It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature [Archive] - Page 12

halva

09-27-2004, 09:02 PM

Breaking up is hard on Antarctica

The loss of Antarctica's Larsen B iceshelf - fictionalised in the climate change film The Day After Tomorrow - has had a profound real consequence.

Since the break-up, onshore glaciers held back by the floating iceshelf have been unleashed. They surged out to sea, moving up to eight times faster than when the shelf was in place.

"If anyone is waiting to find out whether Antarctica would respond quickly to climate warming, I think the answer is yes," said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre.

"We've seen 150 miles [240 kilometres] of coastline change drastically in just 15 years."

The 3250-square-kilometre Larsen B iceshelf on the east coast of the Antarctic peninsula collapsed in just 35 days in early 2002.

Although no US scientists were there at the time, as the film claimed, it remains the most spectacular break-up of an iceshelf recorded in the era of satellite images.

It was seen as a response to the unusually rapid warming of the peninsula, where measurements taken by the British Antarctic Survey show temperatures have risen by 2.5 degrees in 50 years.

Like an ice cube in a glass of water, a floating iceshelf does not raise sea level when it melts. But glaciers rest on land and when they slide off into the water they instantly affect sea level.

Now separate NASA-funded studies of Larsen B's loss test a theory that the iceshelves buttress glaciers against movement to sea.

The results were released in reports published yesterday in the US journal Geophysical Research Letters. One of the studies, led by NASA's Eric Rignot, found three glaciers - the Hektoria, Green and Evans - flowed up to eight times faster in 2003 than in 2000. From moving at less than one metre a day, the glaciers were pushing ice at the rate of five metres a day.

Using satellite measurements, the scientists were able to detect a thinning of some glaciers, and to calculate their velocities by tracking the movement of individual crevasses.

Roland Warner of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre in Hobart said the studies showed the glaciers losing volume rapidly.

"The reason this is very important is that a floating iceshelf doesn't affect sea level when it melts. But if there are changes to the flow of glaciers behind a coastline, that will give rise to changes in sea level," Dr Warner said.

He said it was particularly significant that there was no change in the speed of movement of glaciers behind other nearby ice- shelves over the same period.

In a media release, NASA said that glaciers in the Larsen region were too small to significantly affect sea level. But they offered an insight into what would happen if climate change spread further south in Antarctica, where glaciers - and iceshelves - are much larger.

jayreynolds

09-28-2004, 03:22 AM

A message from David Stewart:

"Yesterday afternoon Deep Shield took his own life.

If he is now dead, he has nothing to hide.
Tell Stewart the hoaxer to tell us his name now.

This is the truth about David G. Stewart's 'deep shield' hoax. He is exposed as a liar in this chemtrailcentral thread. The exposure was so intense, so raw, and so complete that the administration of CTC deleted the entire forum where I was allowed to post, rather than leave it online. Fortunately, portions of it were archived beyond the reach of censors and can be viewed once again.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030627145117/www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000078.html

halva

09-28-2004, 05:26 AM

If he is now dead, he has nothing to hide.
Tell Stewart the hoaxer to tell us his name now.
[/url]

It will not depend only on David Stewart but also on the deceased's family.

I won't comment for the moment on other aspects of this posting.

jayreynolds

09-28-2004, 07:49 PM

I won't comment for the moment on other aspects of this posting.

Yeah, like who benefits from Stewart concocting this end to his "deep shield" hoax?

This is how Stewart first started the hoax:

"I do not know how truthful
this is[a tacit admission-JR], but the email I received this evening includes the following:"

When it was pointed out that the material he wrote had been a cheap copy/paste job from several websites, and the impossibility of many of the facts alleged, not the work of a "scientist" at all, Stewart was forced to admit that he wrote the 'deep shield" text himself.

"Yes, there was three posts made which are said to be emails from A Friend.
I lied.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608063519/www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000078-2.html

Wayne, isn't it clear enough old bean that you've been snookered again?
Get over it.

halva

09-28-2004, 09:06 PM

I told you even before your most recent obscenity that you are out of the loop, Raynolds.

But since you persist, how about answering some of the questions I've been asking you recently.

jayreynolds

09-29-2004, 03:22 AM

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

THE LONDON TELEGRAPH- 7/18/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

halva

09-29-2004, 03:36 AM

Raynolds, Dr. Sarah Cornell is clearly quite embarrassed about you leaking to this forum her personal correspondence with you, which contradicts Tyndall's stated policy of not engaging in private communication with anthropogenic climate change debunkers.

Why did you do it?

halva

09-29-2004, 03:37 AM

halva

09-29-2004, 03:42 AM

From David Stewart:

"Yes, there was three posts made which are said to be emails from A Friend.

I lied.

Before you get a smug smile of satisfaction about that read on, the truth of the matter is far simpler than my being a debunker.

My source did not send me emails, especially from work. I think we all are aware that every piece of electronic mail is monitored, and that if a person is closely tied into a project of this magnitude that they would have a close surveillance of their emails.

Depending on what level of clearance they may have may also relate to how closely they are watched. Keep this in mind. If you read through all of the 'Deep Shield' letters you find that the source also states several times that he doesn't know everything, he has his assumptions, and he is on the side lines - not smack dab in the middle.

I also know that his security clearance on the matter is such that he is trusted enough not to talk - believe it or not, 'Matters of National Security' do still keep some people quiet.

We can also assume that this is a rather large groups of individuals and that as such not everyone can be tailed. Monitored and given stern warning of what happens if they fail to keep their mouth shut may be the only way that the secret, which really isn't a secret now is it? is kept.

I met with my source a few times. I took notes, I did not dictate - I do not write fast enough to do so. Thus if the writing style is familiar, well, you now know why.

Yes, I did quote a few things out of the encyclopedia, my notes were far from perfect when it came to technical stuff. Again, they were notes, not dictation.

The Question of my world view being the same as stated above is nothing uncommon. Go to my web page and look at my links, there is sustainable living links there. Just because I'm into ecology doesn't validate or invalidate the message I related. If anything, the message has served to make me more keenly aware of the ecology.

Being ecologically aware has been in the public's eye for decades - I am a product of the 1970's - I remember the Energy Crises, and I recall how my father was so keen on 'getting back to nature' - it wears off on the young 'uns.

As for my source being a 'whistle blower' that is a little off, he was providing 'private' information to a person who didn't know to keep their mouth shut. The information given was for my personal and family use - sort of like telling your neighbor what is coming down the block on the QT - but not wanting it reported in the Daily news.

It was my bad misfortune to have posted this information, even without stating the source, or even giving any verification. Again, my bad - this was information meant fro me to act on alone.

Where to start? Exhibit one:

I believe I covered this in pointing out that I did say I didn't know if what was given to me was fully truthful. Further, the revelation that my source isn't stupid enough to use email and that I took notes at face to face meetings should cover the 'similarities' of voice between he and I. Ironically one would think that a serious thinker would have realized this from the very start.

Exhibit Two: Please note the date stamp: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:34 am - I said I would forward the questions, and I did.

The answers came in Exhibit three: Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 1:42 pm - 4 days later - enough time for me to not only call my source, but also have arraigned a meeting in a 'safe' public place and to talk about the questions. The Answers are there for reading.

In case you are wondering, and which is verifiable by looking at my page, profile in different pages and even by looking at my Yahoo Profile, I live near Modeasto California which is in the Central Valley. San Fransico is only 103 miles away, one has to pass through Livermore to get there. It is a 50 mile drive over the Altamont to Livermoore/Pleasanton/Dublin - all doable in hours.

Exhibit Four: Yes, I did spend a great deal of time on the computer at the group. Reading through the posts we quickly find that I say 'I do not know' 'I think' or that I will ask my Friend. There is nothing sinister going on, unless ignoring questions are acceptable.

Note I had been reading posts for quite sometime and I found that there was a division of theories. I offered what I knew to provide focus to the group, to let them know the whys and wherefores - Visit Answerpool or Solospirit and one quickly gets the impression that I like to provide people with information, and that I react in a kind hearted manner. I reacted the same way, unfortunately I gave out information that i most likely should not have."

gaiacomm

09-29-2004, 07:47 AM

Raynolds, given that Lance Haubrick is Gaiacomm, how would you account for the discrepancy between Mark D.'s memory of Dr. Judah Ben Hur (identifying himself as Gaiacomm) on the telephone and my memory of Lance Haubrick?

Wayne:

JR does not wish to discuss the Lance/BenHur saga anymore. Karen has forbid it because it goes nowhere and the truth would spoil the pudding! LOL

DvdGStwrt

09-29-2004, 02:36 PM

If he is now dead, he has nothing to hide.
Tell Stewart the hoaxer to tell us his name now.

This is the truth about David G. Stewart's 'deep shield' hoax. He is exposed as a liar in this chemtrailcentral thread. The exposure was so intense, so raw, and so complete that the administration of CTC deleted the entire forum where I was allowed to post, rather than leave it online. Fortunately, portions of it were archived beyond the reach of censors and can be viewed once again.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030627145117/www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000078.html

Exposure? That sir is debatable, as I recall you where the one who was completely revealed as being obsessive about the whole subject. Posts on this thread reveal your tactics, to quote out of context for one, another is to bring up irrelevant issues about people which has no bearing on the subject of Chem trails. I believe that it was your personal attacks, and posting of information which had no right to be posted on that thread that caused the whole thread to be scraped.

And of course you failed to learn from that, which is clearly obvious by your treatment of others on this site and other sites which have had their lost threads due to your not reading and understanding the rules of those sites.

And now we see that you have no idea of the "right" of the people compared to the rights of the family when it comes to disclosure of the name and credentials of "Deep Shield".

I can trust you as far as I can throw you - No not even that far, because I suspect that you are a skinny, short , nerdish type who I could throw pretty far. The fact is that when (or IF, I may not pursue this any further due to the sensitivity of the whole thing) I do approach the Widow of Deep Shield, I will bring with me your take on the matter, your posts and other information so she can make an informed choice on if the name and credentials of her husband to be revealed to the general public.

It is not up to me to decide if this man's name is to be revealed. Especially considering that there is at least one person in the world who obsesses on the subject to the point to spend a great deal of time and energy pursuing each person, each site to constantly debunk every single bit of information. Your personal obsession on the matter scares the crap out of me. You have dedicated way to much time and energy in this process of debunking which leaves no route unexplored, even so much as to sink to half-truth, smear campaigns misrepresentation and taking things out of context.

With these facts I can not be certain that a name would not lead to your stalking the family.

Can you remotely understand what I am saying Mr. Reynolds? Can you remove yourself for a moment from the debate and see yourself from an outsider's view?

Time and time again you accuse people of some sort of "pay-off" You have yet to demonstrate or theorize what the pay-off is here. Yet you continue to accuse. I can accuse the same thing of you, what is your pay-off to spend so much of your time debunking Chem trails, Global Warming, etc.?

There is something wrong here Mr. Reynolds.

While I have remained very quiet, posting very little on the matter repeatedly telling everyone that I am not 100% certain if Deep shield was telling me the truth, telling people to do their own research, not even so much as writing a book "The Deep Shield Letters" to cash in on this. I am not spending a great deal of time "proving" a point. I am not force feeding my views, what I know, what believe down people's throats. Yet you accuse me of being a "hoaxer" who is out to get a "pay-off".

Yet at the same time you have created a website dedicating a substantial amount of space to the subject, you spend hours, days spreading your brand of "truth". You have a mission in life, obviously, to disprove Chem trails, global Warming, climate Change. You are hard at work to "prove" that you possess the truth about these things.

Logically we are left with a lot of questions about your motivation, your reasons for being so active about a subject which you call a Hoax.

If I was a hoaxer, would I not be standing up and being vocal, shadowing the issues with personal attacks, pulling up people's religions, sexuality, race whatever bit of information possible to muddy the waters? If there was a pay-off, would I not dedicate far more time in this, create a site which dedicates a lot of space to "prove" my every word?

If I were a real hoaxer, don't you think I would go out of my way to get "hard evidence", put out names, dates, locations, pictures, something more than what I have given? Would I dare to admit that I have my doubts to the validity of the whole thing?

Now I can speculate (theorize) as to your pay off in all of this.

I speculate that you are governmentally funded for all of your hard work. In fact I am willing to say that this is your job, to manage and "debunk" the subject, to locate and use any and all information you can to discredit every person who raises the issue. It is your job to keep everyone guessing by consistently attacking individuals, breaking honor by posting private messages, to throw out minority reports which are at best guesses some are based on faulty or out of context information.

Time and time again you disregard and totally ignore specific questions, clouding the issues with erroneous data. All of which is highly suggestive of a consorted effort to debunk this "hoax" as you call it. There is way too much work going into proving that chem trails, climate change, freak weather, etc, etc, etc, are all a hoax. What can possibly be gained by proving a hoax, unless that hoax is holding some truths that somebody does not want to be known.

You are so totally certain that nothing that is going on. You do not even entertain the other side of the issue. You are so locked into your one narrow viewpoint that we must wonder what exactly is going with Mr. Jay Reynolds and why he is so certain and compelled to pursue this subject ALL THE TIME.

Even your opening statement demonstrates your single minded obsession with proving your point "If he is now dead, he has nothing to hide." is misleading. There may not be things to hide, but there are people to protect. There is a widow, there are children, somewhere there might be a mother, a father, people - real people who may not really want any more attention over the death of their loved one - may not even know that their loved one knew things.

Of course this will give you more ammunition to "prove" that I am hoaxer. What ever.

I think that others will see the need to refrain from posting a name at this time as being the humane thing to do and will be able to see that there are others who should be given the respect to have privacy.

I await your comeback, I am most certain it will prove to be interesting, revealing more about your insensitive, obsessive character and will most likely demonstrate to people that you are the one with the agenda and that once again you have discredited yourself in so many ways.

David

jayreynolds

09-29-2004, 06:41 PM

Well, well, well. If it isn't 'David G. Stewart the hoaxer himself.

"If I were a real hoaxer, don't you think I would go out of my way to get "hard evidence", put out names, dates, locations, pictures, something more than what I have given?

Well, 'deep shield', if you were real, you would do exactly those things, but you and I(and many others) know that you aren't really interested in the truth at all. Hoaxers that try to produce "hard evidence" fare even worse than those who use the "anonymous source" gambit like you have.
The fact is that you have now realized the can of worms you opened and have tried to put the genie back in the bottle by killing off your "source".

It won't work, you stupid asshole. Nothing short of a full admission and recantation will set you free.

You made this whole little 'deep shield' episode up, you and I both know it, so let's get right down to business.

Grab holda this, fagboy, if you've got enough brains to comprehend just how far you've stuck you foot up your ass.

It shows exactly what a stupid nincompoop hoaxer you are, really incompetent, and has already been laughed at by scientists on at least two continents:

from: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5956&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=ff45604b2325c91d79d3b10a13f243da
Q- 3. What other military programs are in place involving the spraying of barium and what are their purposes? Do you know and understand the chemical make up of the element?

"A little knowledge will go a long way to understanding the need to use barium: Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes and in vacuum tubes as a drying and oxygen-removing agent. Barium oxidizes in air, and it reacts vigorously with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. In moist air it may spontaneously ignite. It burns in air to form the peroxide, which produces hydrogen peroxide when treated with water. Barium reacts with almost all of the nonmetals; all of its water-soluble and acid-soluble compounds are poisonous. Barium carbonate is used in glass, as a pottery glaze, and as a rat poison. Chrome yellow (barium chromate) is used as a paint pigment and in safety matches. The chlorate and nitrate are used in pyrotechnics to provide a green color. Barium oxide strongly absorbs carbon dioxide and water; it is used as a drying agent. Barium chloride is used in medicinal preparations and as a water softener. Barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to light; it is sometimes used as a paint pigment. Barite, the sulfate ore, has many industrial uses. Because barium sulfate is virtually insoluble in water and acids, it can be used to coat the alimentary tract to increase the contrast for X-ray photography without being absorbed by the body and poisoning the subject.

Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the chief gasses causing the green house effect."

First of all, let it be known that David G. Stewart, who promulgated the email supposedly sent by "deep shield", is a carpenter with no scientific knowledge whatsoever, besides being a very incompetent hoaxer. In preparing his hoax, Stewart had to give the impression of knowledge which was beyond his own personal capability, so in answering as "deep shield", he went to an internet source for "canned knowledge" and copied WORD FOR WORD
the text quoted above.

It comes directly WORD FOR WORD from the INFOPLEASE website:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0806202.html
"Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes and in vacuum tubes as a drying and oxygen-removing agent. Barium oxidizes in air, and it reacts vigorously with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. In moist air it may spontaneously ignite. It burns in air to form the peroxide, which produces hydrogen peroxide when treated with water. Barium reacts with almost all of the nonmetals; all of its water-soluble and acid-soluble compounds are poisonous. Barium carbonate is used in glass, as a pottery glaze, and as a rat poison. Chrome yellow (barium chromate) is used as a paint pigment and in safety matches. The chlorate and nitrate are used in pyrotechnics to provide a green color. Barium oxide strongly absorbs carbon dioxide and water; it is used as a drying agent. Barium chloride is used in medicinal preparations and as a water softener. Barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to light; it is sometimes used as a paint pigment. Barite, the sulfate ore, has many industrial uses. Because barium sulfate is virtually insoluble in water and acids, it can be used to coat the alimentary tract to increase the contrast for X-ray photography without being absorbed by the body and poisoning the subject.

Being scientifically illiterate, when Stewart saw that "Barium oxide strongly absorbs carbon dioxide", he decided to add that element to his hoax, writing, "Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the chief gasses(sic) causing the green house effect" To Stewart, this aligned with his personal belief in 'global warming', and he said, "Yeah, that's the ticket"!

Now, to an illiterate, this might sound like a great idea, just add barium oxide to the atmosphere and let it suck up all the CO2 and VOILA!, no more 'greenhouse'!

The problem is, however, that when a scientist looks at this claim it turns out to be preposterous.

Here is the problem:
The chemical reaction equation where barium oxide(BaO) combines with carbon dioxide(CO2) looks like this:
BaO+CO2--> BaCO3
In order for this reaction to take place, it requires one mole of barium oxide with a molecular mass of 153 grams/mole to absorb one mole of CO2 with a molecular mass of 44 grams/mole, to produce witheriteBaCO3.

Considering the fuel and energy required(which produces still more CO2) to produce, process, transport, load, then fly and release as "chemtrails" the far greater quantity of barium oxide needed to absorb a tiny amount of carbon dioxide, it is preposterous that any net reduction of CO2 could be expected!

So, once again, the hoaxer David G. Stewart is exposed for all to see as a foolish idiot that has gotten way too far in over his head, as liars always do. See, David, lies are like a drug, one puff leads to another, then two more, then three, and pretty soon you get your lies all tangled up, mistakes get made, you've been here before, I'll bet. I see you haven't yet learned this lesson which should've been impressed on you in early childhood. A case of incompetent parents, perhaps, or maybe just an incompetent and morally corrupt offspring? Well, your lifestyle speaks for itself now, doesn't it?

Just between me and you, Davee, better get out now while you've got the chance, you nitwit.
Your hoax is finished, and there's no glory pulling the wool over those even more foolish than your ass is like Wayne Hall and his band of dimwits. You made a big mistake taking me on here where I can use the whole truth against you. It cuts through the lies so easily.

I've got plenty more on you and your hoax in reserve from where this one came from, and google is cacheing every damn bit of it on a daily basis. Get my drift?
GET OUT OF IT.
GET OVER IT.

jayreynolds

09-29-2004, 06:57 PM

LMAO at what some chemmie's going to think about these:
"low altitude" contrails
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/637494/L/

These are the sort of ordinary contrails pilots get to see, Wayne. Any wonder not a single pilot supports your hoax?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/637287/L/#

BTW, the above shot was taken this spring just east of you Wayne.
happy trails!

DvdGStwrt

09-29-2004, 08:58 PM

I note you had to resort to calling me Fagboy in red, bold red. Now what does my sexuality have to do with the subject of Chem trails? Is it the Gay agenda thing that worries you? Ah yes, the connection is made, part of the Gay Agenda is to prove that Chem trails exist.

Of course I did say that you would resort to personal attacks, name calling, or throwing erroneous unrelated information to muddy the issues. Not only am I messiah of the New Word (Deep Shield) but I have proved myself a prophet, with the astounding ability to peer into the future and see the mysteries of coming things before they happen.

And as predicted you take things out of context. Shall we continue the thought?

Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the chief gasses causing the green house effect. In my answer to Question 4 I will discuss the need to carry a current in the shield. I would like to point out that barium and aluminum work together to diffuse and strengthen an electrical charge.

See Mr. Reynolds this is the taking out of context thing I was was talking about. This is bad for any argument, debate, whatever. Now I wonder what things I can make you say by taking out of context and pasting together sentences? Perhaps I can make it to where you admit to a spray program? (That might be good for a laugh, you do have a very large body of work to draw from)

Not only does the use of barium assist in any possible tickling of the spray with electricity (a possibility which was given that it may be possible to restore some ozone in the upper atmosphere which may explain the suggestions that HAARP is being used with the spray program) but it is also another one of those light elements which also is reflective reflecting back heat and light into space.

And yet another possible reason for Barium use:

Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of sprays are in development and testing which may reduce the affects on precipitation.

Certainly as a carbon dioxide absorber ONLY the notion is ridiculous, however it appears that deep shield did in fact at least hint at other uses for barium. Yet you failed to bring that up here. Why? because that erroneous data which has no bearing on your goal of "debunking" the subject? He also hinted at the use of other materials, elements, etc. He hinted or left the suggestion that affecting precipitation may be one of the goals. Further he stated that they were testing other materials which may reduce the effects on precipitation.

It would appear that Water and Water vapor have a small effect on weather and climate. I could be wrong, I mean why else is water vapor so important to meteorologists that the installation of satellites in space to measure and track water vapor was considered a break through in weather forecasting?

Let us not muddy the waters with conjecture on my behalf

As for the use of other sources to explain more - That was explained to you yet again you took it out of context on this thread, taking the part "I lied" and dropping the rest which was " I did not get an email, instead I met with and talked with the source".

Of course this was in that deleted thread where you held up my homosexuality as a good reason to base everything I said as being a lie. Well gee, here I am admitting that I am - yet again - on the Internet - wow what I liar I must be hiding my heterosexuality in this manner.

Lets see you included my participation in on Gay Christian boards, my participation on religious boards, and my lack of talking about Chem trails on a site which does not entertain that type of subject manner. Which in fact I had brought up the subject, but it was met with a quick rebuttal and no one else took it up. You even included my own web page as evidence due to the lack of my mention of Deep Shield and Chem trails. I believe you called them Exhibits.

I suppose you fail to understand that not all people obsess about the subject. Thus is is beyond your comprehension that I did not devote a website to the subject, or that every place I go on the web I post my thoughts on chem trails, Global warming, etc.

Again my first meeting I DID NOT take notes, I didn't even record the meeting with a tape recorder. My second meeting I took notes, but lets face it a carpenter like myself doesn't learn short hand thus I had to fill in the blanks of my notes. Much like one does when taking notes in school off of what the professor says, but still it helps if you go to the text books to keep the facts straight. The Facts being what is aluminum, barium, ozone, etc.

Had I known that that post would have gone beyond that single group, I would have been far more cautious, recording every word and transcribing it for your enjoyment. The fact is that I thought that my post, my information would remain within the bounds of the Yahoo Group where I posted it. You know this because I told before. I didn't even suspect that with sheer volume of daily posts that more than one or two people would read my post.

The history of my posts is not mentioned by you, but knowing that history may shed light on the matter. Knowing that the Shield Letters was posted on a yahoo group intended for the groups reading and not meant as a scientific paper changes things.

And too, between my first posting and the follow up copying and reposting, the links were dropped. Why I have no idea, but then I didn't copy and spread them about the net. I believe I used links in the texts as HTML code which yahoo may not have accepted in the posts.

I wonder does Wayne and others believe I am pulling the wool over their eyes? It would appear that they do not rely on my word alone, after all Wayne alone has posted thousands of other related information which I didn't have to give him.

You say I am a liar and failed to demonstrate that claim - again. You say that I am using faulty science making a case based upon you omission that there was more to what was said, thus making your incompetence at reading obvious.

You resort name calling (Trust me calling fagboy is name calling), You have to rely upon bringing my parents into this "A case of incompetent parents" You question my morality "maybe just an incompetent and morally corrupt offspring?" Based upon your expectations of I assume morally acceptable sexuality based upon the notions and interpretation of the Bible, where here I could post at least a dozen links to sites which would refute that notion and that do offer reasonable and rational rebuttals to each anti- gay interpretation - I won't post them here simply because gee, I know you will not visit and read.

Is anyone surprised, shocked or expecting Mr. Reynolds to act and react and "debate" in any other way? No. In fact Mr. Reynolds I have to wonder why it is you can not see that we are laughing at you, not with you.

Finally, the last line of your "debate"

I've got plenty more on you and your hoax in reserve from where this one came from, and google is cacheing every damn bit of it on a daily basis. Get my drift?

Well I am most certain that this will prove to be interesting.

Lets see if a Fagboy can make you weep. Bring it on.

Cheers

David

AtomicDog

09-30-2004, 07:10 AM

I have been over to Chemtrail Central and seen Jay Reynolds in action. If I'm not mistaken, he is a former oil company employee. I think David Stewart's evaluation as a skinny nerd could be wrong. I see him as a pot-belly, who hates liberals and the 5000 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists who all say global warming and ozone depletion are real. There was one thread at CTC that was hilarious. Reynolds thought that a bunch of posters were all the same person. I went over there, and to another chemtrail forum called Method of Destruction, and yes it's true. He said the posters EMFX13, Mech, swampgas, Jeanie, Dan Rockwell, and Jenna were all the same person. this is not the sign of a healthy minded person. Too much Iron City Beer and chasing after goats in Chandler or Mesa or where ever this idiot lives in Arizona. I also understand that even his staunch allies from other debunker sites don't like him. Well, all I can say is he is a deeply troubled individual, whether he is a government or corporation hack or not. He also seems to be a racist, Fundamentalist, KKK-type person too. A real role model. Takes after his Boy Bush. Yuck!!!Blahhhhh! (Excuse me while I puke!) See Reynolds, anybody can name call. BTW, David Stewart, you should be proud of who you are, and being gay is completely normal, as normal as my 80% hetero-sexual 20% homosexual balance.

gaiacomm

09-30-2004, 08:00 AM

JR: Seems like your past has caught you once again!~ Better hold on to Karen real tight...you are in for one ride of your life! Anyone got Popcorn for the show?

Will Robinson...Danger, Danger, Danger................

halva

09-30-2004, 12:38 PM

Don't waste any money on popcorn yet Gaiacomm. If Raynolds has a single brain in his head he will just get as far away as possible from anyone who has ever had anything to say about chemtrails, on either side of the debate.

And stay away.

But it would be good if Deep Shield's widow could both find out about Raynolds and get the point that he is/was not just an isolated manic bigot but part of a wider pathology that claimed the life of her husband and remains with us.

gaiacomm

09-30-2004, 03:37 PM

DvdGStwrt

09-30-2004, 08:58 PM

JR: is there is anybody out there!@
Wayne, Yes I agree it is time for us to tear down the WALL around JR and expose him as he really is to world of Cyberspace!

There is no wall around Mr. Reynolds. Anybody who reads through this one thread soon gets a better understanding of the charging, attacking nature of our Mr. Reynolds and that itself strips away his side of the argument and leaves any would be ally less likely to get into the fray.

I think that Mr. Reynolds could make a strong case for his side if he refrains from name calling and approaches the subject with a bit of dignity and decorum. Instead of screaming "lies" and misquote a person, he could ask questions (nicely) and speculate more on the whole thing.
There is no doubt in my mind that he has spent a great deal of time researching the subject. I also think he has a strong opinion which could be voiced in different tones and which may (or may not) guide both sides of the argument (debate, whatever) to seek out better understanding of the issues and get a better look at their own side.

David

halva

09-30-2004, 10:28 PM

I agree with you, David.

Apparently there are problems at the scientific level with the Deep Shield story.

Deborah, who was for long posting as Foot Soldier on this thread, and was subjected to incredibly vicious male-chauvinist treatment by Raynolds, has pointed them out (though not here).

Also, other non-debunkers such as Chem 11, query the barium element in the 'chemtrail' thesis. Unfortunately he does not seem very keen to go through the argument again in dialogue with the less initiated.

If Raynolds gains access to such discussions he of course merely takes advantage of the opportunity to sow confusion. I don't want him back in this debate. I will be pleased if we have seen the last of him.

What he was trying to do was ridiculous anyway. He may have acquired a certain amount of relevant knowledge of the issues we discuss, but even if he decided to change sides he would be at best a dubious asset.

DvdGStwrt

09-30-2004, 10:38 PM

Mr. Reynolds where are you? It has been a day and no reply? What is this, can not dig up any dirt on me? Perhaps you have discovered the error and wish to take back the Fagboy comment? You may, I will allow it.

As I wait I read through this ponderous thread and I note that Giacomm challenged you and you refused to reply. You Even do much as attacking - er, I mean - debating others while Giacomm awaited your reply.

But then Giacomm also pointed out your ability to copy and paste hastily only those parts you feel are relevant to a debate. If it failed with him, what possessed you to believe that it work with me?

Ah my credentials are that of just a lowly, ignorant carpenter. Thus I am assured you thought I was not up to the challange of seeing your partial pastes.

David

DvdGStwrt

09-30-2004, 10:47 PM

So tell me, what really happened with Mr. Cooper? Mr. William Cooper.

I believe it was asked before, yet no reply forth coming from you - other than you do not want to talk about private matters on this thread. Yet you appear to have no interest at all in the privacy of others.

Talking about my lifestyle for one. Tit for tat Sir. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you do not appreciate your private affairs being aired in public, then it follows that others will not appreciate theirs being aired.

Please think about that before you use that method of attack again - anywhere.

David

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 12:10 AM

ah, yes 18 pages of wishy-washy from the chemmie squashys.
But wait, there is something they can't deal with, something they don't want to deal with, something they dare not deal with:

I'm reposting the most deadly questions ever to be asked of any "chemtrail" believers. These questions are so deadly that none
dare touch even one, lest their whole balloon burst!

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

Well Since this is supposed to be a debate, and since you asked me so nicely....

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

Why yes sir I do have a back ground in a technical field, it appears that carpentry is considered technical at least by Iowa: To follow up I am actually more than just a carpenter, I am also a little more technical in my work since I do draft and do some engineering as well. I am more of a General contractor now days. My answer is within the way that the question was framed and repeatedly posted, thus the rest of it is not applicable.

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific information about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

There are many actually, from the "hearsay" of Chem trail Cultists (As you call them) to the published papers on the subject. What published papers? Why those that speak of Geo-engineering as a possibility. The later can be relied upon. And has been posted here from the Works of Teller onward. Since some can be relied upon the rest of your question is irrelevant.

Also I find the News Media to be helpful, such as the report of weather modification taking place through jet "contrails" (accidental or not, it is weather modification and falls well within the parameters of your question) one of my most recent http://www.iht.com/articles/522268.html The earth is dimming, attributed to what?
The output of the Sun varies only slightly, so scientists believe global dimming has probably resulted from air pollution. Some light bounces off soot particles in the air. The pollution also causes more water droplets to condense out of air, leading to thicker, darker clouds, which block light

To understand my connection you must see my answer below to your other questions.

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

No I did not attend those meetings, it appears that I have a job and a life and not sufficient funds to travel the world over to get to many of these meetings. I can't say if other chem trail related people where or where not here - remember, I couldn't attend.

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

Any and all emissions from jet engines - that contain chemicals - Yep that pretty much covers contrails as well.

