danger is hot air, not global warming’ – Sunday Telegraph
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/30/do3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/30/ixopinion.html

To lift Africa from the ravages of poverty and Aids would to most world leaders seem a big enough topic to fill a single speech. But not Tony Blair. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, the Prime Minister moved swiftly between the subjects of Africa and climate change. "On both," he said, "there are differences which need to be reconciled. If they could be reconciled or at least moved forward, it would make a huge difference to the prospects of international unity, as well as to people's lives and our future survival."

‘Evidence of green effrontery’ – The Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/miscalaneous/evidenceofgreen.htm

Green lobbyists have always been good at getting their retaliation in first. A whiff of GM pollen, carbon dioxide or nuclear fuel, and the press releases come thick and fast.

‘Climate change impact disputed’ – The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1400561,00.html

Here is the truth about global warming: it is an anti-capitalist agenda, a Machiavellian political plot and a convenient rumour started by bungling Japanese pineapple farmers. It is a front for paranoia about immigration, an incitement to civil war, and the reason that the world's attention was distracted from the risk of a tsunami. And it hasn't killed as many people as Hitler or Stalin.

‘Kyoto's Walls Are Crumbling Down’ – Tech Central Station
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021405A.html

The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect Wednesday, and yet its walls are crumbling down.
‘Cool heads required: As long as the climate change debate is fuelled by politics, the science will remain up in the air’ – Spiked
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8CF.htm

At a recent global warming conference in Exeter called by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, all the usual fears were aired. Yet real debate about climate change seems to be strictly prohibited.

‘Climate change: the debate is warming’ – One World
http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/102529/1/

Climate change activists are coming under fire from two sides in London. One band of opponents is trying to shoot them down for exaggerating the problem. A second group argues that although global temperatures are set to rise, money should be spent first on more immediate crises in developing countries, such as lack of clean water.

SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE NEWS FROM THE UK AND AROUND THE WORLD
GM
‘Lift the crushing burden on biotech foods’ – FT
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/biotechnology/liftthecrushing.htm

The European Commission has recently asked five member states to lift their bans on genetically modified (GM) crops and foods.
GM Beet can benefit environment – BBC News Online
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/biotechnology/gmbeet.htm

Some genetically-modified crops can be managed in a way that is beneficial to wildlife, a UK research team believes. Their work, published by the Royal Society, says there is "conclusive evidence" of benefits to wildlife