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

This is in my mind a mis leading question, it starts of with "what are ORDINARY contrails." It is my opinion that contrails are NOT ordinary, since they are a product of extraordinary (man-made) processes. However contrails are... well instead of posting the whole thing, let me refer you to a link: Which covers the process in greater depth than space provides for here: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Flagstaff/science/contrail.htm

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails? Again another red herring I look at all exhausts as being Chemical in nature and therefore fall under the umbrella of "chem trail" However for the sake of argument we will assume that there is a difference. In that light the difference is the amount and/or kinds of chemicals being released. Even a Richer fuel is considered by me to be a contrail.

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails? The way you word this makes it impossible to respond, due to my definition of chem trail includes your 'ordinary' contrails. Further Chem trails (as I have put forth above) includes a much broader range of phenomena which are proved just by observation of a jet plane flying by.

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Flagstaff/science/contrail.jpg From the very same page that discusses contrails. (Yes I know iIam cheating, however you didn't ask how I define Geo-engineering - sorry)

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

Actually I have seen several different sites which can not seem to agree upon what temperature the phenomena appears your 'ordinary"' contrails.

From the site above we get about minus 40 F from http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/oth/cntrl.rxml we get -38 degrees Celsius (converts too -36F) Based on those two sites we are already getting some conflict. Owing to the fact that C and F are hardly understood by most and is more often confused I can not say that this was or was not a typo or an error of judgment. To add to the problem there is also Kelvin, Rankine and Réaumur

Which if we start with -40F we get -20 C, 253.15K, 455.67 Rankine, -16 Reaumur. Assuming that one doesn't have a calculator for the conversions, the mathematics are such in conversion to be fraught with error: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-fahrenheit.htm covers that in depth.

Without knowing the nature of the error (typo, miscalculation) I can not judge the man on one error as being completely inaccurate.

David

jayreynolds

10-01-2004, 05:14 AM

"I lied."

Two words. Very simple.

The person that said them, David G. Stewart, is an admitted liar.

No absurd claim that I took that two word sentence out of context can change the facts.

David G. Stewart claimed to be forwarding an email from someone, and was forced by the facts to admit it was a lie, he wrote the whole thing himself. He is a liar, plain and simople, folks, and he even admits it.

Considering that he is known to be a liar, and even admits it himself, what has he ever done to make anyone believe him ever again?
==============================
I have pointed out fagboys preposterous claim about the idea that barium oxide could be useful for diminishing carbon dioxide. He says I took that out of context, too.

The facts show that his claim is preposterous.

The exact same argument holds true for his claim that it could make a change in earth's water vapor.

"6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought?

Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in these areas, sometimes to dangerous levels. The shield must be maintained. Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of sprays are in development and testing which may reduce the affects on precipitation. As I stated above, this is a new technology we are working with, it is still in its infancy and there are some problems with it."

A modest 1" rain produces around 27,000 gallons of water on a one acre field. The scale of invisible water vapor in a column of air one acre wide by six miles high(the troposphere) is staggering, if you know what you are talking about.

27,000 gallons weighs over 100 tons!

How much barium could a plane carry, and how many acres are there in a typical county?

Well even a fool can begin to see the colossal scale of absorption we are talking about here....... if you can trust David G. Stewart, the admiited liar.

The claim that an airplane could carry and distribute enough barium (or barium oxide) to absorb water and affect precipitation much less cause drought is just as preposterous as his other claim.

Once again, the supposed 'deep shield' is shown to have been created by someone with an incomplete, "canned knowledge", one that canot distinguish sense from nonsense. This passage is consistent with the other, and establishes a pattern which is repeated through the entire work. This alone, coupled with his prior admission that he is a liar, lets us know that David G. Stewart is NOT to be trusted.

David, I have much, much more. Your continued reticence to admitting to this hoax and putting it behind you is detrimental only to yourself, as it forces only you to continue creating more lies, conceding more inaccuracies, more backpedalling, waffling, and dissembling. Lies you will eventually have to pay for, someday. Lies which do no one any good, especially you.

As before, the best advice I can give you is to return to the shores of truth, for to continue with your lies is to entrain yourself even further in the whirlpool of lies you have created. If you wish to be sucked down in the vortex, continue.

Only you can save yourself, and the rescue can only be by admitting to the truth, that the whole thing was a hoax.

gaiacomm

10-01-2004, 06:39 AM

David:

Welcome aboard the Enterprise!

JR will not challenge me because he knows the truth and I will remain silent until he comes clean. As for his claims to fame...well he really needs to spend tiime with his wife Karen who longs for love from her husband and misses him so.

halva

10-01-2004, 07:34 AM

halva

10-01-2004, 07:35 AM

gaiacomm

10-01-2004, 08:11 AM

AtomicDog

10-01-2004, 10:05 AM

Jay Reynolds,

What is your stake in this chemtrail controvery? If everybody is so nutty and lying, why do you spend so much time on all the chem sites? Do you want your 15 minutes of fame? (make a porn video and distribute in over the web....It will get you more exposure) Are you still working for a large oil or polluting company? Are you working for the government? Are you worried some chemtrail activist will start shooting at planes? Are you insane?
From a strictly psychological standpoint, you have a superioriy complex, coupled with delusion, and paranoia. Are you also a dry drunk? Were you beaten by one or both of your parents which gives you your anti-social behaviour?

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 12:33 PM

Rebuttal:

Note Deep Shield neither confirmed nor discounted the Shield project as causing drought. He only pointed out that barium is a desiccant and had an effect on precipitation. Mr. Reynolds you are reading into the statement more information that is there. You are making the claim that Drought was caused by barium. Deep Shield did not say. He said:

Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected.

Now to you that may be interpreted as "Yes the spray program does cause drought" however that was not stated. Aside from that and if we interpreted this sentence to mean that, we are left with an assumption that you made which was never stated:

The claim that an airplane could carry and distribute enough barium (or barium oxide) to absorb water and affect precipitation much less cause drought is just as preposterous as his other claim.

You make it sound as though Deep Shield implied that only ONE plane is able to spread enough material to have an effect on precipitation.

Deep Shield never said that this was the work of ONE (An is singular) plane. Indeed if we look to the observations of others we find that before a front there are many planes laying down "con/chem trails" Not one which any person can easily reason out is preposterous. Deep Shield never implied there was only ONE plane doing this. If anything he implied that the numbers of planes were as many as possible.

======================

I lied: Well Mr. Reynolds you got me there, in an of itself it is good enough reason to discredit the whole work IF I had set about to inform the whole world of this news. However, the history of the postings on a yahoo group for a few people (not for the whole world), the nature of the of the information and the implied ramifications of this being a matter of National Security, which brings with it the threat of charges for treason, which is strongly punished in America, would cause anyone to be reluctant to tell the whole truth and state "I meet with Mr. __________, at such and such location on a particular date."

The comfort zone of "A friend of a friend emailed me" places distance from the source.

What that means is I was covering my own butt from possible backlash from the US government. A reasonable reaction given the circumstances.

And yes it does matter that you did take two words out of context. There is a rather large gap between "I lied and met with the man instead of getting an email" and "I lied, I made it all up." As I will point out later in my side of the debate, you are as guilty of lying. However whereas my action/reaction to a given situation is understandable, your small lie is questionable at best and
is very telling on your position in the debate.

=============================

Also, as you pointed out on page 3, post 21:

The top of this page reads: "Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues."

To take a snip from your latest post:

I have pointed out fagboys...

I warn you sir you are on the Public Stage, and your inability to refrain from using obscenity does not add weight to your side of the argument, if anything it demonstrates that your issues with me are personal.

More is coming.

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 12:40 PM

My Questions (Should you really wish to partake of debate instead of being on the offense)

1. Can you explain what the so called "Pay-off" is for my participation and/or creation of your claim of a Hoax?

2. How do you view the current trends in weather patterns, so called "climate change" which includes, but is not limited to, Polar ice cap melting, Alaskan permafrost thawing, measurable rises in ocean depths, warmer ocean temperatures?

LINKS: http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/280851.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0000DD68-BBE5-1F5C-905980A84189EEDF
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1049942.htm

3. How do you account for the following:

Asthma increasing: http://healthandenergy.com/asthma_increasing.htm
Alzheimer's disease is increasing: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/1951514.stm
Increasing cases of skin cancer: http://www.shorelaser.com/SkinCancer.html
Increased cases of allergy sufferers: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_3_21/ai_59535416 (more on asthma too)

4. Though you did focus on part one of shield letters, you did not touch upon:

Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium, etc. Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an absorber of gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect X amount of heat and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable (nominal) levels of UV and heat reaching the planet's surface.

Life requires a certain amount of both UV and Heat too much will kill - so will too little. The apparent amount looks like a lot more than what is actually being sprayed per volume of air it is covering. Most of the whitening of the sky is not the material per se, but the collection of water vapor, which forms into suspended ice crystals. The introduction of the material causes the water vapor to collect like rain collects on individual particles of dust.

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

Does this not include more than barium in it, and does it not reflect (pardon the pun) that there is more to the uses of the materials claimed to be used in the spray than just the ability to absorb gasses and water vapor. Indeed it appears that Deep Shield may have alluded to a program which seeks to increase cloud cover in general since clouds are composed of water and well dust:

http://mbgnet.mobot.org/fresh/cycle/clouds.htm

Through the process of evaporation and transpiration, water moves into the atmosphere. Water vapors then join with dust particles to create clouds.

As in my rebuttal I did point out that you alluded to Deep Shield claiming that One Plane could cause a drought, by carrying a sufficient amount of desiccating material (barium). Now that substantiates your claim that it is a preposterous idea, because it is - One plane can not possibly carry enough material.

As with the claim that there is a claim that barium is only used for carbon dioxide absorption, which I quickly refuted in the first instance by pointing out that there was more to your take on what was said.

When it is clear that Deep shield was attempting to convey a general, broad description of the use of Barium (along with other materials) and at least some of the ramifications of their use.

This is made self evident and is stressed in the answer to Question 14 answer by Deep Shield:

I would prefer to not state who I am or how I am related to all of this. To validate what I say, would require a bit of research on your behalf. I would recommend the following subjects to look up and study:

The list includes health effects of material, reported instances of various diseases, and he also said to research the materials themselves:

N. I would strongly recommend researching the reactions of different barium and aluminum compounds and how they are used. Research how long it takes for these metals in pure form to oxidize, how they combine with nitrates, carbon monoxide carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons and hydrocarbons and water vapor.

We find that he at least hinted at there being more reasons for the use of the materials than just water absorption and carbon dioxide absorption. He also pointed out more materials and their Compounds.

Why is it that you do not look at the whole body of information which clearly indicates that there is more than just one or two simple explanations for the use of the materials? In light of these revelations does your science and interpretation need to be revised? On what grounds to you justify ignoring the rest of the work to focus on one small tiny piece, which when taken out of context and used as the thrust of the whole debate does look foolish and wrong?

Other than validating your false claims that Deep Sheild is a hoax, is there a justifiable reason for your tactics demonstrated here?

5. Lies and Truth. The Importance of living by what one preaches:

Your logic on the matter that my saying "I lied" on how the information was relayed to me means that the whole body of work there after is too a lie therefore making my side of the debate invalid.

Thus, having demonstrated that you bald faced lied:

The claim that an airplane could carry and distribute enough barium (or barium oxide) to absorb water and affect precipitation much less cause drought is just as preposterous as his other claim.

When no such claim was made, does this mean that your whole side of the argument is invalid?

6. Will you now admit to your lies and concede that your position on the matter is a Hoax, Propagated by the Powers That Be and that Deep Shield was in fact killed by that agency for whom you work? Will you now abide by your won advice given to me? To paraphrase:

Mr. Reynolds, Your continued reticence to admitting to this hoax and putting it behind you is detrimental only to yourself, as it forces only you to continue creating more lies, conceding more inaccuracies, more backpedaling, waffling, and dissembling. Lies you will eventually have to pay for, someday. Lies which do no one any good, especially you.

As before, the best advice I can give you is to return to the shores of truth, for to continue with your lies is to entrain yourself even further in the whirlpool of lies you have created. If you wish to be sucked down in the vortex, continue.

Only you can save yourself, and the rescue can only be by admitting to the truth, that the whole thing was a hoax.

David

gaiacomm

10-01-2004, 05:50 PM

JR:

It looks like the "Boys in the Hood" are on to you! Better hold to Karen real tight for this ride.......

LOLLOL

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 08:59 PM

gaiacomm

10-01-2004, 10:34 PM

Giacomm.

You know that you are the only one I fear here. And I suspect you know why...

I do ask nicely to please not interfere with the "debate" between Mr. Reynolds and I, for now at least. Please.

Thank you.

David

David:

He is all yours...! Have fun! JR you and Karen should take a vacation right about now!

halva

10-01-2004, 10:39 PM

Your logic on the matter that my saying "I lied" on how the information was relayed to me means that the whole body of work there after is too a lie therefore making my side of the debate invalid.

Thus, having demonstrated that you bald faced lied:

When no such claim was made, does this mean that your whole side of the argument is invalid?

Will you now admit to your lies and concede that your position on the matter is a Hoax, Propagated by the Powers That Be and that Deep Shield was in fact killed by that agency for whom you work? Will you now abide by your won advice given to me? To paraphrase:

Mr. Reynolds, Your continued reticence to admitting to this hoax and putting it behind you is detrimental only to yourself, as it forces only you to continue creating more lies, conceding more inaccuracies, more backpedaling, waffling, and dissembling. Lies you will eventually have to pay for, someday. Lies which do no one any good, especially you.

David, if you will pardon me butting in, I would just like to add the following to your points. After that I will return to my own grievances with Raynolds:

Raynolds, since you haven't taken my advice and withdrawn from this confrontation I suspect that what you will now try to do is to bore and disgust David Stewart so much that he is the one who will leave. Your postings since he entered the debate here strongly suggest that this is now your objective.

I have expressed the view in this thread before that one of the most important reasons for maintenance of secrecy around ongoing geoengineering programmes and other applications of chemtrails/contrails is that the established political system of the world's developed industrial democracies cannot deal with such explosive realities. The hysteria/fearmongering/scapegoating/blaming the other side reflexes are so deeply ingrained into the political culture of multiparty representative democracy, even without taking into account the multiplier effect of the privately-owned media system that preys on and magnifies all these deficiencies, that there may be some justification for the late Deep Shield's expressed fears that "People would panic. There would be economic collapse, the production and movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all cities on earth. Riots and violence would reduce civilian centres to rubble within days."

So, if we are all determined to stay here, let try to make this thread into a laboratory for Deliberative Democracy, a forerunner and a model for the type of procedure that is imposed on us as a necessity if the climate change/geoengineering/contrails-chemtrails complex of issues is to be brought under democratic social control.

Deliberative Democracy presupposes citizens entering the debate as free human beings and equals, guided by their conscience, with no real or self-imposed obligations to outside 'party'-type structures.

Are you capable of something like this, Raynolds? Are you an equal?

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 10:45 PM

I know the current number of flights flown by commercial and military jets.
I make a practice of knowing the answers before I open my mouth, and
keeping it shut till I do..

If you guys were really interested you'd look through the data and find the truth, like I did. That doesn't interest you, and never did. That you people aren't interested in the truth is no surprise, really.

Even a back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you that 62 milllion flights/year is a gross exaggeration.

There are probably less than 10,000 flyable aircraft total in the commercial and military jet fleets combined.

Do the math.

Jay

lets see
62,000,000 divided by 10,000 comes to 6200 flights per year. divided by the accepted 365 days per year comes to 16 flights per day per aircraft.

How is that an exaggeration? There are plenty of short flights "puddle jumpers" from city to city, there are long continental flights. Maybe I don't know where to look but 16 flights per aircraft is not that much not too much to be an exaggeration.

But in the interest of debate: http://www.qsl.net/n6tx/prose/nmacrate.htm Does refute the 62 million number, instead he fixes on the far lower number of 60 million in the USA alone:

. There are currently about 60 Million flights per year conducted in the United States. Does this apply to military craft as well or just commercial? Hm hard to say.

Shall we dig a little more?

Lets see: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,2297,sid%253D2249%2526cid%253D27858,00.html

It is estimated that there are more than 50,000 commercial airline flights worldwide every day. Assuming that the average flight lasts two hours, there are typically more than 3,500 planes in the air at any one moment.

Thats 50 thousand times 365 comes to 18, 250,000 Before you get a smug grin of satisfaction there Mr Reynolds, that only accounts for:

We are the leading professional services firm serving the aviation sector, with a 33 percent audit share. Lets say that is one third of all aircraft (commercial only mind) we gets 18,250,000 x 3 = 54, 750,000 Well that is 10 million lower, but wouldn't you know that the Militaries of the world aren't to terribly keen on sharing their numbers on how many aircraft they fly per year?

Your estimate of 10,000 should really be upgraded, there are over 7000 between the USA and Europe ONLY. Look it up - and that is only the "important" airlines.

An interesting comparison between US and European airlines - the US has 29 important carriers that between them handle 25% of world passenger traffic, with fleets that average 152 planes. Europe has 78 airlines that handle 10% of world traffic and with an average of 36 planes per airline.

Gee quick math: 29X 152 + 78 X36 = 7216. Are you going to tell me that Australia, Africa and Asia will only muster 2784 planes? Or how about all of the military aircraft?

So you research the facts?

I see. Another minor lie there perhaps?

David

DvdGStwrt

10-01-2004, 11:09 PM

Hey, I'm not the one hdidng behind an alias, or the one who has had to do a 180 when his hoax was shown for what it was, 'Sore'.

Cool to watch you implode, dud.

Answer the questions.
52 pages and counting.
Too tough for you.....?

Oh really now? Now I know you do not want me to post a link to a certain site which anyone who goes there will suddenly find thousands of astute, accurate and very helpful posts from one DvdGStwrt. But we will find a post by you under an "alias".

As I recall as your aborted attempt to "prove" that I am a hoxer part of your ploy was to become a new member at the site where I moderated and post under a different name. Not Jay Reynolds.

Not hiding there were you Mr Reynolds?

David

jayreynolds

10-02-2004, 04:08 AM

The data in question comes from Claire Gilbert's 1997 article about contrails here:
http://www.blazingtattles.com/info/eviljet2.htm

"There are 62 million commercial and military flights across U.S. skies each year."

The FAA's most recent data shows that the total number of IFR aircraft flights handled at FAA air route traffic control centers is 45.1 million. Claire Gilbert's number from six years ago was incorrect, and most likely could only have been created by combining all flights, including turboprop(seldom produce contrails) and general aviation flights(non-commercial private planes).

The current U. S. commercial jet fleet(2003) is:
1321 regional
942 cargo
4090 passenger
2672 commuter(seldom produce contrails)

halva

10-02-2004, 09:03 AM

How about answering some of the other questions, Raynolds?

Don't suddenly turn yourself into a meek technocrat without giving an account of your strategies up to this date and your reasons for adopting them.

halva

10-02-2004, 09:06 AM

Reiterating.

Raynolds, leaving aside the question of whether you are telling lies - which you say you are not - if you were telling lies, would you claim a right to do so?

Gaiacomm thinks you are telling lies, you see, but maintains that this is your right. Do you agree with him?

Would you defend my right to tell you lies?

Moreover, would you say that it is from a sense of duty that you articulate the views you do on chemtrails/contrails?

foot_soldier

10-02-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by halva:
Deliberative Democracy presupposes citizens entering the debate as free human beings and equals, guided by their conscience, with no real or self-imposed obligations to outside 'party'-type structures.
This is the part I like:

.....free human beings and equals, guided by their conscience, with no real or self-imposed obligations to outside 'party'-type structures.....

For some of us this is the natural state of being.

DvdGStwrt

10-02-2004, 11:33 AM

Is that your reply to ALL of my questions Mr Reynolds?

No comment on my answers to your Deadly Questions that have posted over, and over and over again demanding that it be answered before you answer a single question? Tell me who was killed by my answers? Now that they have been answered you can no longer post them, over and over again and demand satisfaction because sir you have demonstrated to all that in reality you are not interested in those questions at all.

No comment or need to carry on debate on other issues, such as what are your views on those links I gave. No answer? I can conjecture that the reason you can't answer is either you know or you know that your honest, truthful answers would reveal your true standing in the issue. Perhaps reveal what it is that you really know?

Hoax sir? I answered Mr. Reynolds. I did not pick and chose which questions I fancied and only answer them. I even answered questions that were not directed at me.

Mr Reynolds this is a public record, and I assure you that I personally am not squirreling it away for posterity, but the date stamps and the "debate" is being saved, it is being noted and if you can not be like me and put yourself out there and engage in two sided debated and discussion, it will be a matter of record that obviously you are one with something to hide. Not I.

If you continue to refuse me debate Sir, the doubts will continue to spread and you will personally add to the belief in the so called "Hoax". Your silence will lend people to wondering what exactly it is about Mr. David Stewart that Mr. Jay Reynolds is afraid of. They will wonder why Mr. Stewart is able to conduct himself in a rational civil tone while Mr. Reynolds had to resort with personal attack right at the start. They will ponder it and then go read what Deep Shield said and wonder what it is in those words that Mr. Reynolds does not want discussed.

I am Certain that others have ran a search engine on DvdGStwrt (my user-name that I have had for years now) and I am most certain that they have quickly discovered that in reality I have time and time again demonstrated that I am a compassionate, rational well educated individual who has a habit of putting forth good information. Meaning I do not specialize in just one field, but have many interests and am, if not educated, then at least well read.

Let us point out that you welcomed this:

I've got plenty more on you and your hoax in reserve from where this one came from, and google is cacheing every damn bit of it on a daily basis. Get my drift? http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=140291&postcount=2781

It was your Suggestion. Thus if it backfired it is no fault of mine.

I await your responses to my questions Mr. Reynolds.

David

halva

10-03-2004, 07:00 AM

Even if we have indeed succeeded in driving Raynolds away, this is only a first step because the social and political conditions that make/made him and his hangers-on think they could get away with anything are still with us.

gaiacomm

10-03-2004, 07:42 AM

JR;

I have my popcorn and I am siting on my couch watching you watch!

jayreynolds

10-03-2004, 09:03 AM

My Questions (Should you really wish to partake of debate instead of being on the offense)

1. Can you explain what the so called "Pay-off" is for my participation and/or creation of your claim of a Hoax?

You are an attention seeker. However, now that the spotlight reveals your lies, you have consistently backed down, qualified, waffled, and dissembled in your hoax, even to the point of suggesting that revelation of your supposed "source"(yourself) would be harmful to his(your) family. If your hoax is to be believed, however, the death of 2 billion souls is at stake.
If you are unwilling to name names to expose a wrongdoing of that magnitude, one must ask what price you place on 2 billion lives?

2. How do you view the current trends in weather patterns, so called "climate change" which includes, but is not limited to, Polar ice cap melting, Alaskan permafrost thawing, measurable rises in ocean depths, warmer ocean temperatures?

Nothing changes like the weather. Records are made to be broken. Greenland was once green and Viking cattle grazed where glaciers now run. Their sailing ships didn't warm the climate there, or cool it down to an icy wasteland now.

3. How do you account for the following:

Asthma increasing
Alzheimer's disease is increasing
Increasing cases of skin cancer
Increased cases of allergy sufferers

Man-made pollution is a fact of modern life but is being reduced, it encourages asthma.
The world's population lives longer than ever, older people get dementia.
The incidence of skin cancer is increasing primarily because of increased recreational exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light and increased longevity.
Historical data shows no radical increase of UV radiation, as alleged in your "deep shield" hoax.
Allergy sufferers can get help from Claritin. Perhaps ragweed eradication would help.

As in my rebuttal I did point out that you alluded to Deep Shield claiming that One Plane could cause a drought, by carrying a sufficient amount of desiccating material (barium). Now that substantiates your claim that it is a preposterous idea, because it is - One plane can not possibly carry enough material.

My factual analysis of your hoax statement that "Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected." showed that 100 tons of water vapor able to release a 1" rainfall can be found over a typical ONE ACRE OF LAND.
The chemical reaction whereby barium oxide absorbs water is:
BaO+H2O=Ba(OH)2
A molar mass balance of this equation shows that 153 grams of BaO is required to absorb 18 grams of H2O, in other words, 8.5 units of Barium oxide must be used to absorb one unit of water.
only one acre of land[/u] requires
850 TONS OF BARIUM OXIDE!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all the world's planes combined could not distribute enough barium oxide(or barium) to affect precipitation to any extent whatsoever!

As with the claim that there is a claim that barium is only used for carbon dioxide absorption, which I quickly refuted in the first instance by pointing out that there was more to your take on what was said.When it is clear that Deep shield was attempting to convey a general, broad description of the use of Barium (along with other materials) and at least some of the ramifications of their use.

Faced with factual contradictions to his allegations, facts which he]cannot refute, and after having admitted to lying about his authoring the 'deep shield hoax, 'David G. Stewart must again lie and back off his previous statements.

5. Lies and Truth. The Importance of living by what one preaches:
Your logic on the matter that my saying "I lied" on how the information was relayed to me means that the whole body of work there after is too a lie therefore making my side of the debate invalid.

Yes.

6. Will you now admit to your lies and concede that your position on the matter is a Hoax, Propagated by the Powers That Be and that Deep Shield was in fact killed by that agency for whom you work?

[b]It is up to you to prove your case, Stewart. Don't blame me for forcing you to admit that you lied, and for exposing the factual absurdities of your hoax. After all this, I think you owe those whom you have misled a little bit of proof for a change.

I'll eventually get to the many more false claims that you made in the 'deep shield' hoax, which you admitted to writing. Prepare yourself to be exposed.

PS: Wayne, I believe in free speech. You have a right to say whatever you wish, even to lie, and I have the right to confront you on it. I would fight to protect anyone's right to free speech, and will fight just as hard to expose lies. Regarding Sarah Cornell, I quoted her to refute your own false statements regarding Tyndall Centre's support for the "chemtrail" hoax. For your part, you have publicly quoted her correspondence as I did, unfortunately for you, she disavowed any support for "chemtrails" whatsoever.

PS swampgas, whomever. I have never received any payment renumeration, benefit or emolument for any public writing I have done, ever. I am open to offers, however. I currently work for no entity other than myself, doing farming. My last formal employment was on a contractor basis for the Hess Oil Virgin Islands corp, which ended twelve years ago.

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 10:59 AM

Thank you Mr.Reynolds for answering at least part of the questions.

I wish to take this time to clarify and make certain that I am understanding your side of the argument. I will rebuttal later.

You are an attention seeker. However, now that the spotlight reveals your lies, you have consistently backed down, qualified, waffled, and dissembled in your hoax, even to the point of suggesting that revelation of your supposed "source"(yourself) would be harmful to his(your) family. If your hoax is to be believed, however, the death of 2 billion souls is at stake.

I will accept that this is your views on the "pay off" thank you for clarifying what the pay off is for me. I assume that the pay-off is getting attention - Please clarify if this is not the pay-off for me. Could you do so without adding to that? I want to be very certain to what the pay-off is here.

Nothing changes like the weather. Records are made to be broken. Greenland was once green and Viking cattle grazed where glaciers now run. Their sailing ships didn't warm the climate there, or cool it down to an icy wasteland now.

Then it is your take on these things that they are within nominal parameters? Am I to infer that since the Viking Sailing Ships did not warm the climate there that you believe our industries have no affect upon the climate and weather?

Man-made pollution is a fact of modern life but is being reduced, it encourages asthma.
The world's population lives longer than ever, older people get dementia.
The incidence of skin cancer is increasing primarily because of increased recreational exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light and increased longevity.
Historical data shows no radical increase of UV radiation, as alleged in your "deep shield" hoax.
Allergy sufferers can get help from Claritin. Perhaps ragweed eradication would help.

So Pollution, Longer lives, sun tanning, no radical increase in UV and ragweed has lead to those particular issues? Is this your stance on those questions? Please I am only clarifying at this time.

My factual analysis of your hoax statement that "Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected." showed that 100 tons of water vapor able to release a 1" rainfall can be found over a typical ONE ACRE OF LAND....(snip)

So you have a scientific analysis based upon one sentence? Am I correct in that?

Faced with factual contradictions to his allegations, facts which he]cannot refute, and after having admitted to lying about his authoring the 'deep shield hoax, 'David G. Stewart must again lie and back off his previous statements.

I acknowledge that this is your contention sir. However you did not address the points as they were made:

As with the claim that there is a claim that barium is only used for carbon dioxide absorption, which I quickly refuted in the first instance by pointing out that there was more to your take on what was said.When it is clear that Deep shield was attempting to convey a general, broad description of the use of Barium (along with other materials) and at least some of the ramifications of their use.

It appears that you may have been addressing some other point. Are you certain that you were addressing the point as posted directly above?

Originally Posted by deep shield
5. Lies and Truth. The Importance of living by what one preaches:
Your logic on the matter that my saying "I lied" on how the information was relayed to me means that the whole body of work there after is too a lie therefore making my side of the debate invalid.

Yes.

I see. However you did not answer the FULL question:

5. Lies and Truth. The Importance of living by what one preaches:

Your logic on the matter that my saying "I lied" on how the information was relayed to me means that the whole body of work there after is too a lie therefore making my side of the debate invalid.

Thus, having demonstrated that you bald faced lied:

Quote:
The claim that an airplane could carry and distribute enough barium (or barium oxide) to absorb water and affect precipitation much less cause drought is just as preposterous as his other claim.

When no such claim was made, does this mean that your whole side of the argument is invalid?
Can you clarify why you did not answer the full question?

David

jayreynolds

10-03-2004, 12:11 PM

I want to be very certain to what the pay-off is here.

I think YOU can best inform us of the payoff you expected from authoring a document, falsely claiming it to have been written by someone else. Why didn't you just write, "he told me....." like all the other hoaxers have?

You'll have to admit all the backpedalling you've done since has been a futile attempt to rationalize your admitted lying about the premise your hoax was built on, and has destroyed your credibility completely. It will follow you forever, 'deep shiled' was simply a hoax, no ampount of subsequent lying can get you ot of that, everybody knows already, and I'll not let them forget it.

I now ask YOU tell us the truth about what you expected to gain by writing such a document in the first person, knowing full well that was a lie?

I also ask what you have done since, besides qualify your written words by "maybe's", "perhaps", "could be" etc, words of hesitation, supposition, unsure weakening words because you really don't know what you claimed to know before?

Q- Then it is your take on these things that they are within nominal parameters? Am I to infer that since the Viking Sailing Ships did not warm the climate there that you believe our industries have no affect upon the climate and weather?

A-No, industrial pollution probably has to have a small effect on weather and climate. The medieval warming of Greenland was entirely natural, of course.

Q-So Pollution, Longer lives, sun tanning, no radical increase in UV and ragweed has lead to those particular issues? Is this your stance on those questions? Please I am only clarifying at this time.

I have not found any data supporting radical increases in UV levels, as you claimed in your authorship of the "deep shield" hoax documents. The rest of your questions are irrelevant and a smokescreen for your failures to address the existance of factual absurdities in your writings no real scientist would make, or your choice of "canned Knowledge" plagiarized from an internet dictionary, regarding barium. The fact is you never properly sourced those words with a URL link, and never mentioned that you ripped them off a site, and never understood what the worss meant. Then you claimed you just forgot to copy the link, or that "maybe" yahoo deleted it(yahoogroups postings don't delete URLs, even Wayne knows that).

Q-So you have a scientific analysis based upon one sentence? Am I correct in that?

I have shown the facts regarding the claim you made when you wrote the "deep shield' hoax, Stewart. The facts show that the idea that barium, or barium oxide(you can't seem to make up your mind which one you are talking about-more on that later) would be of any use in absorbing either CO2 or H2O. The facts I presented showed that the claims you made when you wrote the 'deep shield' hoax were absurd, and underscore the emerging pattern which inexorably has led you you issuing qualification after qualification of your claims, each qualification makes your claims weaker and weaker, more and more unsure. Each error found(and there are many many more to come-wait till ozone and aluminum are taken to task) is one more card to fall from your house of cards, one more layer of onion peeled away from your rotten core, and one more day in your downward spiral, fagboy.

Q-It appears that you may have been addressing some other point. Are you certain that you were addressing the point as posted directly above?

A- I'm not letting you get away with backpedalling whenever I show that you made claims that were absurd. You made the claims that aerial release of barium and barium oxide would absorb CO2, and affect precipitation. I showed those claims to be absurd. You backed down to a 'fallback position' which shows you acknowledge my refutation of your claim. You lost, get over it. You lost on barium, get ready to lose on ozone and aluminum. Things will never go well for you Stewart, until you recant, tell the truth about making this whole 'deep shield' thing up.
Admit your guilt, because that is the only way you can stop comitting more lies, looking more and more foolish. Lies kill a person slowly, the truth liberates immediately.

Q-I see. However you did not answer the FULL question:
Can you clarify why you did not answer the full question?

Your question contained a lie. It contended that you never claimed barium could affect precipitation. here are the words, directly from your 'deep shield' hoax document:

Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected."
David

No amount of rhetorical gymnastics is sufficient to deflect the facts I presented, readers, he has not, and never will, refute the facts that contradict his claims, because he cannot. The facts simply can't be twisted far enough, try though he might.

In the case of David G. Stewart, he has admitted to being a liar at the very inception of his 'deep shield' hoax.

HE WROTE THE WHOLE THING, BUT CLAIMED IT WAS SENT TO HIM AS AN EMAIL.
HE ADMITTED HE LIED.
HE WAS CAUGHT RED HANDED IN A COPY/PASTE JOB IN AN EFFORT TO USE "CANNED KNOWLEDGE".
HE CLAIMED HE FORGOT TO INCLUDE A URL, WHAT A JOKE.
HE MADE ABSURD CONTENTIONS ABOUT BARIUM WHICH NO SCIENTIST WOULD MAKE.
HE BACKED DOWN ON HIS CLAIMS, WHAT A CHUMP.
MORE TO COME.............. CAN HE STAND THE HEAT???????

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 02:45 PM

Today you say:

Why didn't you just write, "he told me....." like all the other hoaxers have?

This is how Stewart first started the hoax:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidgstewart
"I do not know how truthful
this is[a tacit admission-JR], but the email I received this evening includes the following:"

from http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=139636&postcount=2773

That was only 4 days ago.

"He told me_______" and saying "I do not know how truthful this is" amounts to the same thing.

My manner of writing is clearly not your manner of writing - That is obvious here. My body of work on this thread and elsewhere demonstrates that.

I do not know if anyone else wants to step forward at this time on this particular point, but I believe many will tell you that I have said time and time again that this is what the man said and that I do not know (which I still don't know) if he was telling me the truth or not.

The contention you continue to have is that I made up the Shield letters. This has been your contention, this has been the reasons for your attacks on me, this is the reason why you attempt to base a whole science on one sentence. You want to demonstrate that I made the whole thing up for some gain.

My contention has been, and ever more shall be, that I was given this information from a man who claimed to be an insider. No matter if through Email, Snail Mail or through personal face to face meetings.

I may (This is not to say that I am, or that I know that it is a hoax) have participated - unwittingly (Unknowing, without intent, without full knowledge of the intent of others) - in a hoax. A vast difference in creating a hoax. Your contention is that I am intentionally perpetrating a Hoax for a pay-off, which unfortunately you can not demonstrate that I am seeking attention (the pay-off you claim I am getting). If anything sir, the amount of posts here and elsewhere on the subject compared to mine demonstrates that you are demanding attention, while I have remained as distanced as possible from the whole matter.

I distanced myself not because I am seeking attention, but because I am uncertain and I honestly DO NOT KNOW what is going on. I am totally amazed that what I posted on one group has spread about the web like a Gospel. I did not spread it, I did not shove it down any body's throat, I did not ask it to be published and copied and held up as anything more that what I stated in the very beginning.

Ironically sir, for some of the reasons you have pointed out in previous posts, I have my own personal doubts on the whole subject of Chem trails. When it comes to the whole idea of a spray program for ANY reason, I have my doubts. Yet I do not dismiss it all either simply because I am aware of how the government conducts itself, I am aware that there are trails in the sky (any man with eyes can see that) I am aware that the climate is changing, I am aware that anything - ANYTHING - is possible. I am also painfully aware that there is a science for Geo engineering and that there are admissions of models having been created for the very reason that Deep Shield Said: to mitigate global Warming. I also know that it is only one tiny omission between "making models" and putting into practice.

Let us now turn our attention to the dictionary on the definition of HOAX:

1 : an act intended to trick or dupe : IMPOSTURE
2 : something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication

I did not fabricate, I did, however, repeat (not word for word granted) what I was told.

I never intended to trick or dupe.

I did not create Chem trail Theory, I did not create the notion of using particulate matter to mitigate global warming (I believe Teller did that) .

I did say "This is what the man said." Perhaps not in those exact words, but words to that effect.

You STILL have yet to demonstrate that I was not told these things, you can not show that I did just make it all up. You make the claim that I made a hoax. Unfortunately, you have not shown that to be the case.

I believe that I have said in each installment of the Shield letters that HE SAID that this is the case. If not EXACTLY in those words, then words to that effect.

I can recall one minor change committed by another in the representation of the Shield letters.

The Question was "who claimed that x amount of causalities take place" When I presented it to Deep Shield his answer (and my reporting was exact on that point) was:

"Exactly WHO" Meaning World Health Organization. That was dropped from the published report, not by myself, but by another.

What does that have to do with this? There is much that was said that HAS NOT been published. I am most certain that there are those who DO NOT want to relate my personal doubts in the matter. I do know that I have corresponded through email and phone conversations with many people on the subject. I do know that everything I said has not been published

Of course you will claim that this is back peddling, waffling, covering up, and more.

You never ever asked me my personal take on the matter, you never asked me anything, you started off right away declaring me to be a HOAXER, attacking my lifestyle, pulling up erroneous information about myself which had nothing to do with the subject.

If anything Sir, your sudden attack WITHOUT ASKING FIRST - demonstrates that there must be some truth in what was said, it scares you and you feel you must detract from it, obscure it, get it "debunked" and taken out of the public view.

But for the record, I do stand by my claim that I know and met with a man (on more occasions that I have told anyone) who tells me that there is a Spray program going on. I suppose my omission of having met with him more often that I reported is another proof of the hoax. I will even add to that claim by going on the record that the man called Deep Shield told me more things on subject than what I have reported and NO I will not report those things.**

David

**Giacomm if you are who I believe you to be, then you know what those things are.

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 03:59 PM

As for the rest Mr. Reynolds.

I believe I have presented a strong case for your inability to understand comments and questions in written form. I believe I have demonstrated that you do not possess nothing but facts on subjects, that you do read into a lot of what is being said and that you can not possibly stick to the point even in one paragraph.

I Answered your Deadly Questions and still nothing from you. Demonstrating that you really do not care about Questions.

I demonstrated that you are trying to force a science out of something that is not a scientific paper. You also demonstrated how you can read volumes into one sentence.

You make open ended statements as facts and then get all flustered when they are taken wrong. You did infer in your comments about Vikings that Man-kind has no affect on climate. honestly there is much I could read INTO that one sentence, I could base a whole argument on that ONE sentence.

When put on the spot and asked exactly what you mean you are quick to add to your first telling.

Historical data shows no radical increase of UV radiation, as alleged in your "deep shield" hoax.

Reads vastly different from:
have not found any data supporting radical increases in UV levels

There is a difference between saying "historical Records show" to "I have not found any data" Indeed there is a underlying feel that there may be data out there that you are unaware of on the whole matter which could say otherwise.

This is a clear indication, under the conditions you have set forth, that you are back peddling.

When it comes to Barium and planes, you content that Barium from ONE (An = singular) Plane can not affect precipitation. A lie, a purposeful deceit of what was said.

Then when questioned about it you go on to say that Barium can not affect precipitation. Since Deep Shield did not state how much the effect was while you demonstrated that there could be an effect in your science - granted, not a worldwide drought, but you did demonstrate that Barium on ONE acre could affect the amount of water in the local atmosphere, which in turn could affect precipitation in sufficient amounts.

Yes someone did bend the words to make it SOUND like something else was said.

You demonstrated with science that Barium CAN (in sufficient amounts) change the amount of water vapor - however you went to the extreme and calculate how much Barium oxide it would take to absorb ALL of the water vapor over One Acre of Land:

You read into one passing statement: Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected." That there is a consorted effort to remove all the water vapor, or that an effect on precipitation relies on only the total and complete removal of all the water vapor. A red herring, a lie based upon your faulty interpretation of one sentence.

But you did not stop there, indeed in order to substantiate the "fallacy of the Deep Shield Letters and David Stewart's Hoax" you went on to paint a picture that precipitation does not take place in ONLY zero water vapor atmosphere.

What you failed to point out in your demonstration of your expertise in Meteorology is that only small variations in water vapor affects if there will be rain producing clouds or non-rain producing clouds (the difference between precipitation or no precipitation). After all Sir, clouds go over head all the time full of water vapor and not a single drop of rain falls out. Obviously non-raining clouds are composed of water vapor thus the lack of rain (drought is a lack of rain - right?) does not require total removal of ALL water vapor.

YOU perpetuated a falsehood by attempting to change meteorology to reflect that ALL water vapor has to be removed to cause a drought.

YOU were able to dig up a scientific fact that Barium DOES in fact absorb Carbon Dioxide.

Deep Shield does not say how much CO2 will be removed, did not even say how much affect barium would have on the precipitation. You did.

Thus your claim:
You made the claims that aerial release of barium and barium oxide would absorb CO2, and affect precipitation. I showed those claims to be absurd.

Actually sir you demonstrated a false notion that Barium was used to absorb ALL the water Vapor and ALL the Carbon dioxide. No where in the published Deep Shield statements can you present that Deep Shield said that all CO2 and All Water Vapor was to be removed. In your haste to disprove the statements you went about proving that there is hard science which demonstrates that barium DOES in fact absorb carbon dioxide - you even went ahead and presented a calculation of how much barium it would take to remove ALL of the water vapor from a mass of air over one acre of land. This was not the claim made by Deep Shield, he only claimed that barium has an effect on precipitation. You did not demonstrate how much barium or barium oxide it would take to affect weather or not precipitation can or can not occur in a volume of air.

Not that I have researched it, but I think that the amount of ANY desiccant can impact precipitation in vastly smaller amounts than what you put forth.

The Fact remains that the Deep Shield Letters do not cover in depth science. No numbers, no figures, no claim that all of the water vapor is removed or that all the CO2 is removed.

Yes by all means accuse me of waffling and backpedaling when you task me to explain what is clearly obvious to anyone who read the whole body of work.

I haven't waffled at all, I point out time and time again that you are taking things out of context, you are adding to basic statements, you are forcing what is clearly not a scientific detailed work to be the whole science.

You task the work by reading into it something that it is not. You make claims that only one thing is said, when in fact more reading of the rest of the work reveals that there is more being said than you want us to look at.

In the end sir, you are taking a few answers in LAYMAN terms to a few questions and making a whole science out of it. You are adding to the claims, you are attempting to remove ALL the CO2 and All of the water through the use of barium.

You persist in saying that I am continually lying, you sir continue to dig your own grave by lying.

David

PS: As an aside on the issue:

one more day in your downward spiral, fagboy.

I find it interesting that you continually resort to obcenity through all of this. Have you not gotten through your thick skull that this continued used of your pet name for me reflects badly on you?

jayreynolds

10-03-2004, 08:24 PM

David G. Stewart would have you believe that he actually got his hoax from someone he met in person. He could have simply said so in the first place. But how much credibility would he ever get if he said, "some dude told me this...."?
None.
What David G. Stewart decided to do was to write the text and then lie about it.
He consciously decided to write it himself and then tell everyone that he received it as a series of emails from a 'deep shield'.

OF COURSE, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH

EXHIBIT 1- AT CTTUSA, which listed over 2000 members at the time he initiated his hoax, David G. Stewart began his 'deep shield' hoax with THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF LIES, stating:
"I do not know how truthful this is, but the email I received this evening includes the following:"
The balance of the posting consists of text which Stewart has admitted to writing himself.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/9002
======================
EXHIBIT 2- At CTTUSA, Stewart was asked to forward questions to his hoax friend 'deep shield'.
This was his second chance to come clean and bow out, but he appears to not hesitate and HE LIES A SECOND TIME, saying:
"Rick these are Good Questions, I will forward them and see wht happens."
=======================
EXHIBIT 3- AT CTTUSA, Stewart began writing in response to Moor's questions, falsely answering as if the fictional 'deep shield' was writing the email response, thus ADDING A THIRD LIE regarding the source of the text:
"I took the Four questions asked from a participant here and I also
added a few of my own. i sent off my questions the day before
Thankgiving, Today I got a reply.
Here it is:
Having read your email, I must say that you are full of questions."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/90260
======================
EXHIBIT 4- At CTTUSA, Stewart finds that he is getting sufficient attention, and HE COMMITS YET ANOTHER LIE, the fourth in a series, and tries to maintain credulity by a hopeful tone because people are bound to doubt the veracity of yet another third-hand 'whistleblower:
"BTW I will ask, I plan on sending another email to ask for more
research pointers to confirm this theory (I guess we are calling it a
theory) - I do not know how receptive this guy is to answering
questions."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/90274
=======================
EXHIBIT 5- By now, Stewart is fully bound to continue lying. Like I told him, lying is like a drug, and after doing it too long it becomes habitual. The only way out is to tell the truth, but caught up in his web of deceit, Stewart CHOOSES TO LIE YET A FIFTH TIME!:
"I will add these questions to my next set I send. Thanx"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/90275
======================
EXHIBIT 6- Earlier today, on this webpage thread, Stewart wrote:

"The contention you continue to have is that I made up the Shield letters. This has been your contention, this has been the reasons for your attacks on me, this is the reason why you attempt to base a whole science on one sentence."

Dear readers, Stewart has already admitted that he lied in all five cases above, that he lied all five times above when he stated he had received or sent out emails to a 'deep shield'. Stewart admitted that each time, HE was the author, HE wrote the text. They were all lies, all five times, he lied.
=================
Ladies and gentlemen, David G. Stewart would have to believe he never lied, even after having admitted to doing so, he takes you all for such fools-

[b]"I never intended to trick or dupe."

WELL, FAGBOY, WHY ALL THE LIES???

As for whether or not the 'deep shield' text is a hoax? Well Stewart's own definition says a hoax is:"An act intended to trick or dupe, IMPOSTURE"

Well, what the hell is an "IMPOSTURE"?
IMPOSTURE: Definition: [n] pretending to be another person

In the matter of whether or not the 'deep shield' documents conform to the definition of "A HOAX", I rest my case, for by David G. Stewart's own definition, and given the fact that he has admitted to committing an imposture, posing as a scientist, when he is merely a queer simpleton, the entire 'deep shield' case is hereby indisputably
A HOAX

jayreynolds

10-03-2004, 08:32 PM

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 08:53 PM

Not that I am a chemist, but I pretty much assume that pure barium (if there is even such a thing) would react with water and oxygen in the air forming compounds, hydroxides, monoxides, etc. Of course there is nitrogen and other traces gasses as well.

I would assume that the absorption of water would change the compound of barium or barium oxide. I can ASSUME that the use of both Barium and Barium Oxide by Deep shield in his conversations with me is based on the reaction of barium in the air - it would oxidize (one of those fancy chemical words for rust and corrode).

Since you are the chemist here, please by all means enlighten us to what would happen with a theoretical bit of barium exposed to air. Tell us how it would transform, combine and absorb water and carbon dioxide, ell us what would be the final stable state of the material.

Well in case you can't give us all the information I did locate an interesting site which explains scientifically what happens to barium in the air:

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele056.html

Barium was first isolated by Sir Humphry Davy, an English chemist, in 1808 through the electrolysis of molten baryta (BaO). Barium is never found free in nature since it reacts with oxygen in the air, forming barium oxide (BaO), and with water, forming barium hydroxide (Ba(OH)2) and hydrogen gas (H2). Barium is most commonly found as the mineral barite (BaSO4) and witherite (BaCO3) and is primarily produced through the electrolysis of barium chloride (BaCl2).

Now I may be wrong but Barium hydroxide is an interesting little critter as well , it would appear that it combines with carbon dioxide to form barium carbonate BaCO3 that is to say witherite.

Again I am not a chemist. Perhaps these interaction only happen in the laboratory, perhaps barium does not absorb carbon dioxide and water and oxygen. I could turn to the in depth break down of what is happening in the Deep Shield letters - Oh yes, thats right the deep Shield letters didn't go in depth on the subject.

Again I point out that Deep Shield said to research the compounds as well as the basic substance.

David

halva

10-03-2004, 09:12 PM

Raynolds, Chem 11 has made serious mistakes about me in the past also. You are not going to save yourself by trying to cling to his prestige.

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 09:12 PM

Oh gee, guess what, I found out that Barium hydroxide reacts with other things in the atmosphere:

This carbon dioxide combines with the barium hydroxide to form barium carbonate.

CO2(aq) + Ba(OH)2(aq) BaCO3(s) + H2O(l)

Barium carbonate is more resistant to erosion because it is less soluble than calcium carbonate. For BaCO3 the Ksp is 2 × 10¯9. Furthermore, barium sulfate is even less soluble, with a Ksp of 1 × 10¯10. When barium carbonate on the surface of the treated monument reacts with sulfur dioxide in the air, it forms a layer of barium sulfate which protects the monument.

From Chemical of the Week: http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html

Now that's something, we discovered that there is sulfur dioxide in the air too and it reacts with Barium carbonate to form yet another barium COMPOUND - Barium Sulfate.

Oddly enough when I went in for a x-ray once I was given a liquid which I was told had barium sulfate in it. I won't say where they put that liquid though.

So I think we established pretty well that Barium does react with other substances in the atmosphere, and that it appears to change into strange compounds that react with other chemicals in the atmosphere. Each change lends it new abilities to do strange and wonderful things.

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 09:33 PM

Back to "He said it was emailed"

I gave you my reasons for saying that - I gave you more than enough information. I explained it. I have explained it here and at the other forum.

I explained why I was not willing to say I met with this man. Given the unusual information and the spoken (To me) claim that it was a matter of National Security, I lied about how I came to that information not only to protect my butt but also to protect the butt of the man who gave out that information.

Since on other sites I have made it clear where in California I live, then it is only a matter of deduction to figure out that I did not get this information far from home if I said I met with the man.

And yet again you take things out of context?

Since you just read what you want I will not be tasked in specifying what. After all it never matters what the contect of a thing is in you will twist it to mean what you want it to mean.

Ain't that right - farm boy?

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 09:39 PM

Do date you have called me Fagboy, now you use Queer.

Shall we really discuss this one?

Though I am not to terribly upset about your use of these terms, I have to wonder why it is that you feel you must consistently bring it up?

You have demonstrated that you having something for homosexuality.

You accused others of being fudge packers, and you accused Giacomm's father of being a homosexual and expressing it on Giacomm. (And that is only in this thread)

For a man who is so certain about his take on things you continually rely on the obscenity angle the "shock and Awe" of homosexuality.

So tell us what was your relationship with William Cooper? Was he your gay boy friend that your wife didn't know about? Hm?

David

DvdGStwrt

10-03-2004, 10:18 PM

the peanut gallery is having it's doubts about you, 'deep shield'. And you are getting the attention you always wanted, though not the sort you crave:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&num=1096343621

Yes I see, everybody doubts. So sad. No, not sad, a good thing. The more people doubt the more people will dig, the more they dig they more they learn, the more they learn the closer to the truth they get, the closer tot he truth they get the more willing they will be to do something and move to stop a lot of things that are going on in and with the world.

I don't care if they doubt me. If it leads to them looking for more answers - great! I want people to look for their own answers, not rely upon one source, not to rely upon one person's views (yours or mine) I want people to go out and seek.

I want you to question me in this public forum, I want you to ask the harder questions, I want you to comment on my reponses - Haven't you gotten that yet? I want you to play devil's advocate and demand more answers - I want you to cause people to re-read and think and read again.

I want you to ask questions that test me and test what is said - not so people can get my answers, but so they can seek out THEIR OWN ANSWERS.

I am playing you all that you are worth - hasn't that sunk in yet?

You want people to shut down and close their minds. You want people to believe that yours is the truth. You are the one who continually makes rude comments about people, you are the one who refutes out of hand everything. You are the one who demands answers yet answers not in return.

I am the opposite to you, I am the one who desires people to stay awake and look around. I want people to think for themselves. I want people to look at things in context and to observe the fact that the details were left to them to find.

You want people to go back to sleep, you want people to think YOUR thoughts. You want people to be mislead by your speculations on what has been said. You DO NOT want them to seek out the details.

Why do you insult all the time? Calling others part of the peanut gallery is insulting - especially to one of your supporters who obviously supports you in your believe that I hoax.

Thats really rude dude. Really rude.

Either way I WIN. Even if you convince everyone that I hoaxed, you will have lost because they will have thought for themselves, looked for the answers. That is a win for me - do you understand that?

David

halva

10-03-2004, 11:20 PM

David it is not a win for you if Raynolds convinces people that you hoaxed, and he is not going to.

gaiacomm

10-04-2004, 09:22 AM

JR, can I post Karen's picture here on the internet? She is a beautiful person...I thought we all could see her and wonder!

LOL

jayreynolds

10-04-2004, 10:20 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, over the past several days we have seen David G. Stewart confess to having himself authored the "deep shield' documents. In fact, he has been shown to have committed A TRAIN OF LIES, at least five in all, wherein he posed as a scientist writing in the first person tense, while the facts are that he wrote the entire text himself. He has admitted these lies.

David G. Stewart, though he denied that he had written a hoax document, defined a hoax as an "IMPOSTURE". The definition of imposture is "a person posing as someone else".
By his own definition, he has established that he indeed is guilty of perpetrating A HOAX.

Furthermore, it has been shown that he copied word for word text PLAGIARIZED WORD FOR WORD from an online dictionary in creating his hoax, in order to put out "canned knowledge", because his own knowledge was not impressive enough.

Additionally, he made conclusions that stated barium oxide could be used to affect precipitation and absorb carbon dioxide, claims which were beyond his knowledge to understand, which claims which TURNED OUT TO BE ABSURD when evaluated factually.

This brings us to another matter, that of his claims about ozone.

EXHIBIT 7- On 12/2/2002, Stewart posted the following at CTTUSA:

"Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly bluish gas with a characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a density of 2.144 grams per
liter at standard temperature and pressure. Below its boiling point (-112°C) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting point (-193°C) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, O3, and has a molecular weight of 47.9982 atomic mass units (amu). It is the most chemically active form of oxygen. It is formed in the ozone layer of the stratosphere by the
action of solar ultraviolet light on oxygen. Although it is present in this layer only to an extent of about 10 parts per million, ozone is important because its formation prevents most ultraviolet and other high-energy radiation, which is harmful to life, from penetrating to the earth's surface. Ultraviolet light is absorbed when its strikes an ozone molecule; the molecule is split into atomic and diatomic oxygen: 03+ ultraviolet light ->0+02. Later, in the presence of a catalyst, the atomic and diatomic oxygen reunite to form ozone. Ozone is also formed when an electric discharge passes through air; for example, it is formed by lightning and by some electric motors and generators. Ozone is produced commercially by passing dry air between two concentric-tube or plate electrodes connected to an alternating high voltage; this is called the silent electric discharge method."[/i]

This text, as with previous text regarding barium, was beyond the capability of Stewart to create, therefore he again turned to "canned knowledge", and once again PLAGIARIZED THE TEXT WORD-FOR-WORD from another internet dictionary:

"Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly bluish gas with a characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a density of 2.144 grams per liter at STP. Below its boiling point (-112°C) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting point (-193°C) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, O3, and has a ......"
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/O/ozone.html

Thus, once again, David G. Stewart is found guilty of PLAGIARISM, wherein faced with creating a believable hoax for which he lacked factual knowledge, he was forced to COPY WORD-FOR-WORD from some more "canned knowledge". This knowlege, as before, was too complex for him to understand, yet he seized on part of it to create yet another element of his hoax, the ABSURDITY of which will be described presently.

gaiacomm

10-04-2004, 10:37 AM

JR, I am on my second bag of popcorn! Want some?

LOL

DvdGStwrt

10-04-2004, 12:35 PM

David it is not a win for you if Raynolds convinces people that you hoaxed, and he is not going to.

Havla, I did say convince "everyone" of a hoax. Which is impossible even if it is a hoax there will be true believers. However to convince people it is a hoax Mr. Reynolds will have to do a detailed Q&A or even accusation of the Shield Letters themselves - which he won't.

A detailed public analysis of the Deep Shield letters would cause others to read and research and since more news is always coming out on these issues, they will have no other choice but to stumble onto other information. Yes he may convince people that Deep Shield is a hoax but in the process he will convince people of what is going on in the skies above our heads, about climate change, about a great many things which in the end will do more damage to his side of the argument. This is something that Deep Shield wanted - was for everyone to do their own research and draw their own conclusions on everything.

So again either I win which is to say my side, those who Mr. Reynolds called "Chemmies" will win.

David

halva

10-04-2004, 12:44 PM

All that Raynolds has done is provide you with ammunition.

Everything is down in black and white for you to utilise, if you choose to and are given the opportunity, to help the widow and family of Deep Shield appreciate that they perhaps have a civic duty and a duty to their late partner, father or whatever to emerge from anonymity.

Sometimes it is the historical role of completely reckless individuals such as Raynolds to be the midwives of changes they claim to be trying to resist.

DvdGStwrt

10-04-2004, 01:03 PM

JR, can I post Karen's picture here on the internet? She is a beautiful person...I thought we all could see her and wonder!

LOL

My Dear sir,

Granted Mr Reynolds does not pull the stops when he "debates" however he is entitled to the same respect we all deserve being human beings (Yes he really is a human being). Such as privacy of personal matters for his family.

Karen is an innocent in these matters. Unless more data is revealed which implicates her in these matters, we must assume that she does not know what her husband is doing. The harm that may be done if you did post her picture would be more to her than to Mr. Reynolds.

I can only assume that Mr. Reynolds is protective of his wife and would appreciate that we do not drag her into this. So it is a favor for him (in a round about way) that I ask, however I want to go on the record as being clear that I see Karen as an innocent and I respect her right and privilege to not be used as leverage against Mr Reynolds.

To some extent this covers other data you possess, such as bank records (of joint accounts only), address of residence, medical records (where that information may cause harm to relatives), credit records(of joint responsibility), etc. etc. etc. Where ever such information may potentially harm innocents (Karen, Mr. Reynolds family). I remind everyone that more people than just those concerned in the issues could potentially use any information posted here. Even non-registered individuals can copy and paste and use information for what ever purpose they have.

I do hope you do not see this as a personal attack, it is not a personal attack against anyone. It is a reflection of my morality and ethics and my personal views. All in the interest of fair play.

David

gaiacomm

10-04-2004, 01:29 PM

Dear sir:

I do understand your point of view, however if you take your time and re-review the various posts authored by JR and company you will read the slandor, racial, sexual and other inflammatory remarks made by JR and others like him. By posting a photo of his wife is no crime committed and no intent to cause harm. No more than JR posting without permission the photo of Lance.
All fair play!

gaiacomm

10-04-2004, 01:33 PM

Dear Sir:

I also will kindly remind you that what is public record can be published as long as there is no intent to commit a crime or any other malcious act! That is not my intent. My intent is to have FUN!

jayreynolds

10-04-2004, 02:15 PM

Looks like you've reaped the whirlwind, Wayne.
Thanks a million.
Jay

"
Really, I'm loathe to go back to the origins of the Ba Hypothesis in any attempt to 'discredit' it. A lot of very sincere and intelligent individuals did a lot of very good research that provided a wealth of circumstantial evidence that Ba was a legitimate avenue of inquiry.
Here's what we do know (and furthermore can prove):
1. Barium and carbon black would not and could not create the fulmintating artificial clouds that we are observing.

Once again we are treated to a clever mix of half-truths, direct contradictions and obvious absurdities that follows the Deep Shield formula to the letter.

But, in the end, that's all it amounted to. It all boils down to this, and I've made the point before (and at much greater length), but Barium releases would not create the siganture ultra-persistant fulminating super contrails that we call 'chemtrails' for short (and certainly not the white-out conditions and long-lasting artificial cloud cover that originates from the supertrails.

I find several of Stewart's other assertions to be equally untenable... particularly that bit about thinking 'one or two' people would read his posts at CTTUSA. It was obviously his intent to dissemenate the (mis)information to a wider audience. I've got kind of a hang-up when it comes to people that lie to me.

It's been my experience that people who lie about the 'little things' are more likely to lie about the big things. What I do know is that the Ba information that DS and DS provided is highly unreliable. I do know that they published the claim that people opposed to the geoengineering program are directly responsible for the events of 09\11\01.

I'll take a moment here to see what kind of exploitation you are referring to... but the idea that anyone could somehow discredit 'us' by virtue of association with these absurdities isn't likely, given that the material was rejected out of hand long ago...

Because David Stewart admitted to fabrications doesn't make me a 'supporter' of anyone. It wasn't John Reynolds that exposed these fabrications, either, so how DS got here from there is beyond conjecture. I've never 'supported' the Deep Shield material and I can't think of anyone else besides yourself who is beating this dead horse to an unrecognizable pulp.
I could go on and on, but this an old story that was discounted by the overwhelming majority of people at CTTUSA and everywhere else.

The material was designed to discredit the geoengineering hypothesis and get ppl to dismiss the subject without checking the facts or further investigation. It was, in my opinion, the most clever piece of true disinfomation ever foisted upon the CT community. And it failed.

jayreynolds

10-04-2004, 02:22 PM

Havla, I did say convince "everyone" of a hoax. Which is impossible even if it is a hoax there will be true believers. However to convince people it is a hoax Mr. Reynolds will have to do a detailed Q&A or even accusation of the Shield Letters themselves - which he won't. David

"even if it is a hoax?"

David Stewart, you have fallen far. Yes, indeedee. Perhaps you haven't realized it yet, but all this writing I've been doing is simply arough draft for an upcoming webpage I've been mulling over for two years now. When I'm finished here, it will be ready to format and add graphics, etc.
I'm sure you'll enjoy that........
happy trails,
Jay

DvdGStwrt

10-04-2004, 02:28 PM

Mr. Reynolds. I believe unlike you everyone had read what was said, completely and fully.

But to explain yet again:

As with the barium "copy and paste" the same answer applies to the Ozone Copy and Paste, and the Aluminum Copy and paste. Gee I took notes, not dictation, then I did write the shield letters OFF those notes. When it came to these Technical things, yes I went to the Net and copied and pasted. (again I explain, again you will say "Backpedaling, Waffling")

I also demonstrated that you took things out of context and made them them to sound like something else was said. Even your own science turned on you when did demonstrate that Barium does absorb water and Does absorb Carbon Dioxide.

You even went ahead and demonstrated for us how much barium it would take to remove ALL water vapor in the air mass above one acre of land. You demonstrated that your understanding of meteorology is at least faulty that no rain conditions takes place only if all the water vapor is gone - Which again I point out that this was never stated by deep shield.

No reply to those however.

Let me clarify (Yet again) why I went to resources on particulars like what are barium and ozone and aluminum, I will use an example which is minor, but demonstrates that one word makes all the difference to the meaning of what was said and which should demonstrate my desire to not make the mistake of misinterpreting what he said to me.

When Deep Shield said to me that there will be 2 billion casualties, I made the assumption based upon my definition of the word 'casualties' that 2 billion will die.

I was kind of shocked to hear that 2 billion will die. I said something right then and there and Deep shield corrected me, "I didn't say that 2 billion will die, I said 2 billion causalities"

I did take the time to look it up then, and now I look up that word again, and what do we find:

1 archaic : CHANCE, FORTUNE <losses that befall them by mere casualty -- Sir Walter Raleigh>
2 : serious or fatal accident : DISASTER
3 a : a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action b : a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed : VICTIM <the ex-senator was a casualty of the last election> http://63.240.197.92/cgi-bin/mwdictaj?casualties

What do you know 'casualties' range from death to sickness. Doesn't mean die all the time, it covers a wide range of conditions which if not directly pointed out was suggested in the Shield Letters.

In that instance I took pains to use the word used. I thought that I was the only one who misunderstood what "casualty" means. However years later I discover that I am not the only who misunderstands that one word:

If you are unwilling to name names to expose a wrongdoing of that magnitude, one must ask what price you place on 2 billion lives? http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=143069&postcount=2814

See Mr. Reynolds even you do not have a full understanding of the word "casualty" which has lead to your misunderstanding that there will be a loss of 2 billion lives.

Though I did not relay word for word all of what Deep Shield said, I did include his exact words through out. Where I was able I included copy and paste so as to not mix up terms, scientific notation on fields which are, I freely admit, are beyond my knowledge. Having seen that I could make one minor mistake, I tried to keep from introducing mistakes by getting the information through the Internet.

I am not a reporter I did not take dictation, nor did I even tape record all of the conversations I had with Deep Shield. I have not even reported on all the meetings he and I had. Even in what was said I DID NOT include everything due to my own scribbled notes did not make sense to me.

I haven't reported the last 13 months of meetings and conversations I had with him. Thus from that admission I am a hoaxer I suppose? I didn't even attempt to convey our last big meeting, a year ago August where he and I had the chance to spend a few days talking about the project and other things. I 'reported' a very short take on what was said and what took place Even though he and I spent a great deal of time getting to know one another.

See Mr Reynolds much more took place than you are aware of, you make this assumption that he is a fabrication based upon your ability to reason it out.

I will assume it never crossed your mind a year ago to contemplate the possibilities. Most people would think about it, going down some hypothetical roads:

EXAMPLE: Lets assume that David Stewart did meet with a man who told him all of this stuff.

For what reasons would David have to hide the fact that he met?

1. David is scared of the possibilities and implications of the matter

2. David may have something to lose/gain

3. David knows something he isn't telling.

4. blah blah blah - Meaning that the more one thinks about a "hypothetical" situation we can imagine any number of things - many reasonable, and I can't imagine the unreasonable conclusions.

Other's have sent me emails with speculations on the matter. For instance in one email I was asked if I was being followed by The Men in Black - along with a lengthy speculation that I was abducted by aliens through out my life, that Grays and lizard People are watching me that some how I was related to an alien cover up where deep shield was in reality not talking about climate change mitigation but talking about a project that was poisoning earth to make it habitable for the lizard people.

Which is a clear indication that we can draw many conclusions on what did and did not happen, make out own pet theory based upon what we read in the Deep Sheild letters, can make make many assuptions and explore many roads.

I have tried to answer your "questions" and give you more information. Even though it is obvious that you are not asking questions, that you are making statements which you perceive to be the facts. Some of the points you raised do make valid questions which do require answers and more information. Perhaps not in the way you ask, but I have attempted to over look the less than civil way you ask and answer.

Again I demonstrate that I am more than willing to discuss the matter - you on the other continue to show reluctance to discuss, only accuse.

David

halva

10-04-2004, 02:42 PM

Many on-line friends tell me that all Raynolds is really interested in doing is taking up our time. Grabbing phrases out of context, triumphantly linking to postings on forums which anyone who goes to them will realise are being tendentiously misread, pseudo-gloating over e.g. the exchanges at Megasprayer.

I was replying to him in Chinese and Hebrew before. Should I go back to doing it?

DvdGStwrt

10-04-2004, 03:32 PM

I just got an interesting email Mr. Reynolds:

" think that Mr. Reynolds could make a strong case for his side ...There is no doubt in my mind that he has spent a great deal of time researching the subject. I also think he has a strong opinion which could be voiced in different tones and which may (or may not) guide both sides of the argument (debate, whatever) to seek out better understanding of the issues and get a better look at their own side."

Why are you defending him? Hes your enmy!

What reply should I send to this email Mr. Reynolds? Are you my enemy?

Am I even defending you?

David

For the record no I didn't post the whole email - there was more said than this - speculation about you which I do not feel is appropriate to spread about the net.

gaiacomm

10-04-2004, 04:03 PM

Ping Pong seems to be the game on this forum!

I am on bag 3 of popcorn!

David:

You were doing so well....Wayne where are you? HELP!

halva

10-04-2004, 08:19 PM

jayreynolds

10-05-2004, 04:48 AM

Q-I would really like to see you giving some more backup to your 'barium and aluminium as red herring' thesis because I can't understand it, and I suspect that many others here can't either.

A-Really, I'm loathe to go back to the origins of the Ba Hypothesis in any attempt to 'discredit' it. A lot of very sincere and intelligent individuals did a lot of very good research that provided a wealth of circumstantial evidence that Ba was a legitimate avenue of inquiry.
It's a fairly complex topic and it could easily take another five years to debunk (and I mean this in the original and true sense of the word) the barium myth.

But, in the end, that's all it amounted to. It all boils down to this, and I've made the point before (and at much greater length), but Barium releases would not create the siganture ultra-persistant fulminating super contrails that we call 'chemtrails' for short (and certainly not the white-out conditions and long-lasting artificial cloud cover that originates from the supertrails.

An increase in the sulfate levels of jet fuel would, and does. Said increase has been documented on this forum and it is this increase that geo-engineers specifically discussed prior to the apperance of the super contrails (find me a reference to Barium being used to create artificial cloud cover to combat global warming, and then documents it's dramatic increase in emissons from jet aircraft and we'll talk)."
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&num=1094017218
Hey, Wayne, let's put chem11 to the test on his claim that "chemtrails" are caused by an "increase in sulfate levels of jet fuel".
I say his claim is bullshit, and so does science. Nevertheless, what you haven't asked chem11 is WHY he is so sure an elemental substance like barium/aluminum cannot be involved.
He knows, I know, and you have been told, but it's time to put the cards on the table.

Let me warn you, however, his ace in the hole is a joker card.

Think about it. Think real hard, bubby.........

halva

10-05-2004, 05:03 AM

jayreynolds

10-05-2004, 05:18 AM

Raynolds, given that Lance Haubrick is Gaiacomm, how would you account for the discrepancy between Mark D.'s memory of Dr. Judah Ben Hur (identifying himself as Gaiacomm) on the telephone and my memory of Lance Haubrick?

Do you really think it is so hard to fool two simpletons over the phone?
Wayne, I already told you how I know that Lance Haubrick is giacomm. The Bureau of Indian Affairs internet security department told me.

Get over it and address the real issue as to why chem11 knows what he knows and now actively debunks the barium/aluminum "myth".

gaiacomm

10-05-2004, 05:50 AM

Do you really think it is so hard to fool two simpletons over the phone?
Wayne, I already told you how I know that Lance Haubrick is giacomm. The Bureau of Indian Affairs internet security department told me.

Get over it and address the real issue as to why chem11 knows what he knows and now actively debunks the barium/aluminum "myth".

JR, Prove it!

LOL

halva

10-05-2004, 10:54 AM

DvdGStwrt

10-05-2004, 11:21 AM

Yes EXACTLY! Aluminum or Barium or sulfates, or nitrates, or anything by itself in its elemental form being by itself does not make sense.

Due to the questions being put forth singling out one part of the mixture. Which I remind everyone here Deep Shield was asked:

3. What other military programs are in place involving the spraying of barium and what are their purposes? Do you know and understand the chemical make up of the element?

Based on this question everyone assume that Barium is the only element being used. That is not what deep shield said.

Even with my "copy and paste" from another web site on what barium is, what it does. That was to answer the question as given to Deep Shield. (His answer to the question was far longer than just a simple copy and paste BTW)

Then it would appear the Barium is the only thing in the the spray. Having established in our conversation that Barium was a concern, Deep Shield focused on that and carried it forth.

6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought?

the reply was:

Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in these areas, sometimes to dangerous levels. The shield must be maintained. Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of sprays are in development and testing which may reduce the affects on precipitation. As I stated above, this is a new technology we are working with, it is still in its infancy and there are some problems with it.

Which would appear to mean that barium ONLY is used. However this is not the case now is it? That is not what was said - He even added that OTHER KINDS OF SPRAYS are in development.

Though the focus of the Question was why before storm fronts, was it to cause drought. Deep Shield's focus is clear, to underline the need to maintain the "Shield" Not that anyone cares, because after all BARIUM was mentioned thus Barium is the Focus of the Question, and everything else takes a back seat to the the answer as being unimportant.

Again some attempt to base a whole science on one sentence which was attempting to answer a far different question than what everyone has been trying to make it out to be. No one asked for details, no one asked for a Chemical analysis, NO ONE ASKED WHAT IS EXACTLY IN THE SPRAY.

A whole bunch of people have spent a great deal of time chasing their own red herrings based upon what they perceive was said. Instead of Asking questions to clarify (why no one asked questions is beyond me) When they had the chance to get answers, they theorize, philosophize and make a science based on the smallest amounts of data given.

N. I would strongly recommend researching the reactions of different barium and aluminum compounds and how they are used. Research how long it takes for these metals in pure form to oxidize, how they combine with nitrates, carbon monoxide carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons and hydrocarbons and water vapor.

Now Who here has researched all of those? Hm - Anyone some one - ALL THE COMPOUNDS?

I am willing to wager that no is the answer.

This is important to note, the only real history we have with barium/aluminum/titanium etc. contamination is through factory workers, miners, etc, who receive a far greater dosage of the material than what is to be experienced by the populace under the Shield.

Wait Titanium? Could that mean that there is more to this that what was covered? What exactly is etc (etcetera) in this sense?

And I also point out these:

Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium, etc. Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an absorber of gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect X amount of heat and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable (nominal) levels of UV and heat reaching the planet's surface.

Again Titanium and Etc.

You all are the ones who made Barium the focus of your sciences - You all are the ones who didn't ask the rights questions.

As I have attempted to demonstrate with Mr. Reynolds here:

1. Questions are not asked, even when they are asked they are in ways which is subjective and open to interpretation. In Example: I answered Mr. Reynolds Deadly Questions: In the way he asked them. However to the observer we know that Mr. Reynolds was asking something different that the answers he got. This is why He DOES NOT desire to talk about my answers.

2. Taking things out of Context: Again I point that much was taken out of Context.

3. Failure to ask follow up questions, Failure to seek clarifications. When In doubt of the answer, ask again. I showed how the answer changes when you pin point and ask clarification.

After All When put to the question Mr. Reynolds demonstrated that:

First answer: "Historical data shows no radical increase of UV radiation, as alleged in your "deep shield" hoax. "

When asked for clarification Mr Reynolds changed his answer: " I have not found any data supporting radical increases in UV levels"

He clarified what he meant - He didn't really lie as I made it out to be. I know that, you know that.

In the end many people want to make the Shield Letters uphold their particular slant on things, they read into it much more than was said, they try to base a whole science on it. They failed to ask the questions. They failed to take the time to ask for clarification.

jayreynolds

10-05-2004, 02:00 PM

You failed in your hoax, David. The deep shield hoax is dead.
Put a fork in it.
Nobody but fools and idiots believe you anymore.

gaiacomm

10-05-2004, 02:04 PM

OK JR now that said, lets have fun with who gaiacomm is! You go first and last!

LOL

halva

10-05-2004, 02:11 PM

gaiacomm

10-05-2004, 02:14 PM

According to the article from Frost and Sullivan there is no mention of a Lance reciving the WIMAX award but there is a Dr. Judah Ben-Hur that did! Two different people at two diffferent places at different times. JR now is the time for you to leave gracefully because soon there will be published photos of the event and what I have seen does not look like the photo you used on Lance.

Its funny the chemtrails tried to rid themselves of you and this simple gaiacomm will be what discredits you!

JR, leave this place and go in peace!

gaiacomm

10-05-2004, 02:17 PM

JR you did such a fine job on tracking Lance so why not the same for the DR?

All of the info is on the net!

You did such a fine job on chemtrails but you just cannot do the DR. That is because you stepped in a bucket of poop!

Wayne, you win!

halva

10-05-2004, 02:32 PM

Dust storms on the rise globally

17:48 20 August 04

NewScientist.com news service

Dust storms are increasing globally with far-reaching consequences for the environment and human health, scientists are warning.

Up to three billion tonnes of dust is blown around the world annually, says Andrew Goudie at the University of Oxford, UK. Dust storms originating in Saharan Africa have increased ten-fold over the past 50 years, threatening human health and coral reefs thousands of miles away, and contributing to climate change, he warns.

The problem is far worse than previously believed, he says after studying 50-years-worth of global satellite imagery.

A major cause, he says, is the increasing use of four-wheel drive vehicles to replace camels to cross the deserts. “Toyota-isation” – a term Goudie coined to describe the constant desert journeys made by Toyota Land Cruisers – is scarring the desert’s protective surface layer, releasing dust into passing winds. “If I had my way, I would ban them from driving off-road,” he said.

“The desert surfaces have been stable for thousands of years because they usually have a thin layer of lichen or algae, or gravel from which the fine sand has blown away. Once these surfaces are breached you get down to the fine sand again, which can be picked up by the wind,” Goudie explains.

Valley fever

Deforestation, overgrazing, and the shrinking of lakes, such as Lake Chad and the Aral Sea, have also contributed to the problem. Dust storms, measuring an average 200 kilometres across and carrying up to 100 tonnes of dust, are carried as far away as Greenland or the US by winds at the base of storms.

The effects have been wide-ranging - coral reefs 3000 km away in the Caribbean have been destroyed by Saharan dust. Ice caps in Greenland are melting, causing raised sea levels, because the dark dust deposited there absorbs heat from the sun rather than reflecting it in the way pure ice does.

And a respiratory disease called valley fever – caused by an allergic reaction to pesticides carried in African dust – kills several people in the US each year.

Pesticide and herbicide toxins, disease-causing microbes and salt emitted from the dried-up beds of a salt lake or sea are already being carried in dust storms thousands of miles across international boundaries, causing disease, pollution and soil salination, Goudie warns.

Radioactive particles
And more worrying consequences may lie ahead – despite tree-planting and other control measures, dust storms continue to churn from deserts in the north of China, including the Lupnor nuclear test site, potentially carrying radioactive particles across Beijing and beyond.

Dust storms will increasingly effect climate change, although experts are unsure exactly how. Airborne dust reflects sunlight back, while also insulating the earth’s heat.

In a vicious cycle, particles landing in the seas encourage plankton growth, which absorb carbon dioxide – a major greenhouse gas – and so cool the ocean surface. This leads to fewer clouds and less rain – the perfect conditions for creating more dust storms.

The study was presented at the International Geographic Congress in Glasgow, UK, on Thursday.

Gaia Vince

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996306

DvdGStwrt

10-05-2004, 02:39 PM

You failed in your hoax, David. The deep shield hoax is dead.
Put a fork in it.
Nobody but fools and idiots believe you anymore.

You still don't get it do you?

You are like the UFO nut who interpreted everything in the shield letters as being "proof" that aliens have taken over the governments of earth and are actively changing the atmosphere for their biology. :rolleyes:

So wrapped up in your pet theory, that you are never going to be able to discuss the issue, ask questions, and learn more. Lord Forbid if a question may lead to an answer you do not like - After all YOUR tack on the matter is the only valid explanation of the world and all we see.

So blinded by conviction that you never asked one question. You jumped to a conclusion and have stuck to it without a second thought.

Had you but asked...

But you didn't.

David

halva

10-05-2004, 02:49 PM

David, one place this discussion could be adjourned to would be

http://radarmatrix.proboards29.com/index.cgi

The moderator there liked Gaiacomm and took him seriously some months ago when he was posting here. Who knows, he might even let him join the forum.

I could just continue posting news items here at Arianna's on climate change (It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature).

Perhaps there could be some discussion of the barium vs sulphates issue without noise from Raynolds.

Doubtless he would continue noisemaking here in response to what he reads at the other forums. But we wouldn't have to read what he writes.

gaiacomm

10-05-2004, 03:02 PM

DvdGStwrt

10-05-2004, 06:59 PM

Azerelus

10-05-2004, 08:21 PM

Dave:

"2. The global hydrological cycle, i.e., the precipitation and evaporation of water in the atmosphere. Extreme precipitation events, both flood-producing rains and prolonged drought, may result from an intensification of the cycle, in which water vapor plays a key role. "

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991004140317.htm

FYI, of course.

More links for you. Nice reading, nothng special:
http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/warming031604.htm

""The interaction between clouds and aerosols is critical for understanding climate change," says NCAR's Mahowald. Clouds play a pivotal role in reflecting and absorbing the Sun's rays, as well as radiation emitted from Earth's surface. The dust and cloud interplay also helps explain rainfall patterns over the Sahara Desert and areas to the south. "

Deals with African Dust and its effects: link: http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/2003/dust.html

"In low clouds, such as cumulus and stratocumulus, near the Sahara Desert, water attaches to dust particles. Higher dust concentrations can suppress rainfall and enhance drought conditions by dispersing water among many dust particles. This prevents the droplets from becoming heavy enough to fall, resulting in more thin, low clouds and less rain. " (from same source)

Not Barium. But dust. Please read full article(s) before reply.

halva

10-05-2004, 09:00 PM

Azerelus, if David and Gaiacomm have both gone (come) to radarmatrix, perhaps the thing to do would be for you to do the same.

Azerelus

10-05-2004, 09:38 PM

Dave: What comments do you have for this: http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/gkss.html

Azerelus

10-05-2004, 09:40 PM

Azerelus, if David and Gaiacomm have both gone (come) to radarmatrix, perhaps the thing to do would be for you to do the same.

I see.

jayreynolds

10-06-2004, 03:25 AM

Wayne, something significant must have happened on this thread, to make you guys run two pages of spam to cover it all up.

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&num=1096343621&action=display&start=15

==========================
Was it this quote by the barium debunker chem11?

Originally Posted by chem11

Q-I would really like to see you giving some more backup to your 'barium and aluminium as red herring' thesis because I can't understand it, and I suspect that many others here can't either.

A-Really, I'm loathe to go back to the origins of the Ba Hypothesis in any attempt to 'discredit' it. A lot of very sincere and intelligent individuals did a lot of very good research that provided a wealth of circumstantial evidence that Ba was a legitimate avenue of inquiry.
It's a fairly complex topic and it could easily take another five years to debunk (and I mean this in the original and true sense of the word) the barium myth.

But, in the end, that's all it amounted to. It all boils down to this, and I've made the point before (and at much greater length), but Barium releases would not create the siganture ultra-persistant fulminating super contrails that we call 'chemtrails' for short (and certainly not the white-out conditions and long-lasting artificial cloud cover that originates from the supertrails.

An increase in the sulfate levels of jet fuel would, and does. Said increase has been documented on this forum and it is this increase that geo-engineers specifically discussed prior to the apperance of the super contrails (find me a reference to Barium being used to create artificial cloud cover to combat global warming, and then documents it's dramatic increase in emissons from jet aircraft and we'll talk)."
==================================================
Was it my suggestion that you actually go and ask chem11 WHY HE KNOWS IT'S NOT BARIUM?
=================================================
Or was it the revelation that the Bureau of Indian Affairs internet security chief told me that the hacking threats madeby 'gaiacomm' were coming from Lance Haubrick?
================================================
Whichever of the above is the case, for you guys to cut and run like this, leaving a pile of spam in your wake, it must have been devastating.
happy trails!

halva

10-06-2004, 06:14 AM

It's quite simple. I (and I expect the others) are just sick to death of you and the way that you try to obstruct us from finding out the things we want to find out.

You generate noise.

Listen to it on your own.

Azerelus

10-06-2004, 11:01 AM

Jay.

You have an unhealthy obsession with the subject. You continue to use profanity, bigoted remarks, personal attack, reposting of the same concept endlessly. You fail time and time again to enter into true dialog. When you have a person that all but begs to discuss the matter you continued to single mindedly attack them.

I left 8 months ago in March because your obsessions on the subject are, in my opinion, sociopathic and narcissistic which require professional attention.

Your failure to see your behaviors as being anything but healthy is also a sign that you need real professional help.

Skeptics such as myself want as much distance between you and ourselves because you are a detriment to our case. There is no wonder or surprise that the other side wants to be far removed from you in these matters.

halva

10-06-2004, 12:42 PM

There is an additional aspect.

A similar element in all three cases of myself, Gaiacomm and David Stewart is that there is an accusation.

Gaiacomm is accused of being not Dr Judah Ben Hur of the Gaiacomm wireless communication company, as claimed, but Lance Haubrick, an employee on an Indian reservation.

David Stewart is accused of having concocted the 'Deep Shield' letters on his own.

I am accused of having conspired with Will Thomas to palm off on the public a fake photomontage of a chemtrailing aircraft, originally published in the Greek Ethnos newspaper and devised at the inspiration of junior staff in that newspaper's photographic department.

These accusations from Raynolds amount to a claim to know the realities of the private situation of each of the abovementioned three persons better than the person himself.

They therefore amount to a declaration of war.

When taken in combination with the posture of the would-be enlightener, who unlike his opposite party is not deluded on the subject of 'contrails' vs 'chemtrails' and is in general much better informed on the relevant scientific facts, the signals emitted are contradictory.

On the one hand the aggressive enemy, on the other hand the would-be friend and enlightener.

For anyone with such a weak mind that he takes the signals seriously and does not simply dismiss as unworthy of attention the person emitting them, the result is cognitive dissonance.

The deliberate generation of cognitive dissonance is familiar through history as a technique of domination and political subordination.

Who is Raynolds that a person should consent of his/her own free will to enter into any kind of assocation with him on these terms?

It happens that I, for my own reasons, do not intend to abandon this thread.

But on the other hand, neither do I intend to engage in any substantial discussion in it with a person whose permanent reflex is to insist with manic determination in imposing these terms of 'debate'.

The barium vs sulphates or whatever discussion is something I wanted to see conducted somewhere.

But that somewhere is not any place to which Raynolds has access.

halva

10-06-2004, 01:10 PM

Bush still denies global warming, despite own report

Providence Journal editorial

In August, a little-noticed report from the Bush administration conceded that rising temperatures in North America during the latter 20th century were probably due, in part, to human activity. It is a huge concession for a White House that has long insisted that the causes of global warming remain unclear.

Unfortunately, John Marburger, Bush’s science adviser, said the report had “no implications” for the administration’s approach to global warming. Only a few scientists still doubt the reality of global warming; most of these are on the oil, coal and gas industries’ payrolls. The consensus blames greenhouse gases for changes in the Earth’s climate. Our nation emits more than its share of these gases, through cars, power plants and industrial activities.

Does this administration take global warming seriously, or contemplate making any real reductions in emissions? Will there be simply empty calls for more research?

Early in Bush’s tenure, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that most warming over the past half-century was due to human activity. A panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences echoed that conclusion. Now, even in the face of its own reports, the White House remains in denial about this profound threat

gaiacomm

10-06-2004, 01:37 PM

Wayne, with all do respect, it seems that the CAB people do not wish me to post on that forum, so I tried and I failed. No loss just gain! So I come back here and watch!

jayreynolds

10-06-2004, 02:05 PM

Wayne Hall has reached a turning point. His pet 'theory', based solely on a hoax created totally by the hand of David G. Stewart, is being actively debunked among members of the megasprayer forum, and he is definitely experiencing cognitive dissonance. However, the conflict in his mind isn't due to any commentary by me, he has only his fellow chemmies to blame. THEY are the ones debunking the 'deep shield' hoax, THEY are the ones rubbishing the absurd claims about barium, and THEY are the ones who see David G. Stewart for what he really is, a liar, and his hoax creation for what it really is.

Faced with the facts, an ordinary person would experience an epiphany and be forced to reassess his long-held belief, but Wayne isn't honest enough, not even to himself, to recognize that more and more, he and his cronies are becoming isolated.

This result is not unexpected to me. I have seen it before.

The self-imposed isolation he now seeks is a wasted effort, however. What he seeks is an illusion, and portends the literal death of any claim he may have as an 'activist'. The rest, well that is for history to decide.

That said, he still hasn't faced up to asking, and telling, exactly WHY chem11 has become an active debunker of the barium portion of the hoax, and part of the blame COULD be placed on chem11, since he has already stated he is "loathe to go back to the origins of the Ba Hypothesis in any attempt to 'discredit' it.".

But don't think I'm going to let this issue die, Wayne. I'm holding both your and Chemmii's feet to the fire, just like I did with the ten questions. Stand by for the flames, bubby.

Wayne, something significant must have happened on this thread, to make you guys run two pages of spam to cover it all up.

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&num=1096343621&action=display&start=15

==========================
Was it this quote by the barium debunker chem11?
[Quote=chem11]Q-I would really like to see you giving some more backup to your 'barium and aluminium as red herring' thesis because I can't understand it, and I suspect that many others here can't either.

A-Really, I'm loathe to go back to the origins of the Ba Hypothesis in any attempt to 'discredit' it. A lot of very sincere and intelligent individuals did a lot of very good research that provided a wealth of circumstantial evidence that Ba was a legitimate avenue of inquiry.
It's a fairly complex topic and it could easily take another five years to debunk (and I mean this in the original and true sense of the word) the barium myth.

But, in the end, that's all it amounted to. It all boils down to this, and I've made the point before (and at much greater length), but Barium releases would not create the siganture ultra-persistant fulminating super contrails that we call 'chemtrails' for short (and certainly not the white-out conditions and long-lasting artificial cloud cover that originates from the supertrails.

An increase in the sulfate levels of jet fuel would, and does. Said increase has been documented on this forum and it is this increase that geo-engineers specifically discussed prior to the apperance of the super contrails (find me a reference to Barium being used to create artificial cloud cover to combat global warming, and then documents it's dramatic increase in emissons from jet aircraft and we'll talk)."[/quote

Come on, out with it. Your fellow chemmies need to know exactly how they've been snookered, and who is to blame.

jayreynolds

10-06-2004, 02:24 PM

Ok, let's see the dirty laundry. Get the whole thing out in the open and down to brass tacks.
Once and for all. Lay blame where it deserves to be laid, and put this whole barium hoax episode to rest.
It has been festering for a long time chemmies, and many of you know exactly what I'm talking about. I hope your people don't buy into Stewart's "I'm such a sad victim" routine.

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&num=1096343621&start=30

For starters, and Deborah and 'sore throat' know all of this but have kept quiet for years, here is the history of the barium hoax from the very beginning. I note they never have disputed any of it.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65678#65678

halva

10-06-2004, 03:00 PM

Wayne, with all do respect, it seems that the CAB people do not wish me to post on that forum, so I tried and I failed. No loss just gain! So I come back here and watch!

Gaiacomm there is not going to be anything to watch. Not from me, anyway. I thought that CAB might provide an alternative venue to which you could be admitted, but this turns out not to be so.

And at this forum all that I am going to do is post informational material on climate change.

The victory that Raynolds could and should be boasting of is his victory over the moderator of CAB, who has been disoriented from his experiences of the last months, following a triumph at CTC and a subsequent setback here.

gaiacomm

10-06-2004, 07:43 PM

Wayne:

I understand. It makes no difference now. I am busy with Gaiacomm. JR has already lost the lance/gaiacomm saga and he will lose to chemtrails soon! You have done a fine job in your defence!

halva

10-06-2004, 08:51 PM

By the way, I retract the statement about even the stance of the CAB moderator representing a victory for Raynolds.

He could have good reasons for wanting to keep his board a quiet repository rather than having responsibility for overseeing discussion.

halva

10-07-2004, 03:33 AM

Peak Oil is also dealt with in Michael Ruppert's book 'Crossing the Rubicon', now out.

WH
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction: Planet under pressure
Planet under pressure is a six-part BBC News Online series looking at some of the most pressing environmental issues facing the human race today.

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

We are a successful breed. Our advance from our hominid origins has brought us near-dominance of the world, and a rapidly accelerating understanding of it.
Scientists now say we are in a new stage of the Earth's history, the Anthropocene Epoch, when we ourselves have become the globe's principal force.

But several eminent scientists are concerned that we have become too successful - that the unprecedented human pressure on the Earth's ecosystems threatens our future as a species.

We confront problems more intractable than any previous generation, some of them at the moment apparently insoluble.

BBC News Online's Planet under Pressure series takes a detailed look at six areas where most experts agree that a crisis is brewing:

Food: An estimated 1 in 6 people suffer from hunger and malnutrition while attempts to grow food are damaging swathes of productive land.

Water: By 2025, two-thirds of the world's people are likely to be living in areas of acute water stress.

Energy: Oil production could peak and supplies start to decline by 2010

Climate change: The world's greatest environmental challenge, according to the UK prime minister Tony Blair, with increased storms, floods, drought and species losses predicted.

Biodiversity: Many scientists think the Earth is now entering its sixth great extinction phase.

Pollution: Hazardous chemicals are now found in the bodies of all new-born babies, and an estimated one in four people worldwide are exposed to unhealthy concentrations of air pollutants.
All six problems are linked and urgent, so a list of priorities is little help.

It is pointless to preserve species and habitats, for example, if climate change will destroy them anyway, or to develop novel crops if the water they need is not there.

And underlying all these pressures is a seventh - human population.
There are already more than six billion of us, and on present trends the UN says we shall probably number about 8.9 billion by 2050.

Population growth means something else, too: although the proportion of people living in poverty is continuing to fall, the absolute number goes on rising, because fecundity outstrips our efforts to improve their lives.

Poverty matters because it leaves many people no choice but to exploit the environment, and it fuels frustration.

Above all, it condemns them to stunted lives and early deaths - both avoidable.

Difficult dilemmas

Planet under pressure is more about questions than answers. What sort of lifestyle can the Earth sustain?

How many of us can live at northern consumption levels, and what level should everyone else be expected to settle for?
How can we expect poor people to respect the environment when they need to use it to survive?

Are eco-friendly lives a luxury for the rich or a necessity for everyone?

And how can we act when sizeable and sincere parts of society say we are already overcoming the problems, not being overwhelmed by them?

Species survival

As many see it, we are not doing too badly.

More people are living healthier and longer lives. For increasing numbers, the future offers living standards undreamt of even a generation ago.

But we do have to think through the implications of our success and to realise its weaknesses.

Living within the planet's means need not condemn us to giving up what we now assume we need for a full life, just to sharing it.
The challenge we face is not about feeling guilty for our consumption or virtuous for being "green" - it is about the growing recognition that, as the human race, we stand or fall together.

Ingenuity and technology continue to offer hope of a better world. But they can promise only so much.

You do not need ingenuity and technology to save the roughly 30,000 under-fives who die daily from hunger or easily preventable diseases.

And facing up to the planet's pressure points is about their survival, and ours.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3686106.stm

Published: 2004/10/01 14:00:33 GMT

foot_soldier

10-07-2004, 01:14 PM

October 7, 2004
Warming signs: thinner glaciers and saltier oceans
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1007/p14s01-cogn.html

October 7, 2004
Exxon admits greenhouse gas increase
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1321223,00.html

ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, has been increasing its greenhouse gas emissions after supporting George Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty.
The Texan oil firm, which is facing a consumer boycott in Europe over its stance on climate change, is now producing more than twice the CO2 pollution of a country such as Norway.

Exxon, which sells petrol under the Esso banner, saw its greenhouse gas emissions jump 2% last year to 135.6m tonnes, according to new figures verified by the company.

And last night an Exxon spokesman admitted that the company had no targets for reductions in CO2 emissions although he insisted that it was working hard on "energy efficiency" gains.

"We are taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases, but we are a major producer of energy that society wants and you need [to burn] energy to produce oil and gas," he said.

( ... )

Exxon's worsening greenhouse gas record is partly due to increased flaring of gas in Nigeria. Flaring occurs when natural gas is brought out of the ground alongside oil, but is just burned off straight into the atmosphere.

The company admits that nearly 600m cubic feet of gas was burned off worldwide in 2003 compared with less than 450m in 2002.

Exxon says it will start to eliminate flaring from 2006, which it says is ahead of the latest Nigerian government targets.

The deteriorating environmental performance by Exxon is "highly dangerous", according to the Climate Justice Programme, a group of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and lawyers supporting court action against polluters.

It points out that the first legal case brought in the US by eight local states against five power companies started this summer. The action in Manhattan calls on the firms to cut emissions because of their harmful impact on the planet.

Peter Roderick, director of the Climate Justice Programme, said the flaring of gas in Nigeria by Exxon was particularly "outrageous" given the first attempts to outlaw it started in 1969.

"Flaring [in Nigeria] is the biggest source of greenhouse gas production in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a breach of human rights and something that is not allowed in this country," he explained.

Azerelus

10-07-2004, 05:14 PM

I hope your people don't buy into Stewart's "I'm such a sad victim" routine.

Verifies his claim of being misunderstood.

Azerelus

10-07-2004, 05:19 PM

I have no doubt that there is a hoax there, Jay.

I have to wonder if Dave was not a victim of someone else's hoaxing on him. From what I have seen of other posts of his (googled) I get the impression that Dave is wet behind the ears on the web.

He talks too readily about himself in many ways which suggests he is unaware of just how cruel people are on the web. Naive may be the right word.

foot_soldier

10-07-2004, 06:53 PM

September 28, 2004
Plans to Bury Greenhouse Gases a Fantasy - Report
http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25631

CANBERRA, Sep 28 (IPS) - A report by leading energy consultants has dismissed plans by the Australian government to promote the burying of greenhouse gases as the solution to climate change and has labelled the idea as an expensive and technologically uncertain strategy.

''Carbon capture and storage (CCS) power station technology systems are not yet operating on a commercial scale anywhere in the world,'' points out the report, written by a team headed by respected energy policy analyst Hugh Saddler.

The report 'Geosequestration: What is it and how much can it contribute to a sustainable energy policy for Australia?' was published by the Canberra-based think tank, the Australia Institute.

In mid-2003 the Australian government established a Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies with a budget of 153 million U.S. dollars for seven years - to investigate options for carbon capture.

''The producers of fossil fuels have much to gain if capture and storage technologies can provide a more sustainable future for fossil fuels in Australia and internationally,'' explains the centre, known as CO2CRC, in a background document.

More recently the Australian government hosted 300 delegates at a major international meeting of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) in Melbourne in mid-September, including representatives from the United States, China and Russia to explore the possibilities of the technology.

Australian Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Ian Macfarlane stated at the time that the conference was an ''opportunity for Australia to learn and present its credentials to become a significant player in the development of carbon sequestration techniques.''

While the Australian government's approach has the support of the coal industry and energy supply companies, Saddler argues that CCS will be much more expensive than new renewable power supply options such as gas fired power stations or wind power - or increasing the efficiency of energy use.

''All these technologies are far more mature than CCS; they are proven, already in widespread commercial use, but also, particularly in the case of wind, likely to fall considerably in cost over time as further experience with the technologies is gained,'' warn the report's authors.

The Kyoto Protocol obliges industrialised countries to cut greenhouse emissions by 6 percent from the level in 1990.

But Prime Minister John Howard simultaneously argues that ratifying Kyoto would be too damaging to the Australian economy and bad for business.

With approximately 80 percent of Australia's electricity being derived from coal-fired power stations and accounting for just over one third of the nations total greenhouse gas emissions, the powerful coal, aluminium and power generation industries vehemently oppose the ratification of the Kyoto Convention on Climate Change.

In a bid to defuse critics, Howard is on record saying that larger cuts of greenhouse gases than mandated under the convention are necessary.

On current projections Australian emissions, by 2009, are set to exceed the Kyoto agreement level by more than eight percent than in the 1990 baseline year.

Saddler sees little prospect that even if geosequestration proved technically and economically viable that it could have any impact on the level of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions before 2020..... (continued)

foot_soldier

10-07-2004, 06:57 PM

September 28, 2004
'Greenhouse' Gas Rising Over Antarctica
http://www.newsday.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-japan-antactic-carbon-dioxide,0,2859938.story?coll=sns-ap-science-headlines

TOKYO -- A group of Japanese researchers has found that carbon dioxide levels over the Antarctica rose by over 2.6 percent from six years ago -- the first such detection of an increase in a "greenhouse" gas above the southern continent, group members said Tuesday.

Many scientists fear carbon dioxide, produced by burning fossil fuels and other industrial processes, may be causing global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

Takashi Yamanouchi, a professor at the National Institute of Polar Research, said carbon dioxide from populated continents was apparently making its way down to the atmosphere above Antartica.

"Everywhere on earth is now being polluted by carbon dioxide," Yamanouchi said. "That may be contributing to the expansion of global warming although we must check whether temperatures in the atmosphere are in fact rising,"

Antarctica, with well-preserved ice averaging 6,000 feet thick, is one of the few places where scientists can examine climate change over time because chemicals from the air have been frozen in layers of ice year after year for centuries. Air above Antarctica should be among the cleanest on earth.

To date, researchers in countries including Japan and the United States had confirmed that the density of carbon dioxide on Antactica's ground had increased but hadn't proved the same for the atmosphere, he said.

Yamanouchi's team sent a balloon with a monitoring device 9 to 19 miles into the air above Japan's research base in Antarctica in January to collect data.

It showed the atmosphere had an average 367.9 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up 9.4 ppm, or 2.6 percent, from levels in a similar survey conducted in 1998, Yamanouchi said.

About 60 Japanese scientists currently stationed at Japan's Showa Base are studying ozone holes, sea life and world climate and weather patterns. More than a dozen other countries, including the United States and Russia, have scientific teams working there. END

foot_soldier

10-07-2004, 07:04 PM

September 28, 2004
Scientists Begin a Campaign To Oppose President's Policies
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/campaign/28policy.html?ex=1097377684&ei=1&en=59b0c42d2f5b7be8

While Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and other rock stars sing on a "Vote for Change" concert tour, another disgruntled group - this one of scientists - will crisscross the well-worn landscape of battleground states over the next month, giving lectures that will argue that the Bush administration has ignored and misused science.

The group, Scientists and Engineers for Change, another addition to the flood of so-called 527 advocacy groups that have filled this year's election discourse, announced its existence and plans yesterday in a telephone news conference. At least 25 scientists will give talks in 10 contested states: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Among the headlining lecturers are 10 Nobel Prize winners, including Dr. Douglas D. Osheroff, a professor of physics at Stanford; Dr. Peter C. Agre, a professor of biological chemistry at Johns Hopkins; and Dr. Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health.

Compared with more prominent 527's, like MoveOn PAC and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the scientists' group will operate on a modest budget of $100,000, which will mainly pay for lecturers' travel expenses.

The group has no direct ties to the campaign of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, but 9 members were among 48 Nobel laureates who signed a June 21 letter endorsing Mr. Kerry. Several of the scientists have also signed a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists that accuses the Bush administration of manipulating scientific findings to support its policies. The union opposes the administration on numerous issues, including the environment and energy.

At the news conference, Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, one of the architects of the Internet in the 1960's and 1970's and current chairman of Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said, "Science counts, and it has not counted sufficiently in this administration."

Dr. Cerf said he was a registered Republican, but that he joined the group "in the hope that we bring debate, science and technology, into the political debate so that the electorate understands the importance that it has in our society."

Dr. Cerf said the United States was "at risk of losing the edge" in technology because the Bush administration was cutting basic research budgets at the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, disputed that opinion. "I don't know where their accounting is coming from," Mr. Hopkins said. "The president has been a strong and generous supporter of science, increasing federal R&D budgets 44 percent to a record $132 billion."

The administration's policies on energy and global warming prompted Dr. Osheroff to take part. "I am not a Democrat and I have never played a significant role in politics," he said. "We must begin to address climate change now. To do so, we must have an administration that listens to the scientific community, not one that manipulates and minimizes scientific input."

Dr. Osheroff, who is scheduled to give the first lecture tonight at the University of Oregon, said he did not plan to explicitly urge his audience to vote for Mr. Kerry.

"At the end of my talk,'' he said, "I think people hopefully will be convinced that this administration is not doing an adequate job, that they're just not listening to scientists on these issues, that it's basically business as usual. I think people can decide how important that issue is, by themselves."

Dr. Cerf interjected: "Well, actually, Doug, let's be honest about this. The name of this group is Scientists and Engineers for Change. Now, what do you imagine we want to change?" END

halva

10-08-2004, 03:35 AM

Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: 2004-10-08
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041007064320.htm
Study Shows Potential For Antarctic Climate Change

While Antarctica has mostly cooled over the last 30 years, the trend is likely to rapidly reverse, according to a computer model study by NASA researchers. The study indicates the South Polar Region is expected to warm during the next 50 years.

Findings from the study, conducted by researchers Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), New York, appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures.

Low ozone levels in the stratosphere and increasing greenhouse gases promote a positive phase of a shifting atmospheric climate pattern in the Southern Hemisphere, called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A positive SAM isolates colder air in the Antarctic interior.

In the coming decades, ozone levels are expected to recover due to international treaties that banned ozone-depleting chemicals. Higher ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The study found higher ozone levels might have a reverse impact on the SAM, promoting a warming, negative phase. In this way, the effects of ozone and greenhouse gases on the SAM may cancel each other out in the future. This could nullify the SAM's affects and cause Antarctica to warm.

"Antarctica has been cooling, and one could argue some regions could escape warming, but this study finds this is not very likely," Shindell said. "Global warming is expected to dominate in future trends."

The SAM, similar to the Arctic Oscillation or Northern Annular Mode in the Northern Hemisphere, is a seesaw in atmospheric pressure between the pole and the lower latitudes over the Southern Ocean and the tip of South America.

These pressure shifts between positive and negative phases speed-up and slow down the westerly winds that encircle Antarctica. Since the late 1960s, the SAM has more and more favored its positive phase, leading to stronger westerly winds. These stronger westerly winds act as a kind of wall that isolates cold Antarctic air from warmer air in the lower latitudes, which leads to cooler temperatures.

Greenhouse gases and ozone depletion both lower temperatures in the high latitude stratosphere. The cooling strengthens the stratospheric whirling of westerly winds, which in turn influences the westerly winds in the lower atmosphere. According to the study, greenhouse gases and ozone have contributed roughly equally in promoting a strong-wind, positive SAM phase in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere.

Shindell and Schmidt used the NASA GISS Climate Model to run three sets of tests, each three times. For each scenario, the three runs were averaged together. Scenarios included the individual effects of greenhouse gases and ozone on the SAM, and then a third run that examined the effects of the two together.

The model included interactions between the oceans and atmosphere. Each model run began in 1945 and extended through 2055. For the most part, the simulations matched well compared with past observations.

Model inputs of increasing greenhouse gases were based upon observations through 1999, and upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mid-range estimates of future emissions. Stratospheric ozone changes were based on earlier NASA GISS model runs that were found to be in good agreement with past observations and similar to those found in other chemistry-climate models for the future.

Shindell said the biggest long-term danger of global warming in this region would be ice sheets melting and sliding into the ocean. "If Antarctica really does warm up like this, then we have to think seriously about what level of warming might cause the ice sheets to break free and greatly increase global sea levels," he said.

In the Antarctic Peninsula, ice sheets as big as Rhode Island have already collapsed into the ocean due to warming. The warming in this area is at least partially a result of the strengthened westerly winds that pass at latitudes of about 60 to 65 degrees south. As the peninsula sticks out from the continent, these winds carry warm maritime air that heats the peninsula.

jayreynolds

10-08-2004, 04:42 AM

When a liar can't stop himself, and most of them ARE addicted to lies, a likely fallback position is the 'victim' routine.
Pressed hard enough, they squeal like a stuck pig.

Pushed a little further, they end up telling you the truth, but try to blame it on someone else-
"The 'devil' made me do it." This sort of transference might seem preferable to an outright admission of guilt, but it falls far short of telling the whole truth. If he actually were being hoaxed, all he has to do is name the hoaxer.

Which brings me to ask why we now have two pages of SPAM by Deborah(aka 'footsoldier') and Wayne Hall, who are trying to play yet another liar's fallback position, the gambit I'd call "just try your best to change the subject". Reminds me of the TV commercials where a man(and awoman), caught in an embarrassing conversation, blurt out 'thank you", in an improbable attempt to defuse the situation. Probably you've seen the spot lately.

Deborah knows a lot, as I said before, about the barium hoax, and has plenty of reasons to try and cover up it's origins.

Her complicity in the establishment of the barium hoax is manifold, undeniable.
She, along with 'sore throat' A.C. Griffth, and others. It's all laid out right here:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65678#65678

The spam now being poured out on this thread won't coverup for the lies, Wayne and Deborah.
The sooner your people face the facts and bring them out in the open, and that includes chem11 and David G. Stewart, the sooner progress can be made. Until then, you will all be held, stuck in an everlasting spider's web of lies.

gaiacomm

10-08-2004, 06:37 AM

Readers:

If you wish to debunk and discredit JR and company just have him produce the facts on Lance/gaiacomm/benhur. The photos of these two people are different. JR will then go away.

He will go own and play ping pong with you all as long as you respond or react to his claims. But the simple fact that JR will not fill the request at hand because that would put an end to his reign and he would be forced back into a read mode on the internet!

LOL

halva

10-08-2004, 06:58 AM

Why don't you just declare victory and bugger off Raynolds.

We're not talking about chemtrails at this forum any more.

foot_soldier

10-08-2004, 08:24 AM

October 8, 2004
South Africa plans for climate change, but predicts surge in pollution
http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=271&fArticleId=2253770

The government launched a strategy yesterday designed to minimise the effects of climate change - and in the same breath said South Africa would double its greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years.

It is a "business-as-usual" strategy, focusing on developing measures to adapt to climate change rather than reducing damaging gas emissions.

This comes after scientists said in Johannesburg this week that SA would be one of the worst hit by climate change, becoming hotter and drier over the next few decades.

Global climate change, which has already begun, will be accompanied by rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events. It is caused largely by a massive increase in C02 in the atmosphere, primarily from burning oil and coal.

Launching the strategy yesterday, Chippy Olver, director-general of the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, said that as climate change would negatively affect SA's agriculture, biodiversity, water resources, human health and the economy, several government departments would be involved in the strategy.

Among the impacts were: water-borne diseases becoming more common with malaria spreading from the eastern parts of SA; an enormous loss of biodiversity; water resources becoming scarcer and coastal towns and cities affected by rising sea levels.

While SA contributed only 1.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, our per capita emissions put us seventh in the world. This was because almost all SA's energy was generated by burning coal, which would not change. As the economy grew, electricity generation would increase, so in the next 15 years C02 emissions would double.

According to the Kyoto Protocol, which SA ratified in 2002, we are a developing country and do not have to comply, as do developed countries, with targets to reduce carbon emissions.

But SA has other commitments, including submitting an inventory of emissions, drawing up plans to facilitate adaption to climate change and promoting sustainable development.

Rod Crompton of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, said his department would investigate importing more natural gas and implement the White Paper on Renewable Energy and the energy efficient strategy.

The Designated National Authority would be set up, the first step in SA trading carbon credits. The department was also implementing a programme to reduce coal fires, particularly in poor areas, and introduce "low-smoke" fuels. END

jayreynolds

10-08-2004, 08:49 AM

Why don't you just declare victory and bugger off Raynolds.

We're not talking about chemtrails at this forum any more.

Ok, I'll accept your declaration of surrender, Wayne.

This debate/war got started by your declaration:

"There would be nothing wrong with a Democratic Party candidate doing that, but it should not be ignored that there are by now very large numbers of Americans who realise that 'fooling with Mother Nature' is something currently proceeding on a gigantic, planetary, scale, with the blessings of not only of the Bush regime but also of many opponents of Bush who are genuinely concerned about global climate change and are supporters of 'geoengineering'".

"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

Wayne Hall has today asked me to declare victory, signalling that he accepts defeat.

I am indeed willing to declare victory when the following concession as terms of surrender is agreed to by Wayne Hall-

I, Wayne Hall, concede that in the debate of 290 pages between Jay Reynolds and myself, in a thread titled "It's not nice to fool with mother nature", I was unable to
show any evidence whatsoever proving my contention that geoengineering is "ALREADY BEING DONE". I hereby pledge that I will not discuss the subject of "chemtrails" at the Ariannaonline forum anymore.

Wayne, for my part, should you be willing to accept my terms of surrender, I will disengage from battle with you. Should you not accept, prepare yourself to be exposed.

foot_soldier

10-08-2004, 10:12 AM

halva, you miserable sinner...

SURRENDER!

REPENT and BE CLEANSED of your sins!

DO IT!

Do it NOW!!!

Azerelus

10-08-2004, 11:24 AM

Hvala,

You state that you can not prove that geoengineering is NOT being done already. Interesting.

Not to nag, but I can not find 'geoengineering' in any dictionary. To refute or prove that a thing exists one must have a definition of that thing.

"Geoengineering" comes from two words.

Geo ( earth : ground : soil ) and Engineering (to manage as an engineer)

Examples of the use of Geo:

Geography: 1 : a science that deals with the description, distribution, and interaction of the diverse physical, biological, and cultural features of the earth's surface

Geology: 1 a : a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks b : a study of the solid matter of a celestial body (as the moon)

This would be more in line with landscaping and mining, mapping and detailing the earth's surface.

The focus of the subject deals with meteorology and atmospherics:

meteorology ( 1 : a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting
2 : the atmospheric phenomena and weather of a region )

Atmospheric ( 1 a : of, relating to, or occurring in the atmosphere )

Not to lend any credence to either side of the argument, the fact is that in other than some papers the word does not exist. It is not clearly defined. Lacking definition and an agreed upon meaning none can say if it is or is not taking place.

(the definable term) 'Atmospheric Engineering' has been in practice for several decades as in the form of Cloud Seeding. Which is the intentional engineering (management as an engineer) of weather (meteorological phenomena) to cause an effect (rain) to take place by other than natural processes.

gaiacomm

10-08-2004, 02:44 PM

Azerelus

10-08-2004, 03:57 PM

...I have not even reported on all the meetings he and I had. ...
...I haven't reported the last 13 months of meetings and conversations I had with him....

Now that raises a few questions.

Havla,

Could you pass on the following questions to Dave?

1. Briefly, what else besides what was in the posted 'letters' did the man say to you?

2. Did he introduce you to anyone else who upheld his claims?

3. How many meetings did you have with this man?

halva

10-08-2004, 09:15 PM

Why don't you just bugger off Raynolds and Arzeholos..

We're not talking about chemtrails at this forum any more, Deborah.

halva

10-08-2004, 09:23 PM

Kyoto will shake things up in the U.S., whether Americans like it or not

By Amanda Griscom
07 Oct 2004

Last Thursday, when the Russian cabinet moved to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, international leaders called it the dawn of a new era.

Top officials from Canada, Japan, the European Union, and other Kyoto-supporting countries applauded Russia's progress toward ratification, which will be final once the nation's parliament gives it the green light (a mere formality at this point). Then it's just 90 days more until the treaty's implementation. "Russian ratification would ensure that the protocol enters into force and launch an exciting new phase in the global campaign to reduce the risks of climate change," declared Joke Waller-Hunter, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

No such hearty congratulations, though, were heard from George W. Bush, who threw in the towel on Kyoto negotiations in March 2001 despite the fact that the U.S. is proud producer of more than one-third of global greenhouse-gas emissions. In fact, no statements on the matter were released by either the Bush or Kerry campaigns, and only scattered, unenthused coverage could be found in American news outlets.

In one Washington Post article, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Jim Connaughton, veritably jeered at the treaty, trotting out the much-contested notion that regulating greenhouse-gas emissions would hamper economic progress: "The administration strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job," he said.

The tepid U.S. response to progress on Kyoto might lead Americans to wonder: If the protocol goes into force throughout the vast majority of the industrialized world and the U.S. continues to ignore it, will it have any impact on the United States at all?

Technically and symbolically, the answer is yes -- most definitely. The protocol contains legally binding emissions standards requiring 36 industrialized countries to reduce their combined greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 5 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. Those targets will have widespread ramifications for industrial activities within those countries -- even activities conducted by U.S. corporations.

"At least hundreds, maybe thousands of U.S. companies -- including the majority of the Fortune 500 -- have multinational operations in Kyoto-supporting countries and will have to reshape manufacturing strategies at their overseas plants," said Phil Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust. Moreover, it would make little sense for corporations to undertake this kind of strategic shift in their facilities abroad but not at home, said Clapp. "It's more efficient to make it a corporation-wide effort."

Clapp also argues that because Kyoto is based on a global cap-and-trade program, companies that get in on it early will have an advantage -- they can buy cheap emissions credits before the price starts to get bid up. "My guess is that American executives are going to start clamoring to get in the game before too long."

They may not be clamoring yet, but there are signs that major U.S. companies are facing up to reality. Last Saturday, The New York Times reported that Ford executives have been working behind the scenes to develop a company-wide strategy for carbon-dioxide reductions. And on Sunday, The Washington Post reported that Alcoa is starting to make plans to adjust to the restrictions that Kyoto will bring in countries around the world.

According to David Sandalow, an environmental scholar at the Brookings Institution who was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration and helped to design the Kyoto treaty, state and regional initiatives designed to combat global warming are also giving U.S. executives reason to welcome the prospect of federal emissions controls.

Recently, California, New York, and other states have been taking matters into their own hands. Late last month, with the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), the California Air Resources Board approved a landmark standard for greenhouse-gas emissions from all new vehicles sold in the state beginning in 2009. Northeastern states, meanwhile, have been working to adopt a regional cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.

"There's a patchwork of overlapping laws emerging at a grassroots level, and it could become very confusing for American companies to have to adapt to different requirements in each state," said Sandalow. "Corporate leaders may soon be arguing that it's much easier and more efficient for them to operate according to one clear national standard."

Head for the Hill

The ripple effect of Kyoto's implementation won't just hit the Fortune 500 crowd -- it's likely to resonate on Capitol Hill, too. Word has it that Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are aiming to revive their Climate Stewardship Act. It's unlikely to happen before the election, but they may try to push the bill through in the lame-duck session during the last two months of the year.

"We'll jump on the first viable or appropriate vehicle that we can take to get the act back on the Senate floor -- a bill that we can attach the Climate Stewardship Act to as an amendment," said Lieberman's press secretary, Casey Aden-Wansbury. "We're hoping it will happen before the end of the year, but the Senate calendar, controlled by [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-Tenn.], is hard to predict."

Aden-Wansbury said that Russia's backing of Kyoto could play a role in the act's passage: "It couldn't be better timing -- we only need seven more votes. [Russia's approval] would be a pretty convincing reminder that the U.S. is lagging and we've got to move forward."

According to Jonathan Black, legislative assistant to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M) on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "The climate debate in Congress hinges on a group of senators, some of them pro-environment, who've made it clear they're interested in taking the carbon issue seriously but are concerned about the cost to the American economy and the fact that developing countries are unregulated," which could make them cheaper locales for factories.

Among potential Climate Stewardship Act "swing voters" are Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.).

"If Kyoto goes into force, it will make a very strong case [to senators concerned about the cost of emissions cuts] that greenhouse-gas regulations are becoming an economic advantage -- not a hindrance -- in the global market," said Black. "It will make it harder for them to defend their arguments to the contrary."

Bingaman, McCain, and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) are among a handful of senators who released strong statements spotlighting Bush's negligence on the issue in the past few days. "The Bush administration continues to fumble around in the darkness of ignorance and the quagmire of special interests, while the Russians are demonstrating world leadership," Jeffords said in a statement. Said Bingaman on the Senate floor Monday, "Mr. President, the science of climate change is clear, and the potential losses to our economy from climate-related disruptions, such as the increased frequency of hurricanes and other severe storms, are starkly apparent."

But though Kerry made brief reference to Kyoto and global warming in the first presidential debate last week, he has no plans to release a statement on Russia's movement toward ratification of Kyoto, said Roger Ballentine, a senior environmental advisor to the Kerry campaign. "At this point it's clear that Kyoto will not be adopted in the United States, but the U.S. needs to show domestic leadership on this issue," he said. "Kerry's energy plan -- which includes 20 percent greater efficiency and 20 percent of America's electricity powered by renewables by 2020 -- is the single strongest climate initiative that's ever been proposed."

Another senior advisor to the Kerry campaign, Beth Viola, added that Kyoto is by no means the final frontier of international climate-treaty negotiations. The protocol has a limited life span -- it defines targets that must be achieved by 2012, but there is no agreement about what to do beyond that. International leaders need to begin devising a Kyoto Part Two -- "a new agreement that outlines more long-term caps and brings developing nations like China, India, and Indonesia into the contract," said Viola. "One of the first things that John Kerry would do as president would be to reengage with the international community on this next phase of negotiations."

But the U.S. has some real work to do before it will be taken seriously again at the bargaining table. "The most important step now is to put our own house in order, to enact strong emissions cuts domestically," said Sandalow. "Only then will we have the credibility to lead the international community in phase two of the negotiations."

Let's hope the swing senators keep this in mind when the Climate Stewardship Act reappears on the Senate floor.

Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@gristmagazine.com.

foot_soldier

10-08-2004, 10:11 PM

halva, you miserable sinner...

SURRENDER!

REPENT and BE CLEANSED of your sins!

DO IT!

Do it NOW!!!

I was being facetious. Do you not see that?

halva

10-08-2004, 10:45 PM

We're not talking about chemtrails at this forum any more, Deborah.

halva

10-08-2004, 11:55 PM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

halva

10-09-2004, 01:07 AM

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/October/Oct-09.html

jayreynolds

10-09-2004, 02:47 AM

Ok, I'll accept your declaration of surrender, Wayne.
This debate/war got started by your declaration:
Wayne Hall has today asked me to declare victory, signalling that he accepts defeat.

I am indeed willing to declare victory when the following concession as terms of surrender is agreed to by Wayne Hall-

I, Wayne Hall, concede that in the debate of 290 pages between Jay Reynolds and myself, in a thread titled "It's not nice to fool with mother nature", I was unable to
show any evidence whatsoever proving my contention that geoengineering is "ALREADY BEING DONE". I hereby pledge that I will not discuss the subject of "chemtrails" at the Ariannaonline forum anymore.

Wayne, for my part, should you be willing to accept my terms of surrender, I will disengage from battle with you. Should you not accept, prepare yourself to be exposed.

So, Wayne, accept or not?

halva

10-09-2004, 05:24 AM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

Raynolds if John Kerry wins your presidential elections, globalist United Nations lovers like you will be to blame.

halva

10-09-2004, 07:18 AM

Raynolds, if your objectives were limited and realistic, such as silencing me on the subject of chemtrails at this forum, you would declare victory on the basis of my statement that "we are not talking about chemtrails any more here", understanding that my use of the term "we" entails a commitment to police that agreement.

You would content yourself with holding me to my undertaking.

Your failure to do this indicates that your objectives are neither limited nor realistic, that you correspond to the definition I gave before of a fanatic, i.e. a person whose determination is inversely correlated with his awareness of his aims.

Arianna Huffington, who sees American politics in toto as a contest between fanatics and fools, would agree with this assessment, I believe.

But as the posting above on Kyoto suggests, the 'fanatic vs fool' game of American internal politics which for the last ten years or more has been seeking to elevate itself into a model for politics at the level of the entire globe, is under challenge.

The fools are being used by the UN to do away with the fanatics vs fools game altogether and introduce a new global paradigm where fanaticism will be illegal.

halva

10-09-2004, 07:20 AM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

Raynolds if John Kerry wins your presidential elections, globalist United Nations lovers like you will have played a role in it.

gaiacomm

10-09-2004, 08:25 AM

halva

10-09-2004, 01:30 PM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

halva

10-09-2004, 01:36 PM

Churches launch climate campaign
A coalition of churches has begun a campaign to curb climate change, by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Operation Noah" aims to highlight warnings that atmospheric warming from burning carbon fuels is causing violent weather patterns and rising sea levels.

It is being led by the Archbishop of York, David Hope, and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor.

They are urging people to change their lifestyles to burn less fuel.

Operation Noah is a wake-up call, not only to people of faith but to the whole of society
Jonathon Porritt
UK Sustainable Development Commission

Delegates attending a conference in Coventry on Saturday to launch the campaign were asked to sign a covenant promising to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

They were also encouraged to put pressure on the UK government and world leaders to do the same.

The conference was followed by a parade through Coventry and a speech by Dr David Hallman, co-ordinator of the World Council of Churches' climate change programme, at the city's cathedral.

Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission and director of Forum for the Future, said he was delighted churches were taking up the issue of climate change.

Fragile environment

He said: "We could easily sleepwalk into an ever more dangerous future.

"Operation Noah is a wake-up call, not only to people of faith but to the whole of society.

"It makes us stop and think what we are doing to the earth and dares us to live by a new set of values."

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the campaign was "the boldest co-ordinated step yet by senior church leaders to intervene in the political debate over climate change".

Archbishop Hope and Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said human development was standing at a crossroads on the brink of ruining a fragile environment.

Other church leaders backing the campaign include the Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti, David Kerr, Methodist Superintendent of the Belfast Central Mission, and Sister Eluned Williams, former President of Methodism in Wales.

In July, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said excessive use of fuel threatened the viability of humans as a species and threatened them with vicious conflict.

He called for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3728692.stm

Azerelus

10-10-2004, 02:00 AM

Why don't you just bugger off Raynolds and Arzeholos..

We're not talking about chemtrails at this forum any more, Deborah.

Havla,

I know English is not your first language, Greek isn't it? I ask nicely for you to re-read my posts. I may be a skeptic on the subject but am willing to talk about it nicely.

You may have misunderstood my analysis of the word "Geo-Engineering" .

If I said I had a Slithy Tove in my wabe - you could not rationally refute that claim since the words "Slithy Tove" and "wabe" have no definition in any dictionary. It is not until we define what "Slithy Tove" is and what a "wabe" is can one even begin to discuss my claims of having a Slithy Tove in my wabe.

I may win over many to my side that there is a slithy tove in my wabe, and there may be many who refute that claim. But until such time as there is a clear definition attached to these words any and all argument is illogical and based on assumptions.

It is clear that "Geo-Engineering" has a large, broad unclear definition attached to it thus it is a difficult thing to prove or disprove as actually happening. All arguments are based upon assumptions that the term is understood by all. It is no more real or unreal than my Slithy Tove and my wabe due to there being so many definitions placed on the word.

Again I am a skeptic. Not to be confused with a debunker.

halva

10-10-2004, 12:51 PM

Arzeholos we're not talking about geoengineering or chemtrails any more on this thread. Read and assimilate posting 2899.

gaiacomm

10-10-2004, 01:18 PM

Ping pong anyone?

jayreynolds

10-10-2004, 05:59 PM

I see chem11 is now beginning to question why, since 'deep shield' is "figuratively deceased", David G. Stewart would be begging people to ask more questions?
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&num=1096343621&action=display&start=30

Then, of course, we get Wayne trying to prop up his buggering buddy.
Strange bedfellows.

But the reality is that Stewart has many many more things in his hoax lined up to say, many which he hasn't yet told us about. Speaking of that, if David G. Stewart was told so much(for "days on end"), but has withheld the whole truth, including the actual name of his supposed "source", what does that make David G. Stewart, actually?

DOESN"T THAT MEAN THAT THE ONLY PERSON LEFT ACCOUNTABLE NOW WHO CAN TELL US IS DAVID G. STEWART?

AND WHO WILL HOLD STEWART ACCOUNTABLE?

So, David, answer chem11's question-
"And since this Deep Shield source is now either literally or figuratively deceased, I'm curious as to why you are interested in eliciting further questions for him to answer (or is it you who is interested in providing answers now)?"

Yes EXACTLY! Aluminum or Barium or sulfates, or nitrates, or anything by itself in its elemental form being by itself does not make sense.
Due to the questions being put forth singling out one part of the mixture. Which I remind everyone here Deep Shield was asked:
Based on this question everyone assume that Barium is the only element being used. That is not what deep shield said.
Even with my "copy and paste" from another web site on what barium is, what it does. That was to answer the question as given to Deep Shield. (His answer to the question was far longer than just a simple copy and paste BTW)
Then it would appear the Barium is the only thing in the the spray. Having established in our conversation that Barium was a concern, Deep Shield focused on that and carried it forth.
he reply was:
Which would appear to mean that barium ONLY is used. However this is not the case now is it? That is not what was said - He even added that OTHER KINDS OF SPRAYS are in development.
Though the focus of the Question was why before storm fronts, was it to cause drought. Deep Shield's focus is clear, to underline the need to maintain the "Shield" Not that anyone cares, because after all BARIUM was mentioned thus Barium is the Focus of the Question, and everything else takes a back seat to the the answer as being unimportant.
Again some attempt to base a whole science on one sentence which was attempting to answer a far different question than what everyone has been trying to make it out to be. No one asked for details, no one asked for a Chemical analysis, NO ONE ASKED WHAT IS EXACTLY IN THE SPRAY.
A whole bunch of people have spent a great deal of time chasing their own red herrings based upon what they perceive was said. Instead of Asking questions to clarify (why no one asked questions is beyond me) When they had the chance to get answers, they theorize, philosophize and make a science based on the smallest amounts of data given.
Now Who here has researched all of those? Hm - Anyone some one - ALL THE COMPOUNDS?
I am willing to wager that no is the answer.
Wait Titanium? Could that mean that there is more to this that what was covered? What exactly is etc (etcetera) in this sense?
And I also point out these:
Again Titanium and Etc.
You all are the ones who made Barium the focus of your sciences - You all are the ones who didn't ask the rights questions.
As I have attempted to demonstrate with Mr. Reynolds here:
1. Questions are not asked, even when they are asked they are in ways which is subjective and open to interpretation. In Example: I answered Mr. Reynolds Deadly Questions: In the way he asked them. However to the observer we know that Mr. Reynolds was asking something different that the answers he got. This is why He DOES NOT desire to talk about my answers.
2. Taking things out of Context: Again I point that much was taken out of Context.
3. Failure to ask follow up questions, Failure to seek clarifications. When In doubt of the answer, ask again. I showed how the answer changes when you pin point and ask clarification.
After All When put to the question Mr. Reynolds demonstrated that:
First answer: "Historical data shows no radical increase of UV radiation, as alleged in your "deep shield" hoax. "
When asked for clarification Mr Reynolds changed his answer: " I have not found any data supporting radical increases in UV levels"
He clarified what he meant - He didn't really lie as I made it out to be. I know that, you know that.
In the end many people want to make the Shield Letters uphold their particular slant on things, they read into it much more than was said, they try to base a whole science on it. They failed to ask the questions. They failed to take the time to ask for clarification.

halva

10-10-2004, 09:51 PM

Raynolds, one reason that I support David Stewart against your allegations is that you have made - and persisted in - similar allegations against me that I know to be untrue, and against the person identifying himself here as Dr. Judah Ben Hur which I have strong evidence are likewise untrue.

You are certainly right in your assessment that Chem 11 is useful to you.

However, I am going to argue with him, not with you.

halva

10-10-2004, 10:00 PM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

halva

10-11-2004, 12:39 PM

Climate Fear As Carbon
Levels Soar -Scientists Bewildered
By Paul Brown
Environment Correspondent
The Guardian - UK
10-11-4

An unexplained and unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere two years running has raised fears that the world may be on the brink of runaway global warming.

Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

The findings will be discussed tomorrow by the government's chief scientist, Dr David King, at the annual Greenpeace business lecture.

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

In recent decades CO2 increased on average by 1.5 parts per million (ppm) a year because of the amount of oil, coal and gas burnt, but has now jumped to more than 2 ppm in 2002 and 2003.

Above or below average rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been explained in the past by natural events.

When the Pacific warms up during El Niρo - a disruptive weather pattern caused by weakening trade winds - the amount of carbon dioxide rises dramatically because warm oceans emit CO2 rather than absorb it.

But scientists are puzzled because over the past two years, when the increases have been 2.08 ppm and 2.54 ppm respectively, there has been no El Niρo.

Charles Keeling, the man who began the observations in 1958 as a young climate scientist, is now 74 and still working in the field.

He said yesterday: "The rise in the annual rate to above two parts per million for two consecutive years is a real phenomenon.

"It is possible that this is merely a reflection of natural events like previous peaks in the rate, but it is also possible that it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in the record."

Analysts stress that it is too early to draw any long-term conclusions.

But the fear held by some scientists is that the greater than normal rises in C02 emissions mean that instead of decades to bring global warming under control we may have only a few years. At worst, the figures could be the first sign of the breakdown in the Earth's natural systems for absorbing the gas.

That would herald the so-called "runaway greenhouse effect", where the planet's soaring temperature becomes impossible to contain. As the icecaps melt, less sunlight is refected back into space from ice and snow, and bare rocks begin to absorb more heat. This is already happening.

One of the predictions made by climate scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that as the Earth warms, the absorption of carbon dioxide by vegetation - known as "carbon sink" - is reduced.

Dr Keeling said since there was no sign of a dramatic increase in the amount of fossil fuels being burnt in 2002 and 2003, the rise "could be a weakening of the Earth's carbon sinks, associated with the world warming, as part of a climate change feedback mechanism. It is a cause for concern'.'

Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, and a former special adviser to the former Tory environment minister John Gummer, warned: "We're watching the clock and the clock is beginning to tick faster, like it seems to before a bomb goes off."

Peter Cox, head of the Carbon Cycle Group at the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said the increase in carbon dioxide was not uniform across the globe.

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.

"My guess is that there were extra forest fires in the northern hemisphere, and particularly a very hot summer in Europe," Dr Cox said. "This led to a die-back in vegetation and an increase in release of carbon from the soil, rather than more growing plants taking carbon out of the atmosphere, which is usually the case in summer."

Scientists are have dubbed the two-year CO2 rise the Mauna Loa anomaly. Dr Cox said one of its most interesting aspects was that the CO2 rises did not take place in El Niρo years. Previously the only figures that climbed higher than 2 ppm were El Niρo years - 1973, 1988, 1994 and 1998.

The heatwave of last year that is now believed to have claimed at least 30,000 lives across the world was so out of the ordinary that many scientists believe it could only have been caused by global warming.

But Dr Cox, like other scientists, is concerned that too much might be read into two years' figures. "Five or six years on the trot would be very difficult to explain," he said.

Dr Piers Forster, senior research fellow of the University of Reading's Department of Meteorology, said: "If this is a rate change, of course it will be very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone."

David J Hofmann of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration centre, which also studies CO2, was more cautious.

"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

"Based on those two years alone, I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

gaiacomm

10-11-2004, 01:48 PM

Wayne,

Why not close this thread. JR has been DEBUNKED!

LOL

jayreynolds

10-11-2004, 02:51 PM

David J Hofmann of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration centre, which also studies CO2, was more cautious.
"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.
"Based on those two years alone, I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

Hey, Wayne, I thought all that barium oxide was supposed to absorb carbon dioxide.
At least, that's what David G. Stewart's 'deep shield' hoax had to say.
Oh, well, back to the drawing board, eh?

Speaking of David G. Stewart, looks like he's loathe to answer chem11's direct question.:

"And since this Deep Shield source is now either literally or figuratively deceased, I'm curious as to why you are interested in eliciting further questions for him to answer (or is it you who is interested in providing answers now)?
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Fight&num=1097483256&start=45

What's up with that?

Wayne, you can't criticize my buddy chem11 like this and get away with it:

"You had not previously given any indications of suspicion in your attitude to David Stewart.

halva

10-11-2004, 09:09 PM

Raynolds, you are certainly right in your assessment that Chem 11 is useful to you.

We are not talking about chemtrails or geoengineering on this thread any more.

halva

10-11-2004, 09:10 PM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

halva

10-11-2004, 09:16 PM

Apply for admission to your buddy Chem 11's forum, Raynolds.

halva

10-12-2004, 02:19 AM

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2004/07/21/gelbspan-boiling/

Clash of the Titans
An excerpt from Boiling Point highlights a clash of interests over climate change
By Ross Gelbspan
21 Jul 2004

Boiling Point
By Ross Gelbspan,
Basic Books, 256 pages, July 2004
Journalist Ross Gelbspan's new book, Boiling Point (out in late July from Basic Books), reveals how politicians, big oil and coal, the media, and even activists have fueled the climate crisis -- and how we might still avert disaster. This excerpt traces what Gelbspan describes as a corrupt relationship between the Bush administration and the fossil-fuel industry.

Under the administration of George W. Bush, the White House has become the East Coast branch office of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, and climate change has become the preeminent case study of the contamination of our political system by money.

With its heavy bankrolling of the Bush campaign in the 2000 presidential election, the fossil-fuel industry won a victory beyond its wildest dreams. That industry's long-running campaign of climate-change denial and public deception rapidly became presidential policy. In short order, President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to cap emissions from coal-burning power plants, unveiled the fossil fuel-friendly Cheney energy plan (a fast track to climate chaos), and withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto negotiations. Then, in a truly Orwellian stroke, the White House altered a U.S. EPA report, removing all references to the dangerous impacts of climate change on the United States.

Apologists for the administration have justified its climate policies by citing politically conservative principles -- the withdrawal of onerous regulations, a belief in unencumbered free markets, and the appeal of corporate voluntarism.

In fact, the Bush climate policies have nothing to do with political conservatism. Rather, they represent corruption disguised as conservatism.

Cheney and Bush.
Photo: White House.For starters, many White House watchers have already documented this administration's strong ties to the fossil-fuel lobby. The president tops the list of past oil company executives, followed by Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the country's largest oil-field services firm. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice served on Chevron's board of directors, while Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans worked for a Denver oil and gas company, Tom Brown, Inc. Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was formerly head of the climate unit of the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying arm of the oil industry, and a group that is among the most rabid critics of climate science.

Bush's electoral success, moreover, was heavily funded by big coal and oil. His 2000 presidential win can in large measure be traced to his victory in West Virginia, a state no other Republican presidential candidate had ever won. That win resulted from the substantial support of the state's coal industry. One coal executive alone, James Harless, raised $275,000 for the Bush campaign in West Virginia, five times more than Al Gore raised there.

Five months after Bush's inauguration, a West Virginia Coal Association official told a meeting of the organization: "You did everything you could to elect a Republican president. Now you are already seeing in his actions the payback ... for what we did."

That "payback" came in the form of an about-face on a campaign promise Candidate Bush made in 1999 -- to repeat nationally what he had done as governor of Texas, imposing a carbon dioxide emissions cap on the state's coal-fired power plants. In a letter to four Republican senators, Bush said he was backing away from the cap because of the "incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide."

Particularly pleased by Bush's flip-flop was Irl Englehardt, chair of the Peabody Group, the country's biggest coal company. Englehardt had donated $250,000 to the Republican National Committee, and served as an adviser to the Bush-Cheney Energy Transition Team. On May 17, 2001, when the Cheney task force unveiled its new energy plan, it not only called for an expanded role for nuclear power and the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, but for the construction of between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants, most of them powered by coal. Within a week of the plan's unveiling, the Peabody Group -- a privately held entity for its entire 120-year life -- made an initial public offering (IPO) of shares and went public. Overnight, its stock jumped from $24 to $36.

Exxon, Exx Off

If the administration's energy plan was covered with the fingerprints of the country's biggest coal company, its climate policies appear to have been directly dictated by the planet's largest oil company.

Robert Watson.
Photo: IISD.Just weeks after Bush assumed office, ExxonMobil official Randy Randol sent a memo to the White House, which was subsequently obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. The memo cited a quote from Robert Watson, chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "The United States is way off meeting its targets. A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive." Clearly, Watson's assertion did not sit well with the memo's authors, who went on to ask: "Can Watson Be Replaced Now At the Request of the United States?"

ExxonMobil recommended that the Bush administration remove Watson, along with two officials instrumental in producing the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change, an EPA document that the White House would seek to eviscerate in the spring of 2003. In their place, the oil giant recommended appointing longtime climate "skeptics" John Christy and Richard Lindzen.

Ultimately, the Bush administration did scuttle Watson's reappointment. But, apparently fearing a major backlash, it decided not to back such vocal contrarians as Christy and Lindzen.

Harlan Watson.
Photo: IISD.ExxonMobil achieved an even greater success in directing Bush administration climate change diplomacy. Urged on by the company, the White House hired Harlan Watson (no relation to Robert) as its chief climate negotiator. In May 2002, Watson announced that the U.S. would not participate in the Kyoto process for at least 10 years, saying that the White House "wanted no part" of a 2005 international review of greenhouse gas reductions. "The next time we take stock on climate change," he said, "has been set by the president at 2012."

In November 2002, in an effort to improve its environmental image, ExxonMobil trumpeted its investment in hydrogen fuel research. But the company's disingenuous plan was not to derive hydrogen from water, a process that generates no carbon emissions, but to make it from oil and coal -- a process that emits so much carbon dioxide as to virtually neutralize the climate-friendly benefits of the new fuel. Two months later, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush revealed his own petroleum-based hydrogen initiative. It exactly embraced the ExxonMobil strategy, preserving America's oil infrastructure at the expense of climate destabilization.

halva

10-12-2004, 02:20 AM

ExxonMobil and the Bush administration have also united in sowing climate change disinformation and deception among U.S. citizens. By 2001, ExxonMobil had replaced the coal industry as the major funder of prominent "greenhouse skeptics," a handful of "experts" who spout bogus science, raising doubts about climate change to preempt the public's demand for action. By 2003, ExxonMobil was giving more than $1 million a year to an array of right-wing organizations opposing action on climate change -- including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research.

The striking success of the fossil-fuel lobby's disinformation strategy is reflected in two Newsweek polls. The first, in 1991 -- prior to the industry's global-warming misinformation campaign -- found that 35 percent of Americans saw global warming as a serious problem. By 1996, that share shrank to 22 percent -- despite the advent of far more conclusive science, documenting human-caused global warming.

The usefulness of bogus science was not lost on the Luntz Group, a private consulting firm advising Bush on climate policy presentation. "Americans ... believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense," said a Luntz memo. "Similarly our confidence in the ability of science and technology to solve our nation's ills is second to none. Both perceptions will work in your favor if properly cultivated."

Sure enough, a new effort by the "skeptics" surfaced in spring 2003. A study by lead authors Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and published in an obscure journal, Climate Research, concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century, nor the century with the most extreme weather, of the past 1,000 years. Both researchers had previously contended that the recent warming was due, almost entirely, to solar variations -- a finding long since disproved by peer-reviewed scientific studies.

As it turns out, the report by Baliunas and Soon was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. It was also coauthored by Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso, whose Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide has been funded by the coal industry and ExxonMobil.

James Inhofe.
Photo: U.S. Senate.Predictably, the study was seized upon by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who asserted that this new science showed that natural variability, not human activity, was the "overwhelming factor" influencing climate change. Inhofe received double the campaign contributions from energy companies during the 2002 election than from any other business sector.

In short order, 13 leading climate scientists from the U.S. and U.K. declared in a letter to the American Geophysical Union that the anomalous late 20th century warmth cannot be explained without taking into account the contributions of human activities.

Most telling, perhaps, was another piece of fallout from the Soon-Baliunas controversy that received little news coverage. Three editors of the journal that published the skeptics' study resigned in protest after they were forbidden from writing an editorial pointing out the methodological errors of the flawed paper by the industry-funded researchers.

While Inhofe attempted to disguise the administration's fossil fuel-friendly policies under the cloak of "sound science," the White House worked to scuttle the most thoroughly researched projections of coming climate impacts inside the United States.

The report, known as the "U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," is a meticulously peer-reviewed document, drafted during the Clinton administration. The National Assessment details a range of anticipated, mostly harmful, impacts across U.S. geographical regions and ecosystems.

When previous Bush administration efforts failed to discount and discard the document, the politically conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is partly funded by ExxonMobil, sued the White House Council on Environmental Quality to remove the National Assessment from circulation. In a press release, the CEI dismissed the assessment as "junk science" being used "by global warming alarmists" to hamstring business.

Then, in August 2003, the attorneys general of Maine and Connecticut made an extraordinary discovery. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, they unearthed emails indicating that the White House had secretly urged the private, right-wing CEI to sue it -- the White House -- in order to have the National Assessment withdrawn.

"It appears that certain White House officials conspired with an anti-environmental special interest group to cause the lawsuit to be filed against the federal government," said Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, who complained to the U.S. Department of Justice along with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Survival of the ...?

Stepping back, it becomes clear that the climate crisis represents a titanic clash of interests. It pits the survival, as we know it, of the biggest commercial enterprise in history -- big coal and oil -- against the survival of the planet and its people. It also pits the fossil fuel industry-dominated Bush administration against the rest of the world.

Oil in a day's work.
Photo: U.S. EPA.As of this month, 123 countries have ratified or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol. Several industrial nations have also committed themselves to carbon cuts greater than those mandated by the protocol. Moreover, a substantial number of developing countries that are not required to cut their emissions in the first round of the protocol have begun to do so anyway. Clearly these governments would not be undertaking such massive and wrenching changes if they had any doubt about the climate crisis.

When Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, he triggered a profound swell of outrage throughout the rest of the world. Given the accelerating momentum of climatic instability -- and the willingness of the rest of the world to begin addressing it -- the rage against the United States' indifference to humanity's common future will only grow worse.

In the early 1990s, when the science was still uncertain, denial and resistance by the fossil-fuel lobby could be excused as a predictable, business-as-usual response. But with the science now so robust, and negative impacts so visible, this behavior is inexcusable. In 2003 alone, 35,000 people died as the result of Europe's worst heat wave ever, while the World Health Organization reported that climate change is already claiming 160,000 lives annually. If temperatures climb as projected, then the corrupt policies embraced by U.S. industry and government could put the future of civilization at risk.

The industry-driven campaign goes far beyond traditional public relations spin. It has led to the capture of the White House, to gross distortions of science and truth, and to the corporate dictation of public policy. Not that such corruption of the political process by powerful special interests is new to our republic. But the magnitude of the potential consequences is unprecedented.

Our fossil fuels have brought us to a level of abundance and prosperity that was unimaginable a century ago.

Today they are propelling us forward into a century of disintegration.

- - - - - - - - - -

Ross Gelbspan, a former editor and reporter at the Philadelphia Bulletin, Washington Post, and Boston Globe, is author of The Heat Is On. He maintains the website www.heatisonline.org.

gaiacomm

10-12-2004, 09:24 AM

Frost @ Sullivan Movers and Shakers Interview with Gaiacomm International 4G Technology

David H. Horne, Jr. (President and Chief Executive)
David Horne’s friends and associates thought he had spent too much time in the hot Florida sun when he announced he was leaving a position with one of Florida’s most powerful and prestigious legislative lobbying firms, and a highly lucrative career, to take the helm of a start-up company with some “radical new technology”. But Horne felt otherwise and accepted the job as President and CEO of Gaiacomm International Corporation because he recognized: 1) the validity of the technical claims GIC was making and 2) the infinite possibilities for the technology’s future. While serving as a navigator/bombardier for the USAF Tactical Air Command during the Viet Nam War era, he dealt daily with LORAN, a technology fundamentally similar in many respects to Gaiacomm’s 4th Generation Global Wireless Communications (GWC4) technology. He decided the risk was worth “the chance of a lifetime”.
Horne brings three decades of top-level business management and legislative consulting experience to the executive team. As a highly successful political campaign manager, Horne directed numerous ‘dark horse’ candidates to astonishing victories, including State Senators, members of the House of Representatives and the Commissioner of Education for the state of Florida. Naturally, he maintains a close relationship with many highly placed elected government officials who still seek his counsel and sound business acumen. Over 30 years of executive-level experience in Banking, Finance, Investments, Lobbying and Information Technology helped him construct the blueprint for the corporation’s business plans and steer its direction and growth.
1. Companies developing an innovative technology in the wireless communications sector. From the vantage this provides, what do you see as the hottest growth markets and technologies for this sector?
How long is this article going to be? Okay, here goes --- the future according to Gaiacomm. Numerous business markets, both vertical and peripheral, will flourish because Gaiacomm exists. Which is to say, that because of the power that Gaiacomm’s terahertz technology will provide, and the inadequacy of 3rd Generation wireless technology to meet the needs of the marketplace, a move from 3G developments to 4G will occur rapidly once the opportunities for new applications, and new features for old applications, becomes evident. Now there has been heavy investment in 3G, and many will resist at first, but soon even the most obstinate of these businesses will come to accept that trying to build on the backbone of 3G wireless symbolizes a pointless tussle with the obsolete.

2. How does Gaiacomm approach product development? Is there a set philosophy as to which product areas will be focused upon, or in how product areas will be chosen?
The product areas we will focus on, quite simply and frankly, will center on profitability first. Those that are likely to produce the largest return on investment will get priority treatment. As the company becomes more established, more financially sound; we will branch into areas that we feel are needed and worthy of our efforts --- provided our B2B partners are not already operating there successfully and competitively. That is not to imply that we would be afraid of existing market competition. Rather, we believe we will be most successful by establishing business partnerships with other companies -- large and small -- and helping them prosper through our association and utilization of our base technology.
3. What is unique about Gaiacomm’s value proposition for the wireless communication sector?
Our Antennae/Amplifiers cover a broadcast range of five million square surface miles, using the magnetic fields of the earth. Our name, in fact, Gaiacomm, is the combination of telescoping two words --- “Gaia”, the Greek word for earth or earth-friendly, and “comm”, short for communications --- to derive its message of using the natural properties of the planet to enable telecommunications. With nine of these Antenna/Amplifier towers and 27 attendant CRITERIA towers (3 per A/A tower) to handle billions of calls and data transmissions, there will not be a place on the earth, or below it, that cannot be served. And due to the strength of its near infrared spectrum wavelength, no natural impediments or physical barriers will disrupt the signal in any measurable form. Some day in the not-too-distant future, those born today will view old Verizon commercials --- the ones with the catchphrase, “Can you hear me now?” --- and they will ask incredulously, “What was that all about?”
4. What do you envision for the future of the wireless communications industry? What role should we expect Gaiacomm to play in shaping the future of this market?
The greatest dilemma I face as President is resisting the temptation to open up too many lines of business at once. Apart from providing wireless telecommunications service, I could launch nine distinctively separate applications tomorrow if I had the resources and the experienced manpower to fund and staff them.

I can think of three examples in the field of imaging alone, just off the top of my head. I would say that we could provide consulting services for subsurface exploration of oil, precious metals and minerals, both on land and at sea, using the unmatched imaging capabilities that our new technology gives us. Why use calculated risk scenarios to determine where you drill? Scientific? Yes. Infallible? No. Costly? You betcha! We’ll tell you exactly where it is, how far down it is and what you’ll likely encounter on the way down. Sunken ships, same thing. You want to dive on old shipwrecks looking for treasure; determine if your cargo vessel went down where you suspect and whether the cargo is salvageable. We’ll tell you where to find the ship and what’s on board without even getting our feet wet. All you would have to provide is the general location you wanted searched … and a modest fee for our services, of course.

And speaking of cargo, security checks have become the major concern for airports and seaports today. The extraordinary problem they face is how to validate the contents of a shipment that passes through their authority without opening each package or container; and doing it expeditiously when there are thousands of parcels to inspect and certify for the public’s safety. We could install our imaging technology at any port where cargo shipments from terrorists could be a problem, combine it with fail-safe detection software and within 90 seconds, scan over ten thousand parcels in an area the size of a football field and identify every weapon of mass destruction, terrorist device and pathogen known to the software.

Our company’s arrival on the business scene seems to me to be one born of kismet because there are suddenly a lot more of these "extraordinary" problems facing the world today that didn’t exist a decade ago; and not to put too fine a point on it, we have a technological answer for the majority of them. This is an exciting time for all of us, and a bit scary, and I consider myself privileged to be helping Dr. Ben-Hur introduce this emergent technology of his with all of its magnificent benefits.
5. Finally, any thoughts on Gaiacomm International Corporation receiving Frost & Sullivan’s 2004 award for excellence in technology of the year in the field of Wireless Communications?
I would like to express, on behalf of all us at GIC, our gratitude and appreciation by saying, Thanks so much. You have changed our lives forever and given us the credibility we have been seeking and altered our future in a way that simply could not be purchased or achieved otherwise in the same timeframe. We still can’t believe that it has happened; that we’ve been so fortunate. To win the Frost & Sullivan award for excellence in technology should be the highlight for any company’s year and it is certainly so with us. This is a high we never want to come down from. And we will never forget what you have done for us. And thanks for this interview; it was great talking with you.

To read the entire article go to www.gaiacomminternational.com

jayreynolds

10-12-2004, 10:41 AM

In his "deep shield" hoax, David Stewart wrote:

"15. Could you, "Deep Shield" - be described as a scientist or...?

Scientist is a good generic term. I do study and research in a scientific manner. I carry papers and degrees. My official capacity is in direct research of atmospheric issues in relation to pollutants. I also create models of potential long-term effects of green house gasses on the climate. Predict wind patterns, weather patterns, etc.

So supposedly, this anonymous source "carries papers"(whatever those are) and has multiple degrees in a discipline commensurate with the ability to create climate, wind, and weather prediction models,

Why then, does he get the facts about diurnal air movements so wrong?

"The optimal condition is to use the least amount of material to provide the maximum amount of shielding. Ideally that would be a one-time application which would stay suspended for years, however, as noted, barium and aluminum and other trace elements are far heavier than air and they sink rather rapidly. The different temperatures between day and night causes massive volumes of air to rise during the night, the warm air trapped at the surface rises above the cooling air above. By strategically spraying in certain areas at night, we get the advantage of the rising air, which not only pushes the material higher, but also causes the material to disperse into a thin layer.

The facts are, David, and we all know now that it was YOU who wrote the 'deep shield' hoax(a hoax by your own definition,BTW), that it is DAYTIME heating that causes air to warm and rise, while NIGHTIME AIR COOLS AND FALLS!

Furthermore, we can find yet another clue which confirms yet again that 'deep shield' is merely a construct of David G. Stewart's hoax, and not a degree holding scientist. Take this passage, for example:

"6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought?

Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in these areas, sometimes to dangerous levels. The shield must be maintained. Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected."

The question asks why, "spraying [is] found before storm fronts." The answer says, "the front clears the air before a storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of particulate matter."

Folks, if 'deep shield's answer is to be believed, then "spraying" before a front would have NO usefulness at all, and therefore "spraying" would NOT precede a front, but rather it would be conducted behind it to replenish "particulate matter" which had been "pushed ahead" of the front!

The truth of the matter is that in many cases, passage of a frontal system allows moist air to be advected into the upper atmosphere, where it can allow ordinary contrails to persist in the moist air..

So, here again we have two more cases of material said to be stated by the mythical 'deep shield', which no real scientist would say, just because they are factually absurd, contradictory, or simply wrong.

Yet more nails in the coffin of 'deep shield', eh, Wayne?
Get used to it.
Get out of it.
Get over it.

gaiacomm

10-12-2004, 12:28 PM

Blah, Blah, Blah........

jayreynolds

10-12-2004, 06:35 PM

Blah, Blah, Blah........
Is this the best you can do, Lance? I've exposed quite a few things written by David G. Stewart which are inconsistent with what anyone with a scientific background would say. Things that are absurd, things which are contradictory, things which are, when examined factually, absolutely false.

Now I don't really expect any real input, and can't imagine any substantive argument against, any of the things I've brought out which continue to dismantle David G. Stewart's 'deep shield' hoax, and it looks like none is forthcoming. The bulk of you chemmies are intellectually incapable of independent thought, have no curiosity, and even less critical thinking skills.
Most of you function basically as 'septic sponges', absorbing pretty much any shit that comes your way, and disgorging your load whenver squeezed a bit.

David, the handwriting is on the wall, you still have a chance to come clean. The chain of lies that now has you ever-more entangled can be broken. All you have to do is tell the truth and admit the hoax. Sure it'll hurt, sure you'll lose all your chemmie friends and be an outcast, labeled a liar(well, you already are anyways!). But your conscience wil be clear and you can go back to sodomizing and stop having to respond with ever more lies. You DO realize that the more lies you tell, the closer you get to exposing yourself. Yes, one day the truth will slip out anyways, that's how "the father of lies" gets his REAL kicks, you know, when one of his handymen get's 'outed' real good......

If not, well there's always plenty more problems with your hoax left to be exposed. Word is, a whispering campaign is underway amongst the chemmie cognoscenti to deal with you and Wayne.

Don't think I'm finished debunking your hoax quite yet, anyways, you two. I haven't even gotten started good, yet

There is more, much more.

Prepare yourselves to be exposed.

gaiacomm

10-12-2004, 08:02 PM

Blah, Blah, Blah....

halva

10-12-2004, 10:05 PM

Thank you for continuing to provide input on the subject of the Deep Shield texts, Raynolds.

Some of these points may provide material for the internal discussions of our milieu, in which David Stewart is of course a valued participant.

halva

10-13-2004, 01:59 AM

By the way, Raynolds, you wouldn't by any chance be a......you know, a closet GAY yourself, would you?

Come on now. Don't be shy. We (or at least I) won't hold it against you.

halva

10-13-2004, 02:09 AM

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/antarctic-04p.html

Climate: Worrisome Trends In Antarctica

by Dan Whipple
Boulder CO (UPI) Oct 11, 2004

The conventional scientific wisdom has been that while most of the world has gotten warmer, Antarctica actually has cooled a little, except on its peninsulas and coasts; but new research indicates the polar continent is facing dramatic changes that probably are the result of global warming.
Floating ice shelves are collapsing, vast glaciers are thinning and speeding up in their drift toward the sea, and improvement in the ozone hole probably will result in warming temperatures in the continent's interior.

We're beginning to push past the normal range of climate variability of the (post-Ice Age) Holocene (period), said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the Snow and Ice Data Center in Denver. We're seeing the first few steps - the first few responses - of a globally warming world.

People will point back to these first few years of the 21st century and say that this is when we saw it in the polar regions.

One dramatic impact could be a substantial increase in sea level, well beyond current projections, he said.

I don't want to mince words, Scambos told United Press International. It looks to me like we are headed toward a more rapid sea level rise than projected by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report.

Scambos and his group tracked how the glaciers responded in the Antarctic Peninsula with the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf. The vast shelf, about the size of Connecticut, collapsed in 2002. Only about one-fifth of it remains.

The collapse the Larsen B, which already was floating, did not increase the sea level, anymore than melting ice cubes raise the level in a gin-and-tonic. Still, the event is significant. Geological evidence suggests the Larsen B had been stable since at least the end of the last ice age - about 13,000 years ago.

Scambos and his group discovered, however, the Larsen B acted like a stopper in a bottle for the glaciers on the peninsula, and now they have speeded up their flow into the ocean.

Glaciers that were tributaries to the ice shelf accelerated, not just slowly, but almost immediately by glacier standards, Scambos said.

Within one year of having this ice shelf break away, the rate in the lower parts of the glaciers was five to eight times as fast as it had been. There was a major reorganization of the stresses that control glacier flow, he explained.

A warming climate in Antarctica is going to initiate a large, rapid change in the mass balance of the ice sheet, Scambos said.

It is known, however, the peninsula where Scambos and colleagues were working has been warming. In fact, it has been warming faster than much of the rest of the Earth. The interior of the continent, however, has not changed much so far. In fact, it has been cooling.

Still, the news from the Antarctic interior is not good.

We made measurements further south than (the Larsen B), Robert Thomas, a glaciologist with National Aeronautics and Space Administration contractor EG&G Services, told UPI. We don't get much summer melting, but we know the glaciers are thinning.

At least one, a huge glacier in terms of ice, transported almost 100 cubic kilometers (62 cubic miles) of ice into the ocean. (It) has been accelerating at the same time the ice shelf has been thinning. We think the cork is being pulled out of the bottle.

The thinning and acceleration extend more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) inland.

Like Scambos, Thomas's group found acceleration about three to eight times faster.

This doesn't mean an awful lot to sea level rise, Thomas said. Only fractions of a millimeter. A big, interesting question is, 'How fast can all of this stuff go?'

The movement rate of the glacier Thomas and his group studied has accelerated about 25 percent in the past 25 years, just because the ice shelf got thinner.

What would happen if we took the whole ice shelf away? he asked. If that happened to this glacier, it would take several hundred cubic kilometers a year into the ocean.

It might contribute more to sea level rise than all the rest of the glaciers in the world - half a millimeter a year, just from one glacier.

The same thing is happening with other Antarctic glaciers, some the size of Texas.

We surveyed a lot, and found the same kind of things happening with other glaciers, Thomas said. The big question is why are these ice shelves getting thinner?

The surface temperature has not warmed much in the areas Thomas and colleagues are studying, so the most reasonable explanation is that they are being melted by warmer water from below.

Something is changed in the ocean, Thomas said. When asked what it was he only said: That's what I'd like to know. More heat must be getting under the glaciers.

There is some evidence deeper water has been warming over the past couple of decades, he added. That is what one thinks would have to happen, but we don't know it has happened, or why it would have happened.

The most recent IPCC report did not include an assumption the ice shelves act like a cork in a wine bottle. Until fairly recently, in fact, Thomas said, most glaciologists had rejected the idea.

The models don't include this, he said. If, indeed, the ocean is changing sufficiently to weaken these ice shelves, we may have an effect we didn't bargain for.

Thus far, Antarctica has shown little sign of the warming climate affecting the rest of the globe, but that may change, and pretty soon, according to Drew Shindell, a research physicist with NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While Antarctica has cooled over the past 30 years, Shindell's models indicate it will warm for the next 50, perhaps as much as 2 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). This is because of a change in circulation.

If the westerly flow (of air currents) is stronger, Shindell told UPI, the interior gets more isolated and colder. The peninsula gets warmer. These circulation changes have overridden the general trend (of global warming).

The depletion of ozone over the continent - the famous ozone hole - actually enhanced this westerly shift, and cooling of the continent. Now, however, the ozone is being replenished, and the increased ozone is counteracting the westerly strength of the greenhouse-induced air circulation.

In the future, the circulation thing goes away, Shindell said. So you will see warming everywhere - both on the coast and in the continental interior.

It is very uncertain what the threshold would be for a major collapse of the ice sheets, Shindell said. In the past we haven't worried about it much because it has been getting cooler.

If if indeed starts to get warmer, then we do have to start to worry about it more. I don't think we have the understanding to really say ... but there's reason to be concerned. There is no reason to think that the temperature change is too small to have an effect.

Scambos said even current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations - about 375 parts per million - are higher than any seen in the ice core record, which extends back about half a million years.

We're seeing the glaciers retreat and respond in ways that they haven't done before in the historical record, Scambos said. We're beginning down the road to a changed world. We've got no reason to expect that this is going to slow down.

Azerelus

10-13-2004, 01:56 PM

Now I don't really expect any real input, and can't imagine any substantive argument against, any of the things I've brought out which continue to dismantle David G. Stewart's 'deep shield' hoax, and it looks like none is forthcoming. ..

On the contrary Jay, the accused did attempt to engage you, you however ignored him and flat refused to make comment on much of what he stated.

To make it worse, you also took to using profanity and personal attack on the man.

Your logic is flawed. The data you present as proof of Dave's hoax only proves that the data is in error. This does not demonstrate Dave as being a hoaxer.

You are too emotionally involved in the arguments and have demonstrated your inability to approach the matter with rational thought.

You have even removed my ability to get to the bottom of this by making this forum untenable for further discussion on the matter. Your behavior also makes my skepticism appear to be in league with your own pandering childish hatred of others.

Do not expect rational discussion when you can not provide similar in kind.

gaiacomm

10-13-2004, 04:49 PM

Very interesting....................................... ...........................................

foot_soldier

10-13-2004, 08:37 PM

Should governments play politics with science?
New Scientist Vol. 184 Issue 2468 – 9 October 2004 - Page 12
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg18424681.700

Never have objective science and the business of politics been so much at odds

"IT'S the economy, stupid!" So said Bill Clinton, encapsulating the defining issue of the 1992 presidential election. When the race between George W. Bush and John Kerry is decided on 2 November "it" could also be Iraq or homeland security.

Climate change, globalisation, the oil economy and the politicisation of science will not be setting the voting agenda. Perhaps they should, for these are issues where American money, influence and power can shape the world. They are the global issues a president can't ignore.

"AT ITS birth two centuries ago, this republic was governed by men who had a deeper understanding of science than most of their successors. The Founding Fathers were children of the Enlightenment, of the Age of Reason. Today we are governed by people who do not believe in evolution. They have few qualms about distorting scientific knowledge when it does not conform to their political agenda. They speak as if they are entitled not only to their own opinions but also to their own facts."

So said Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in the opening passage of a damning report released in July on the politicisation of science in 21st-century America. Put bluntly, Gottfried's charge, and that of the UCS, is that President Bush does not understand science. He has little interest in the subject, and his administration has grossly manipulated the process by which objective science informs policy. As a result, the US has made the wrong decisions over issues such as climate change, energy, reproductive health and the environment.

It is a provocative and often repeated charge, one whose implications go beyond America's borders. The US stance on global warming and energy use inevitably affects the world. But of the countries that are members of the OECD, the US spends 44 per cent of the total funding allocated to research and development, and hosts 37 per cent of the scientists, making any issue with American science an issue for world science. So does the charge stick?

"This administration has a clear record of interfering in the scientific process," says Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, who has been a standard-bearer for scientists critical of Bush. "There is a repeated pattern of distorting science to support a narrow political or ideological agenda."

In August 2003, Waxman issued a report detailing instances of alleged misuse of science by the administration. This was followed by two similar reports in February and July from the UCS. These were accompanied by a letter critical of the administration that has now been signed by over 5000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Republicans have dismissed the campaign as politically motivated. But Gottfried, a physicist at Cornell University in New York, denies that the signatories are merely a collection of the usual Bush-hating suspects. "Many people who signed have never signed political statements of any kind," he says. What's more, he points out that some of them are lifelong Republicans.

The UCS charge sheet covers a multitude of sins. One of the most persistent is that scientists serving on government advisory committees are appointed for their political views rather than their scientific expertise.

From 1998 to 2003, Gerald Keusch was associate director of the Fogarty International Center, part of the National Institutes of Health. He says the contrast between the Clinton and Bush administrations is stark. Under Clinton, all seven of his suggested appointees to his scientific advisory committee, which makes recommendations on public health issues in the developing world, such as stemming the spread of HIV, were approved within three weeks. Under Bush, 19 candidates out of 26 were rejected. In some cases the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took many months to make its decision.

When Keusch queried one tranche of rejections he was told that one candidate had been rejected because of her pro-abortion stance, a second was unsuitable because of her involvement with an organisation promoting contraception, and a third, a Nobel laureate, had "signed too many letters in The New York Times critical of President Bush".

"The attitude of HHS towards scientists has been one of disdain," Keusch told New Scientist. "There is clearly a concern about people who think individually."

Other candidates for scientific advisory positions have reportedly been asked by administration officials who they voted for in the last election, and what they think of President Bush.

The response from many Republicans to such complaints is simply "tough". Every administration, they say, has the right to put its friends in high places. "If this is such a major issue why did they not object when Mr Clinton hired primarily Democrats for his scientific staff and scientific appointments?" says Vernon Ehlers, a Republican congressman who sits on the House Committee on Science. "I would wonder about a president who didn't ask those questions," echoes fellow committee member and Republican Michael Burgess.

Another serious charge is that the administration decides on the answer it wants from science, then manipulates the scientific process to support that conclusion. A now famous example concerns alleged White House interference with a report in June 2003 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report was billed as "a frank discussion of what we know - and what we don't know - about the condition of our nation's environment". But it did not mention what many environmentalists regard as the gravest threat: climate change.

UCS claims that the EPA ended up dropping a chapter on global warming after extensive interference from White House officials. According to an internal EPA memo they demanded so many qualifiers in the text that the result would have given the impression of "uncertainty... where there is essentially none".

John Marburger, the White House science adviser, plays down the incident. "That's a spurious case," he told New Scientist, pointing out that another report due for release weeks later dealt with climate change in depth. He says the administration is very careful about how it describes climate change, because of the issue's political sensitivity. In the case of the EPA report, he says there wasn't time to resolve differences over the wording. "Other people, usually scientists, can't see the point of making those fine distinctions," he adds.

The UCS cites numerous other examples, including industry insiders being placed on committees, spurious scientific evidence being used to promote sexual abstinence, and scientists being told they must represent the federal government's line when working with international organisations.

Marburger accepts that some of the incidents cited by UCS should not have happened, but he argues that a collection of anecdotes does not add up to a master plan. Their report "tends to short-circuit serious discussion of the very issues they raise by sweeping them into a conspiracy theory", he says. "I just don't buy that." What's more, he points to the large funding increases enjoyed by science under Bush. If you include the current budget request, research and development investment will have increased 44 per cent since Bush took office.

So what's really going on? Bruce Alberts, head of the National Academy of Sciences, does not believe there is a systematic pattern of manipulation. "In both administrations I have observed there have been attempts to twist science to meet the agenda," he says. "What's happening in this administration may be different in magnitude, but it's certainly not different in character." In other words, it was ever thus.

So why are scientists so critical of the Bush administration? Alberts believes that under the Clinton administration, scientists found the outcome more palatable because they more often agreed with the resulting policy. And opinion polls tend to show that scientists overwhelmingly vote Democrat. They also dislike the centralising tendencies of the Bush administration, which they believe restricts their autonomy.

Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC, accepts that all administrations create advisory committees in their own image. But she says the contrast between the Bush and Clinton administrations is particularly stark because Clinton and his vice-president, Al Gore, shared a genuine enthusiasm for science. "It's been a big comedown for scientists," she says. "This administration has not been particularly excited about science."

With an election looming, the relationship between the objective discipline of science and the dirty business of politics has never been more fragile.

James Randerson

halva

10-13-2004, 08:46 PM

13 October 2004
Possible Surge In CO2 From Arctic Soil

Despite sub-zero temperatures, the Earth's warming north may add more carbon to the atmosphere from soil, accelerating climate warming further. "The 3 to 7 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature predicted by global climate computer models could cause the breakdown of the arctic tundra's vast store of soil carbon," said Michelle Mack, an ecologist at the University of Florida (UF). The study, published in Nature, says arctic soil would release more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the air than plants are capable of taking in. This type of positive feedback will make the Earth's climate change even more rapidly.

The findings were collected in a 20-year experiment of the effects of fertilization on the arctic tundra at Toolik Lake, Alaska. One-third of the Earth's soil carbon is locked in northern latitudes because low temperatures and water-saturated soil slow the decomposition of organic matter by bacteria, fungi and other organisms. Scientists added nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer to the soil to simulate the release of nutrients from decomposing soil organic matter. The scientists hypothesized the fertilizer would stimulate plant growth, remove carbon from the atmosphere and eventually add it to the soil as plants shed dead leaves and roots over time. Thus, the whole ecosystem was thought to be gaining carbon after fertilization.

However, Mack and her colleagues found exactly the opposite. Even though plants grew more, and more carbon was stored in plants and in the surface of the soil, the whole ecosystem did not gain carbon. "Instead, it lost a tremendous amount from the deepest soil layers, probably because increased nitrogen accelerated the decomposition of organic matter by soil organisms, thereby releasing carbon dioxide," said Mack

The results could have implications for ecosystems in other regions of the world as well, said Edward Schuur, also from UF. Places such as the northeastern U.S. and Europe, where acid rain has increased the amount of nitrogen deposited into the ecosystem from the atmosphere, also could experience an increased loss of soil carbon in response to higher nitrogen inputs.

"It may be that not just arctic ecosystems, but those in other parts of the world will have a similar decomposition response to increased nitrogen," Schuur speculated. "Increased nitrogen levels are thought to have caused trees to grow more in many places. These places may experience the same kinds of effects below ground that we've noted."

It had been supposed that global warming would have two opposing effects on arctic soils. First, it would increase the breakdown of soil organic matter, releasing carbon dioxide, the major cause of warming, into the atmosphere. Second, the breakdown of organic matter would liberate nutrients that would enhance rates of plant growth, thereby removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But this study demonstrates another factor at work. "This work demonstrated beautifully that there is another, even stronger effect, that an increase in nutrients also enhances the breakdown of soil organic matter," said researcher Peter Vitousek. "The overall effect of warming especially in the Arctic will be to release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, enhancing the likelihood of further warming."

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040912202826data_trunc_sys.shtml

halva

10-14-2004, 12:18 AM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

jayreynolds

10-14-2004, 04:32 AM

Your logic is flawed. The data you present as proof of Dave's hoax only proves that the data is in error. This does not demonstrate Dave as being a hoaxer.

His own definition of a hoax included the synonym, "AN IMPOSTURE". An "IMPOSTURE" is someone pretending to be someone else. He has previously mentioned, but only after pressure was applied BY MYSELF, that he in fact POSED AS SOMEONE ELSE when he wrote the 'deep sheld' "emails" HIMSELF. Thus by HIS OWN definition, he is a hoaxer.

You are too emotionally involved in the arguments and have demonstrated your inability to approach the matter with rational thought. You have even removed my ability to get to the bottom of this by making this forum untenable for further discussion on the matter. Your behavior also makes my skepticism appear to be in league with your own pandering childish hatred of others.Do not expect rational discussion when you can not provide similar in kind.

You have made no substantive argument against the facts I have brought out, facts like the absurdity of David G. Stewart's claim that barium oxide could be of any practical geoengineering use absorbing carbon dioxide or water, why he made the preposterous claim that at nighttime, large movements of warm air occur, or that if frontal sytems clear the air it would be of any use to spray before them, rather than after.

The clear facts are that, as has happened here before, and increasingly as the hoax has been prgressively exposed, the rats are abandoning ship.
They know their vessel is sinking.
They are now reduced to posting irrelevant text in a "blah-blah-blah" attempt to subvert debate, which they initiated, but now recoil from.

Nobody is fooled by this sort of tactic. The fact that your people are engaging in it just shows to anyone reading it what hapless idiots you all are, ostriches with all their asses up, heads in sand..

jayreynolds

10-14-2004, 05:09 AM

"Chemtrails" Hoax Falls to New Low

For the past year or so I have monitored the "chemtrail" hoax's effectiveness by typing the word "chemtrail" into the google news search engine. About six months ago no pro-chemtrail
articles could be found, only two older articles that adressed the hoax in a dismissive fashion.

As of today, no current mention of "chemtrails" is available in this search of over 4500 news sources worldwide.
.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chemtrails&btnG=Search+News

THIS is what happens when hoax promoters persist in secluding themselves in cloisters, repeating the same tired old previously debunked tripe over and over.
Chemtrail activists?
Nothing of the sort exists, you are all sheep being led to slaughter, following your self selected judas goats. You ensnared yourselves by acceptance of preposterous lies, anonymous hoaxers, and willful ignorance.

NO WONDER YOU ALL RUN FROM ME

halva

10-14-2004, 05:17 AM

By the way, Raynolds, you wouldn't by any chance be a......you know, a closet GAY yourself, would you?

Come on now. Don't be shy. We (or at least I) won't hold it against you.

halva

10-14-2004, 05:18 AM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

halva

10-14-2004, 05:31 AM

Why don't you just declare victory and bugger off Raynolds.

gaiacomm

10-14-2004, 08:11 AM

Wayne,

Why not close this thread. JR has been DEBUNKED!

LOL

JR is finished here...he just wishes to get the last word in. So give it to him so he goes away and back to Karen!

Azerelus

10-14-2004, 10:57 AM

Deductive and Inductive Arguments: http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/deductiv.htm

"The difference between the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive. "
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/ded-ind.htm

My view is that yours is an inductive argument. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

You theorize that since Dave lied about how he came to have the information that he lied about the information in total. This requires a virtual leap in faith that Dave always lies. There is no established history that Dave always lies except that he lied about how he came to the information (email v meetings).

With this premise (Dave is a liar all the time) all of your other arguments on the errors in the information would hold true.

However Dave counters that yes he did lie about how he came to the information he claims to have meet with a man and took notes.

This sets up a second argument which contains probabilities. Such as the information is in error because the notes taken were in error.

A skeptic must look at all of the probabilities and in this instance can not reach a conclusion that is not a probability only.

It is probable that Dave is a hoaxer. It is also probable that Dave did meet with a man (Deep Shield) who gave him information. It is probable that Dave misunderstood what was said and took notes in error which translates to errors in science. It is probable that the man who Dave met lied to Dave and is the author of those errors.

All of these are probable given the data we possess.

We do have a bit more information from Dave (in this thread) that he lied for a reason (though lying is irrational the reasons given are rational). This added information lowers the probability that Dave hoaxed it all and raises the probability that Dave did met with a man.

If we increase the amount of data to draw a conclusion from (googling other posts on other topics by Dave) we find that the number of lies of Dave are smaller given the increased amount of data, thus the probability of his being a hoaxer grows less probable based on the assertion that 'Dave Always Lies'.

From the data I conclude (that is to say it is my opinion) that Dave did meet with a man who conveyed information to Dave. That probability is the most likely given the data we have to work with.

For you or I to conclude anything and state it is a fact is wrong. We can not draw any facts from the data provided only probabilities. To cling to a probability as being the only truth requires an emotional investment in the probability.

You may say that it is your opinion that Dave is a hoaxer, this does not establish it as a fact.

halva

10-14-2004, 12:35 PM

Group Says Bush Easy on Polluters

Government lawsuits against violators have dropped sharply, critics complain. The EPA says it is working to settle existing actions
By Elizabeth Shogren, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — During the first three years of the Bush administration, the number of civil lawsuits that the federal government filed against polluters dropped by 75% compared with the last three years of the Clinton administration, an environmental group reported Tuesday.

Eric Schaeffer, director of the group that compiled the data, said they showed that the administration had been weak on enforcing anti-pollution laws.

Bush administration officials defended their record, saying that the real measure of effectiveness should be whether pollution was being reduced, not the quantity of lawsuits. They said they has emphasized negotiated settlements as a speedier alternative to protracted litigation.

And they said that new anti-pollution rules proposed by the administration would bring more improvements in air quality than would legal action.

The number of lawsuits filed over alleged pollution-law violations dropped from 152 in the three years ended in January 2001 to 36 in the three years ended in January 2004, according to EPA data analyzed by the Environmental Integrity Project, an environmental watchdog group.

Schaeffer, who left his job as the head of the EPA enforcement office almost three years ago to protest what he considered the Bush administration's lax approach to cracking down on polluters, said the data showed that "my concerns were, unfortunately, justified."

But Tom Skinner, acting assistant EPA administrator in charge of enforcement, called Schaeffer's analysis "completely misleading."

"The fundamentally flawed premise seems to be that filing cases in and of themselves are beneficial to the environment," Skinner said.

Schaeffer said the administration had been particularly easy on energy companies, the nation's biggest polluters. The Justice Department filed three new lawsuits against power companies, oil companies and pipelines during the first three years of the Bush administration, compared with 28 such suits filed in the last three years of the Clinton administration, according to Schaeffer's report.

"If you're a big energy company, you're basically on holiday from enforcement," Schaeffer said.

Skinner disputed that assertion, saying the Bush administration had been busy seeking settlements in enforcement actions against refineries rather than filing lawsuits. Settlements reached so far require that new pollution controls be installed on 40% of the nation's refineries.

The administration has filed new lawsuits against coal-fired power plants for Clean Air Act violations, but most of its effort has been focused on settling or bringing to court lawsuits filed during the Clinton administration, Skinner said.

"We've got three trials in the next 12 months. My idea of a vacation is not sitting in trial with billions of dollars at stake," Skinner said.

Schaeffer charged that the administration was letting polluters off the hook by not filing lawsuits.

In a widely reported move last November, the EPA told its regional offices to drop enforcement actions against dozens of coal-fired power plants that were under investigation for violating the Clean Air Act.

One of those plants was Allegheny Energy Inc.'s Hatfield's Ferry power plant in western Pennsylvania, near the home of Charlotte O'Rourke, a retired accountant who appeared at a news briefing here on the environmental group study.

O'Rourke told reporters that pollution from the power plant rains down on her neighborhood so heavily that sometimes the power company offers to pay to have residents' cars washed.

Her husband died of renal cell carcinoma at the age of 57, and she believes he is one of many people in her community who became sick or died of diseases caused by the pollution. She and her husband built their house in Masontown, Pa., 30 years ago, about the time the Hatfield's Ferry plant was constructed.

"You really don't have to be a scientist to put two and two together," she said. "Why doesn't our government do something about it?"

Skinner said he was not permitted to talk about ongoing enforcement actions, but said it "may not be true" that the government dropped its investigation against Allegheny Energy.

Representatives of the utility industry agreed with the administration assertion that its regulatory proposals stand to cut more emissions faster than legal action could.

"The emissions cuts achieved through EPA's new rules will be steeper and be achieved faster than are possible through" Clean Air Act lawsuits, said Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the main trade group for electric utility generators.

halva

10-14-2004, 09:10 PM

Raynolds is an anti-patriotic supporter of the IPCC and the United Nations.

foot_soldier

10-14-2004, 09:11 PM

Ecuador Is Seen Losing Its Glaciers to Global Warming

October 15, 2004 — By Reuters

QUITO, Ecuador — Global warming is melting Ecuador's cherished mountain glaciers and could cause several of them to disappear over the next two decades, Ecuadorean and French scientists said this week.

The country's cone-shaped Cotopaxi volcano, towering at 19,347 feet, lost 31 percent of its ice cover from 1976 to 1997, according to a study by Ecuador's Meteorology Institute and France's scientific research institute IRD.

Other volcanoes such as El Altar could entirely lose their glaciers over the next 10 to 20 years, scientists said in a presentation to journalists.

That could mark the end of Ecuador's Avenue of the Volcanoes, a striking strip of ice-capped mountains that is a favorite among tourists to the Andean nation.

It could also threaten the drinking water supply to Ecuador's main cities, such as capital Quito, which depends on snow-covered mountains for 80 percent of its water source.

halva

10-14-2004, 09:28 PM

Bottom of the barrel

The world is running out of oil - so why do politicians refuse to talk about it?

Tuesday December 2, 2003
The Guardian

The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved the development of the biggest deposit discovered in British territory for at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this is a "huge" find, which dispels the idea that North Sea oil is in terminal decline. You begin to recognise how serious the human predicament has become when you discover that this "huge" new field will supply the world with oil for five and a quarter days.

Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the resource upon which our lives have been built is running out. We don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.

Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year we use four times as much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago: the 400m barrels in the new North Sea field would have been considered piffling in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak before long.

The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the ones produced by the US department of energy, which claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US energy information agency has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets.

Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010. In August, the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99% confident" that the date of maximum global production will be 2004. Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the oil barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.

The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today we will burn 76m barrels; by 2020 we will be using 112m barrels a day, after which projected demand accelerates. If supply declines and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar: shortage. The price of oil will go through the roof.

As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly dependent on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will be forced to contract. Given that climate change caused by burning oil is cooking the planet, this might appear to be a good thing. The problem is that our lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs are impossible to service without cars. High oil prices mean high food prices: much of the world's growing population will go hungry. These problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price of oil and the rate of unemployment. The last five recessions in the US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.

Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run. There are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is likely to be anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum can be extracted from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases the process uses almost as much energy as it liberates, while creating great mountains and lakes of toxic waste. Natural gas is a better option, but switching from oil to gas propulsion would require a vast and staggeringly expensive new fuel infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same constraints as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about 50 years' supply, but if gas were to take the place of oil its life would be much shorter.

Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which is produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity which produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national grid. Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal. Running the world's cars from wind or solar power would require a greater investment than any civilisation has ever made before. New studies suggest that leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and exacerbate global warming.

Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in terms of recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which food is now grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that running the United Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require an area of arable fields the size of England.

There is one possible solution which no one writing about the impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with which the British and Australian governments are currently experimenting, called underground coal gasification. This is a fancy term for setting light to coal seams which are too deep or too expensive to mine, and catching the gas which emerges. It's a hideous prospect, as it means that several trillion tonnes of carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit becomes available, with the likely result that global warming will eliminate life on Earth.

We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and civilisation collapses.

The only rational response to both the impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive political pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity. People tend to take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less. Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.

In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked Iraq (which appears to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a nuclear weapons programme and boasting of its intentions to blow everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations.

I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.

· The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles can be found at www.monbiot.com.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

gaiacomm

10-14-2004, 09:58 PM

The Planet is preparing for another pole switch...and global warming is melting the ice...the frogs are starting to die off from pollutants in the water...and we can help stop it!

halva

10-15-2004, 12:59 AM

Let us deal gently with the truth. No more scaremongering: about nukes, about the climate, about terrorists, about anything.

halva

10-15-2004, 01:03 AM

Global amphibians in deep trouble
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Scientists believe the world's amphibians are facing an unprecedented onslaught of environmental threats.

They say as many as 122 species may have become extinct since 1980 and a third of known amphibians face oblivion.

Naturalists describe the creatures as sensitive indicators of the health of the wider environment.

The Global Amphibian Assessment, the work of more than 500 scientists, is published in Science Express, the online version of the journal Science.

Their catastrophic decline serves as a warning that we are in a period of significant environmental degradation
Russell Mittermeier, Conservation International
It was compiled by an international team from Conservation International, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and NatureServe, and is the first comprehensive assessment of the threat.

Skin alert

There are 5,743 known amphibians, a category which includes frogs, toads, salamanders and caecilians (legless amphibians).

Of these, 1,856 - almost a third - are now judged to be at risk of extinction. At least nine species have slipped over the edge to oblivion since 1980, when the assessment says the most dramatic declines began.

Another 113 amphibians which have not been seen in the wild for some years are thought to be possibly extinct.

The scientists say 43% of all amphibians are declining, 27% are stable, under 1% are increasing, and the status of the rest is unknown.

They describe amphibians as "the canaries in the coal mine", as their highly permeable skins are very sensitive to environmental changes, including in water and air quality.

Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, said: "Amphibians are one of Nature's best indicators of overall environmental health.

"Their catastrophic decline serves as a warning that we are in a period of significant environmental degradation."

'Mass extinction'

Achim Steiner, director-general of IUCN, said: "After birds and mammals, amphibians are the third group of species to be completely evaluated on a global scale.

WHAT ARE AMPHIBIANS?
Group includes frogs, toads, salamanders and caecilians
First successful terrestrial vertebrates 350m years ago
Adapted to many different aquatic and terrestrial habitats
Present today on every continent except Antarctica
Undergo metamorphosis, from larvae to adults
"This study significantly expands our current knowledge and provides a baseline from which we can monitor our impact on the environment over time.

"The fact that one third of amphibians are in a precipitous decline tells us that we are rapidly moving towards a potentially epidemic number of extinctions."

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says 12% of all birds and 23% of mammals risk becoming extinct, well below the 32% of threatened amphibians.

Water critical

Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil and China each have large numbers of species at risk, and 92% of Haiti's amphibian species are in danger.

A highly infectious fungal disease, chytridiomycosis, is attacking many amphibians in the Americas, the Caribbean and Australia.

In some areas outbreaks are thought to be linked to climate-induced drought.

Elsewhere, though, the researchers say, habitat destruction, air and water pollution and consumer demand are among the chief culprits for the amphibians' plight.

Simon Stuart, who led the researchers, said: "Since most amphibians depend on fresh water and feel the effects of pollution before many other forms of life, including humans, their rapid decline tells us that one of Earth's most critical life support systems is breaking down."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3743682.stm

Published: 2004/10/14 18:07:41 GMT

gaiacomm

10-15-2004, 06:50 AM

Now that JR is gone for a bit we should take advantage of this and start informing the readers of the current events that exists and let them judge for themseleves rather than onesided commentary from JR and company.

halva

10-15-2004, 08:02 AM

The work has to be done off-line and by private e-mail.

halva

10-15-2004, 08:03 AM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 08:03 AM

Deleted.

jayreynolds

10-15-2004, 11:58 AM

The above posting is informational.

No comment required or desired.

Tough luck, Wayne. The debate has already begun.
"I received the following from "Jay Reynolds" <reality2u30@h...>

The truth is, that the webpage says quite a bit more about why the
pattern isn't random.
It says:
"This star pattern of intersecting contrails is actually not that
unusual; at least in some parts of the country. Under the current air
traffic control system, planes fly along specific "highways in the
sky" which intersect at certain points over navigational beacons. This
photo from Missoula, MT captures such a location. Photo by Dr. Georgia
Cobbs, April 2004."

My answer is: sure, I know that. But what is a "highway in the sky"?
Is it a bidimensional line? I.e., It is some kind of mono-rail?
Or is it rather a "recommended" corridor without walls?
I say: it is a recommended corridor without walls. There is NO WAY an
airplane can fly EXACTLY OVER an abstract point in the air, UNLESS the
pilot has a visual indication of where to fly.
And what is that visual indication? IT CAN ONLY BE THE X MADE BY THE
TWO PREVIOUS CHEMTRAILS. But does that previously traced X correspond
to a precise route? No, for the same reason: an air route is NOT a
line but only a wide recommended corridor.
So the third intersectin chemplane only intersect the previous X
because he wants to, because the X happens to be there, not because
that X corresponds to any traffic control route. Because such a route
cannot specify a dimensionless point, but only a corridor. A traffico
control route can only explain a grid-like pattern, but it CANNOT
EXPLAIN A STAR-LIKE PATTERN of three trails intersecting in a single
point. A plane does not run orn a fixed rail, so the traffic control
route is not THAT fixed.

SO this story about the traffico control routes only limits the
surface upon which the trail tossing problem arises. Probabilistically
speaking, it is VERY unlikely that even given such restricted surface,
three trails will intersect at a single point. Unless, of course, you
can show me that planes fly on invisible "rails" in the air.
===========================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/116358
===========================
He asked:"But what is a "highway in the sky"?
Is it a bidimensional line? I.e., It is some kind of mono-rail?
Or is it rather a "recommended" corridor without walls?
I say: it is a recommended corridor without walls. There is NO WAY an
airplane can fly EXACTLY OVER an abstract point in the air, UNLESS the
pilot has a visual indication of where to fly.
And what is that visual indication?"

Navigation along the airway system is done by following radiobeacons called VOR's.
The one for Missoula, Montana is listed here:
http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/navaid-info?id=MSO&type=VOR.DME&name=MISSOULA
VOR stands for VHF Omnidirectional Radio Ranges, and is the most common method of air navigation. Many modern jets also now carry satellite navigation, and, with permission, are able to get permission from air traffic controllers to fly direct.
Read more about it:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/airnavig_airwaysandradioranges.asp

Now perhaps this chemmie is simply ignorant, but looking at the messageboard he posted at, no one else seems to have a clue why planes would form intersecting contrails. Maybe a case of willful ignorance, maybe not, but the lack of interest in basic aviation principles is appalling among a group of thousands of people supposedly interested in something being done by aircraft. This incident highlights the fact that no real jet pilots have ever found any credence whatsoever in "chemtrail" claims, and in that particular forum, they are immediately banned upon voicing that opinion. Same with scientists that study contrails, each time they have posted there, the ban-button gets pushed instantly.

Now Wayne can try and shut people up about it, but I find it extremely satisfying that he would post a refence to a site that answers some questions he failed to answer sufficiently before:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/

I say bully for you, old bean, you've now joined into the debunking of your own hoax!

halva

10-15-2004, 12:33 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 12:40 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 01:12 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 01:17 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 01:18 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 01:20 PM

Deleted.

halva

10-15-2004, 02:01 PM

Deleted.

Why don't you delete your last postings too Deborah.

Pardon my slip in posting something Raynolds found interesting.

Only postings he finds boring are permissible.

Azerelus

10-15-2004, 03:38 PM

Fun in the Sun:

"Mini Ozone Holes Zapping Europeans With More Rads

From 28 to 30 January 2002 a pronounced Streamer Event associated with the atmospheric circulation pattern transported subtropical air masses over Europe. The injection of these air masses mainly into the lower stratosphere led to low ozone total column values, especially over southern Spain , France and Germany.This image was taken on 29 January. Processed by DLR. Data provision by ESA/ERS.

Measuring the ozone hole with ERS/GOME

Paris (ESA) Feb 8, 2002
For several days last week, the protective ozone layer over Europe thinned considerably. Scientists monitoring ozone coverage using a rapid mapping technique based on data from the GOME (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) instrument aboard ESA's ERS-2 satellite detected finger-like ozone thinning over Europe.
"From 28-30 January, we observed a pronounced 'streamer event'," explains DLR's Thilo Erbertseder, "where streamers of tropical air pushing up from the equatorial regions spread over southern Spain, France and Germany.

"Ozone levels in tropical air are much lower than those over more northern regions, and the end result was to decrease total ozone coverage to a low level of only 250 Dobson units."

The immediate effect of the low-ozone event was to increase exposure to harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun by 20-30% under clear skies. However, this type of event is alarming for another reason.

"The occurrence of mini ozone holes and streamers is highest over Europe and the frequency is increasing due to changes in stratospheric meteorology.

"The continual decline in ozone levels due to chemical depletion and the increase in in frequency of mini ozone holes over Europe is resulting in an increase in harmful biologically active UV radiation," said Erbertseder"

GOME has revealed that mini-hole and low-ozone events have been increasing in frequency lately. Very low ozone total column densities over Europe of below 200 Dobson Units were measured on 30 November 1999 and on 8 November 2001. The most recent event was accompanied by unusually warm weather in Central Europe.

The GOME data is provided shortly after acquisition by DLR/ESA and was further processed at the German Aerospace Centre's Cluster of Applied Remote Sensing, using a technique called Kalman filtering, which is particularly useful for revealing smaller-scale structures in time and space from satellite measurements."

link: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ozone-02b.html

Date: Feb 8, 2002

"Ozone layer hole shrinks
A gaping hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica appears to have shrunk by about 20 per cent from last year's record-breaking size, New Zealand scientists say.

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) say its measurements back up NASA satellite data showing the hole has peaked at about 24 million square kilometres.

Last year it was 29 million square kilometres.

The ozone layer sits about 15 to 30 kilometres above the earth, filtering harmful ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer.

Industrial chemicals containing chlorine and bromine, which are used in refrigerators and aerosols, have been blamed for thinning the layer because they attack the ozone molecules, causing them to break apart.

NIWA scientist Stephen Wood cautions against reading too much into the hole's smaller size, which he says is also influenced by natural variations.

"We need to see smaller or less severe ozone holes over a number of years before we can say for certain that ozone is recovering," he said.

The only inhabited area that might possibly be affected by the hole would be the southern tip of South America.

Under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, more than 180 signatory states have committed to phasing out the use of nearly 100 ozone-damaging substances.

In 2002, the ozone hole suddenly shrank, raising hopes it had turned the corner and was starting to close.

However, some scientists later put it down to an abnormality caused by atmospheric conditions.

-- Reuters"

Link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1212028.htm

Date: October 3, 2004

In 2 years time a lot happens.

gaiacomm

10-15-2004, 06:10 PM

Invasion of Israel!

Israel should be invaded by the USA or some other country to destroy the grip that now holds firm the Palestinian people. The British are to blame for this mess and the USA the continued problem.

Why is it that Israel is the only country in that region besides Pakistan to have Nuclear weapons? Why are the Arab nations not allowed to have them? Iran is trying but the USA says no. What right is that?

The Arab countries should unite under one flag and rid themselves of the infidels that now hold the seats of power in each of the separate Arab nations.

The Jews have not been fair with their promise.

Attack and destroy the entire State of Israel by selective destruction of its core. Do not murder those that are innocent of the crime.

halva

10-15-2004, 08:02 PM

Fun in the Sun:

[i]"Mini Ozone Holes Zapping Europeans With More Rads

Thank you Azerelus. Utterly boring for Raynolds.

halva

10-15-2004, 08:30 PM

Invasion of Israel!

Israel should be invaded by the USA or some other country to destroy the grip that now holds firm the Palestinian people.

Why is it that Israel is the only country in that region besides Pakistan to have Nuclear weapons? Why are the Arab nations not allowed to have them? Iran is trying but the USA says no. What right is that?

Not boring enough, but admittedly useful as a diversion.

It is true that the nuclear disarmament of Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. (and Europe, Russia, China) is much more urgent than the nuclear disarmament of the United States, which the United- Nations-centred multilateral "disarmament" process, or rather business, (Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc.) is not going to achieve if unsupported by sufficient domestic political will in the United States.

On the other hand it would not be necessary for the United States to invade Israel to achieve the nuclear disarmament of that country. The United Nations disarmament mechanisms would be quite adequate in this instance if supported by the United States.

gaiacomm

10-15-2004, 09:12 PM

Not boring enough, but admittedly useful as a diversion.

It is true that the nuclear disarmament of Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. (and Europe, Russia, China) is much more urgent than the nuclear disarmament of the United States, which the United- Nations-centred multilateral "disarmament" process, or rather business, (Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc.) is not going to achieve if unsupported by sufficient domestic political will in the United States.

On the other hand it would not be necessary for the United States to invade Israel to achieve the nuclear disarmament of that country. The United Nations disarmament mechanisms would be quite adequate in this instance if supported by the United States.

No, That does not work anymore because honest diplomacy is not practiced by all sides.

A takeover of Israel is the only way to disarm their intrusion on other lands!

halva

10-15-2004, 10:02 PM

OK Gaiacomm. Get to work organizing it.

But only after you have got Raynolds to acknowledge that you are not Lance Haubrick.

gaiacomm

10-16-2004, 07:20 AM

halva

10-16-2004, 09:23 AM

Your spelling, punctuation and cultural level is deteriorating Gaiacomm. What is happening to you?

gaiacomm

10-16-2004, 09:59 AM

Your spelling, punctuation and cultural level is deteriorating Gaiacomm. What is happening to you?

Jews and non-Jews already are organizing it; they tire of the treatment that Jews are special. They are not! Many people have suffered just as much as the Jews except they don't bitch so much. Did the Mexicans bitch when Cortez murdered them all? When Napoleon destroyed countries for fame? Caesar when he murdered many.... oh I forgot that was in the past. The Jews are gods chosen...NOT, well they helped murdered their Christ and Israel was a traitor to his people.

The USA will not invade and destroy Israel but someone else will!

gaiacomm

10-16-2004, 10:02 AM

Jews and non-Jews already are organizing it; they tire of the treatment that Jews are special. They are not! Many people have suffered just as much as the Jews except they don't bitch so much. Did the Mexicans bitch when Cortez murdered them all? When Napoleon destroyed countries for fame? Caesar when he murdered many.... oh I forgot that was in the past. The Jews are gods chosen...NOT, well they helped murdered their Christ and Israel was a traitor to his people.

The USA will not invade and destroy Israel but someone else will!

One of my friends was killed in Palestine two days ago by Israel troops. I am sad and angry that this must happen to people whos lands were stolen from them when all they did was open their doors to help the Jews in Exile!

You would not understand unless you lost a friend!

gaiacomm

10-16-2004, 10:10 AM

Rise up my brothers and sisters, the day of freedom is near. Israel will be punished for her crimes committed. The Ark of the Covenant will not protect the Jews this time in battle, nor will King David. The Star of David will not shine for the people of this land until peace is made between the inhabitants of Gods lands. No Human can own what is Gods!

Death will come quick to the ones that do not keep the Covenant!

halva

10-16-2004, 01:16 PM

Great Barrier Reef to be decimated by 2050

Australia's Great Barrier Reef will lose 95 per cent of its living coral by 2050 - predicts a new report. And this devastating situation will occur if the best-case scenario for global warming unfolds.

However, the damning predictions have sparked debate, with some researchers saying the claims are exaggerated. They do not reflect the current level of uncertainty about either the impact of warmer waters on the Reef, or likely climate change, say critics.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global warming will increase sea temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius this century. At the lower end of this limit, which will be expected only if current greenhouse gas emission rates are reduced significantly, "there will be much more frequent coral bleaching events and coral will become quite rare - down to five per cent of current levels for all of the Great Barrier Reef," says Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of University of Queensland's Centre for Marine Studies and co-author of the report.

But other scientists disagree. "Global warming is obviously a concern, but it makes it sound as though we're certain to lose the Reef and I don't think we can say that at all," says Peter Ridd, who has studied physical and environmental impacts on the GBR at James Cook University in Queensland.

Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, says the IPCC data has been disputed. Some climate scientists predict only a 0.4 C warming from predicted carbon dioxide increases, he stresses.

Mass bleachings

The GBR is the largest and one of the healthiest reef systems in the world. But certain stresses, including temporarily warmer water temperatures, can cause widespread coral bleaching. This occurs when coral expel their symbiotic algae.

The new report, commissioned by WWF and the Queensland government, considers "thermal stresses" on the reef - sustained temperatures that exceed corals' tolerance, causing mass bleachings, and coral death. "By about 2050, the thermal threshold of all corals in the reef will be exceeded," says Hoegh-Guldberg.

But the temperature levels and patterns required to cause widespread coral death are not well understood, Ridd points out. Summer 2002 saw the worst mass-bleaching event ever recorded for the GBR, with an estimated 60 to 95 per cent of individual reefs affected. "And to the best of my knowledge, most of that reef has recovered," Ridd says.

Also, global temperatures have been higher in the past, and corals survived, Ridd says.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg accepts that on a geological scale, the GBR will recover. Under the best-case global warming scenario, temperatures will stabilise at the end of this century, and the Reef will recover over the following century. Under the worst, it will take at least 500 years for it to regenerate, populated by corals adapted to living in warmer waters.

jayreynolds

10-16-2004, 06:15 PM

As we quickly close in on page 300 of this thread, the longest running thread in the history of "chemtrail" debate, it is useful to survey what has taken place, and what is currently happening.

The fact is that seven months and 297 pages ago, Wayne Hall opened this thread by declaring that geoengineering by 'chemtrails' was a reality worthy of debate:

It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'.

In the ensuing pages, Wayne waffled and wavered, and has finally settled on a habit of dropping all pretense to "honest public debate" over the subject. His only goal at this time is to stifle debate by posting spam messages and pleading and begging any and all who will listen to end the discussion he originally started.

Wayne Hall is the "chemtrail" hoax's biggest loser. Along the way, he has consistently falen for even the most idiotic of hoaxers, the most pandering of promoters, and each and every friend he ever claimed to have has turned against him!

All this pleases me greatly, and demonstrates the intellectual poverty of the hoax and the inanity of the hoaxees. Most of all, it shows any and all comers exactly what an asshole Wayne Hall really is. For my part, I'm happy to spend a few minutes each day to assure Wayne exactly who and what he is, lest he forget.

Cheerio old bean!

halva

10-16-2004, 09:24 PM

Gaiacomm, I am sorry to hear about the death of your friend.

halva

10-16-2004, 09:53 PM

Raynolds, you have succeeded in banishing references to chemtrails from this thread, which - as I understand - was your objective. This dispenses you from the need to intervene here at all from this point onwards other than for the purposes of checking that the terms of the agreement you imposed are in fact being respected.

I would appreciate your desisting from unjustified and unjustifiable references to spam.

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 07:14 AM

Gaiacomm, I am sorry to hear about the death of your friend.

Thank you, Wayne.

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 07:37 AM

I appreciate your comments and concerns. I admit that I do sometimes get carried away a bit but my intentions are honorable. The Gaiacomm technology inserts are for those that wish to keep up with telecommunications technology in Physics. The invasion of Israel is another story. If one goes back in time to understand how the Jews were brought to Palestine and the struggle they had and the genuine help they received from the Peoples of that land will shock you. It was done to help a fellow human being. The British and the USA were both involved in the settlement issues. Read thru history and see how the Chinese were treated how the Arabs were used and now how Israel was allowed to flourish and expand without contention. I say do not kill the Jews but only remove the ones on both sides that do not permit freedom for the land. Return without conditions the lands that were stolen and compensate the families on both sides that have lost life and property during this long conflict. Let the Arab nations have nuclear weapons to defend themselves against any oppressor. Let the USA become part of the UN and not think that it can operate independent from it. The USA should pull out of Iraq and let the people settle their own differences. But they will not as long as there is oil and gas under the ground.

Stop Putin from becoming a dictator in Russia and let all countries that wish to be free from the grip of that KGB idiot be free. Or remove Putin and his idiots in any way you can.

And let those that are willing to help free all Women and Men from the bonds of slavery come together and help to make all lands free from those that wish to take our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness away from us all.

halva

10-17-2004, 08:19 AM

Gaiacomm how useful were the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons for defending that state?

I would not wish the fate of the sailors of the Kursk on any human being.

The nuclear weapons game has been a sly racket from the very beginning, when TPTB did their damnedest to make sure that the Soviets would get the atom bomb as soon as possible. Why did the British send known Communist Klaus Fuchs to Los Alamos? Why did the Americans accept him there? Why did they put Communist Oppenheimer in charge of the atom bomb programme, for that matter (though it seems that he himself was not in fact involved in espionage).

The Nazis had enough judgement not to try too hard to develop these 'weapons'.

You are a false friend Gaiacomm.

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 08:23 AM

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 08:25 AM

halva

10-17-2004, 08:42 AM

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 08:58 AM

You had as much or as little control over events in the past as you have now.

If Putin is so bad, how much help did you give his predecessor Yeltsin to achieve at least one of the things he wanted to do: disburden Russia of its nuclear arsenal.

If he had managed at least that it might not have been so easy for Putin to eject him as a useless drunk who had achieved nothing.

Did you at least raise a demand anywhere, as you are doing now with Putin?

Of course we are getting completely off-topic. What about Mother Nature?

Wayne;

You keep writing (you). I had nothing to do with the politics of the past. I do have something to do with the politics of the future however. Making demands on the internet will only inform to a point. One must go to the source in silence and make change. The internet is entertainment fraud and sex.

As for Mother Nature...what have you done for her lately?

halva

10-17-2004, 09:32 AM

Why do the Japanese and the rest of the world continue commemorating the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It is a bad habit encouraged by 'the international community' to reinforce the misconception that nuclear weapons are and ever have been something other than a total HOAX.

It's about time they/we stopped.

gaiacomm

10-17-2004, 02:15 PM

halva

10-17-2004, 09:33 PM

I'm not going to tell you. I'm going to get back on topic.

halva

10-17-2004, 09:35 PM

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/synthesisimpacts/summary.cfm

A Synthesis of Potential U.S. Climate Change Impacts

Since the 18th century, widespread deforestation and a steady increase in the use of fossil fuels have caused substantial concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere. The warming effect of these gases has caused the global climate to change. Over the past century, average global surface air temperatures increased by 0.6°C (1.1°F). This global warming will continue well into the future, and is likely to accelerate, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise. Although the exact magnitude and rate of future climate change remain uncertain, it will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for the United States, its natural resources, and economy.

This report builds on the Environmental Impacts Series published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which reviews the current state of knowledge regarding how climate change will affect a number of economic and natural resource sectors in the United States. Reports in the series have included assessments of how climate change will affect water resources; agriculture and forestry; human health; and terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems. This report also draws on recent assessments of the potential impacts of climate change on the United States, particularly the U.S. National Assessment and reports prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Recent published literature regarding the implications of climate change for the U.S. economy is also discussed.

While the research completed to date indicates there are substantial uncertainties regarding exactly how climate will change and how it will affect society and ecosystems, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the vulnerability of the United States as a whole and the relative vulnerability of different regions, economic sectors, and natural ecosystems.

1. Natural ecosystems appear to be quite vulnerable to climate change. Climate change threatens to result in the loss of many coral reefs, coastal wetlands, endangered species (particularly those with limited range and mobility), cool- and cold-water fish, and boreal and alpine forest species. In addition, many species associated with particular regions, such as maple trees in New England, may not persevere in their current locations. In general, species are expected to attempt to migrate to higher latitudes or altitudes. This threat to natural ecosystems is distinctly more severe because development has reduced species populations, fragmented ecosystems and placed them under stress from pollution, and introduced barriers to migration, such as communities, farms, roads, and dams. Thus, biodiversity in the United States is likely to be reduced by climate change.

2. A number of sectors of the U.S. economy have a high sensitivity to climate change. Agriculture will be directly affected by changes in temperature and precipitation, and by ensuing effects on the distribution of pests and diseases and availability of water supplies for irrigation. Growth of forests will be sensitive to changes in climate, pests, and disease. Low-lying coastal areas will be at risk from inundation by rising seas. In addition, coastal communities, particularly along the Gulf and East coasts, will face increased risk of inundation, beach erosion, and property damage should the intensity or frequency of coastal storms and hurricanes rise. Human health in the United States will be affected by increased risk of heat stress, decreased risk of some cold weather mortality (although this has not been quantified), potential increases in transmission of infectious diseases, and changes in extreme weather events such as floods. The nation’s water resources will be affected by changes in supply resulting from altered precipitation patterns, earlier snowmelt, and increased evaporation. The risks of drought and floods are likely to increase in some areas. In addition, demand for water is likely to change, and may increase in many locations.

3. The capacity of the U.S. economy as a whole to adapt to a limited amount of climate change, with generally small impacts, appears to be quite high. The country’s high per capita income, relatively low population density, stable institutions, research base, and health care system give the United States a strong capacity to adapt to climate change. Thus, the country has a relatively large capacity to absorb its adverse effects. This does not mean there will be no cost for adaptation. Indeed, changing water resources management and agricultural practices and protecting coastal areas over this century could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But, relative to the U.S. economy, these adaptation costs appear to be small and can most likely be absorbed. Finally, the country’s large size and the population’s mobility give it advantages in adapting to climate change. The lower 48 states span more than 20 degrees of latitude in the temperate climate zone, so while some southern parts of the country are at relatively higher risk from climate change, more northern areas are at less risk or may have many benefits. In addition, the American people are very mobile: in the 20th century there were large migrations to the North (early in the century), the West (throughout the century), and the South (later in the century). In contrast, many developing countries may experience adverse effects from climate change largely because their capacity to adapt to its impacts is limited. Indeed, it is not appropriate to extrapolate the findings for the United States to other countries.

4. Although the nation as a whole has a high capacity to adapt, sectors differ in their vulnerability. Sectors that can change the fastest, such as agriculture, are likely to be able to adapt best to climate change. Sectors with long-lived infrastructure and investments, such as water resources and coastal resources, may have more difficulty adapting and could experience some adverse impacts. However, their ability to adapt to a limited amount of climate change in the long run appears to be high. As noted above, natural ecosystems have a much more limited capacity to adapt to climate change compared to societal sectors, which is exacerbated by development and other human stressors.

5. Different regions of the United States vary in their vulnerability to climate change. The southern United States is, on the whole, more vulnerable than the northern United States. The Southeast and southern Great Plains appear to be the most vulnerable regions because of their low-lying coasts, the potential loss in competitiveness of the agriculture and forest sectors (favorable climate zones for production will shift north), the increased risk of spread of infectious disease (although a strong public health system is likely to contain any potential increase), and especially the potential for reduced water supplies and increased demand for water. This would affect the availability of water for agriculture and instream uses such as protection of aquatic ecosystems. In contrast, northern areas could see mixed effects. While their low-lying coastal areas are at risk from sea-level rise and they (like the rest of the country) would have reduced biodiversity, northern areas could economically benefit from increased agricultural and forestry production and reduced energy costs. As noted below, these economic gains are transient and will not necessarily continue as temperatures keep rising.

halva

10-17-2004, 09:41 PM

6. Even within regions that may have net economic benefits, individual communities and people could be adversely affected. Some populations are at particular risk because their location or vocation exposes them to changes in climate, and their low income constrains their ability to adapt. For example, the elderly poor in northern inner cities are at risk of increased heat stress during more extreme heat waves and generally have limited means of reducing the risk with air conditioning. In addition, many Native American communities may be at risk because they are heavily dependent on natural resources that will be affected by climate change, lack the financial resources to cope, and are not able to easily move to new locations.

7. Studies of the economic impacts of climate change indicate that impacts for a few degrees of warming will be less than ±1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). These studies attempt to incorporate major market and nonmarket (e.g., biodiversity and quality of life) impacts and assume a gradual change in climate and no change in variability. The direction of impacts (i.e., positive or negative) reported in various economic analyses differs, particularly depending on when the studies were conducted. Economic studies based on impact assessments conducted during the late 1980s and early 1990s tend to show damages of about one percent of GDP. More recent studies that consider new findings on the biophysical impacts of climate change and fully account for the potential for adaptation yield different results. These economic studies suggest that for up to 2-4°C (4-7°F) of warming, there could be net economic benefits of less than one percent of GDP. It is possible that because of factors not considered, such as change in variability or the magnification of impacts across related sectors, or less efficient adaptation than assumed in many recent studies, economic impacts could be more negative than these studies estimate. v A synthesis of potential U.S. climate change impacts A synthesis of potential U.S. climate change impacts.

8. Economic impacts studies indicate that while there could be benefits, which peak at a few degrees of warming, there would be damages at higher levels of warming. Economic studies indicate that even in those sectors, such as agriculture, estimated to benefit from a small magnitude of warming, benefits peak and subsequently decline. This is because beyond certain increases in temperatures, crop yields decline or the “carbon fertilization” effect, which enables plants to grow more and use less water, saturates at higher carbon dioxide concentrations. In addition, other transient benefits such as reduced energy demand eventually become reversed as costs for cooling rise and savings from less heating are reduced. This is even true for regions such as the northern United States, which may experience economic benefits from a warming of less than several degrees, but losses beyond that. Economic studies suggest that national benefits peak at approximately a 1-2°C (2-4°F) increase in mean temperature. Beyond this, benefits decline until net economic damages occur at a warming of approximately 2-4°C (4-7°F) and become progressively worse with further increases in temperature. Significant uncertainty exists about the level of increased temperature that leads to damages and the magnitude of damages beyond that point.

9. The rate and path of climate change matter. A gradual and monotonic change in climate (e.g., steady increases or decreases in precipitation) will be much easier to adapt to than rapid changes in climate or increased interannual or interdecadal climate variability. In a slowly and steadily changing climate, such adaptations as replacing infrastructure and introducing new technologies can be made gradually. A faster change in climate may necessitate more rapid than normal investments in infrastructure, technology, and other adaptations. Additional risk comes from changes in interannual or interdecadal variability.

10. Increased warming heightens the risk of triggering large-scale changes to the climate system. Substantial increases in global mean temperature can set off large-scale changes to the earth’s climate system such as a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Gulf Stream) or melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The thresholds are uncertain (and for some of these events may be quite high), the timeframes of the consequences of such events may take centuries to be fully realized, and the consequences are not well understood. However, it is possible that warming in the 21st century could trigger such events. Once started, they may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. The consequences of such events have not for the most part, been studied, but could be substantial.

gaiacomm

10-18-2004, 06:56 AM

Under direct order from the NSA I will not be posting here again, Goodbye...

halva

10-18-2004, 09:20 AM

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/itc/exec_summ.cfm

Induced Technological Change and Climate Policy

A central goal of climate policy is to avoid potential changes in climate and associated adverse biophysical impacts by slowing or avoiding the atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Technological change will crucially influence the extent to which nations achieve this goal. The direction and extent of technological change over the next century has profound implications for emissions and atmospheric concentrations of GHGs over time, the extent of future climate change, and associated impacts on human welfare.
Climate policy can alter the future by influencing the rate and direction of technological change. “Induced technological change” (ITC) here refers to the additional technological change that is brought about by policy. This report explores how climate policy can induce technological change and examines the implications of ITC for the effective design of climate policy.

Some of the main findings are:

1. The presence of ITC lowers the costs of achieving emissions reductions. By stimulating additional technological change, climate policy can reduce the costs of meeting a given target for reductions in GHG emissions or concentrations. Until recently, most economy-wide climate change policy studies ignored ITC. Models that disregard policy-induced technological advances will tend to overestimate policy costs.

2. The presence of ITC justifies more extensive reductions in GHGs than would otherwise be called for. Because ITC lowers the costs of achieving emissions reductions, the optimal extent of GHG reduction is greater than would be predicted by models that ignore ITC. The net benefits from climate policy are larger as well.

3. The presence of ITC alters the optimal timing of emissions abatement. Although considerable technological change occurs in the absence of policy intervention, climate policy can induce additional technological change by providing incentives for additional research and development (R&D) and by stimulating additional experience with alternative technologies or processes, thereby generating “learning-by-doing.” Analysts offer contrasting views as to how ITC alters the optimal timing of emissions abatement compared to a case where climate policy does not affect the rate of technological change (that is, the case with no ITC). Does ITC justify more extensive near-term emissions reductions, or does it justify postponing reductions? Recent analyses indicate that insofar as technological change results from R&D, the presence of ITC justifies somewhat less abatement in the near-term, and more abatement in the future (when technological change has lowered the costs of abatement). On the other hand, if ITC primarily results from learning-by-doing, greater emphasis on abatement in the short term may be called for, since early abatement efforts accelerate the learning process and can thereby lower costs.

4. In the presence of ITC, announcing climate policies in advance can reduce policy costs. Announcing policies in advance can lower the cost of meeting given targets for cumulative abatement or reductions in GHG concentrations. Illustrative results indicate that announcing a $25 per ton carbon tax 10 years in advance can reduce discounted economic costs (as measured by changes in gross domestic product or GDP) by about a third, compared to the same climate policy imposed with no prior notice.

5. Economic analysis offers a justification for public policies to induce technological change, even when the returns are highly uncertain. Uncertainties surround many aspects of ITC. Neither the returns to a given investment in R&D nor the extent of future learning-by-doing can be precisely predicted. As a result, one cannot estimate with precision the cost savings from ITC or pinpoint the optimal timing of abatement. Moreover, while prior announcements of climate policies will yield cost-savings, uncertainties about costs of adjustment make it impossible to accurately forecast these savings. Despite these uncertainties, two key market failures provide a strong rationale for public policy to stimulate ITC. These are: (1) the “spillover benefits” to society as a result of R&D investments by individual firms and (2) the presence of negative “externalities” – adverse impacts that are not accounted for in the market prices of carbon based fuels.

6. To promote ITC and reduce GHG emissions most cost-effectively, two types of policies are required: policies to reduce emissions and incentives for technological innovation. This study emphasizes that two types of policies are necessary to address the two market failures noted above and to achieve, at least-cost to society, a given target for cumulative reductions in emissions or GHG concentrations. Technology incentives can deal with the market failure created by firms’ inabilities to capture all the returns on their R&D investments. Direct emissions policies (such as carbon caps or carbon taxes) can deal with the market failure created by climate-related externalities. Attempting to address the climate change problem with only one of these policy approaches cannot fully correct both market failures. As a result, adopting one approach is likely to involve higher costs than utilizing the two approaches in tandem. To date, direct GHG emissions policies have had little political success at the federal level. But there is a strong need for these policies, along with technology incentives, to deal with the prospect of climate change in a cost-effective manner.

halva

10-18-2004, 09:29 PM

cooltech.iafrica.com
COOLSCIENCE
Polar ice cap melting at alarming rate
Jerome Bernard

The polar ice cap is melting at an alarming rate due to global warming, according to NASA scientists, with satellite images showing the ice cap has been shrinking by 10 percent per decade over the past quarter century.

"It is happening now. We cannot afford to wait a long period of time for technological solutions," said David Rind of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"Change is in the air — literally," he told a press conference.

By means of a special satellite launched last year to measure the thickness of the polar ice cap, NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen all year round shrank at a rate of 10 percent per decade since 1980, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso said.

"The extent of Arctic sea ice that remains frozen all year reached record lows in 2002 and 2003," he added.

The polar ice cap expands in winter and contracts in spring and summer. The part of the ice cap that never melts, even in the warmest summers, is called the "perennial sea ice".

The oceans and land masses surrounding the Arctic Ocean have warmed one degree Celsius during the past decade, scientists said.

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are worried because global warming speeds up as the ice cap melts, forming a vicious cycle.

"Snow and sea-ice are highly reflective because they are white," Comiso said.

"Most of the sun's energy is simply reflected back to space. With retraction of the ice cover, that means that less of surface is covered by this highly reflective snow and sea ice, and so more energy has been absorbed and the climate warms."

The warming trend has brought spectacular consequences. US and Canadian scientists reported in September that the largest ice shelf in the Arctic off Canada's coast has broken up due to climate change and could endanger shipping and drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea.

The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf had been in place on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory for at least 3000 years.

"Small changes in ice could mean big impacts on the water cycle and ultimately the global climate," warned NASA.

The changes could alter ocean currents, the distribution of fish populations and precipitation averages over a wide area.

"One activity in the north is hunting of marine animals using sea-ice as a platform. When sea-ice retreats, it affects the communities up there," said University of Washington oceanographer Michael Seteele.

"The Arctic is changing rapidly. We should be concerned in the sense we need to simply recognize the change is here, is occurring and we may have to adapt to it," University of Colorado researcher Mark Serreze told reporters.

"Why the increase in global temperature?" he asked.

"Part of this is probably simply due to natural variability in the climate system," he added. "But the general consensus of the climate community is that part these changes are due to human impact."

AFP

foot_soldier

10-18-2004, 10:41 PM

13 October 2004
Climate: The Absent Issue
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&s=hertzgaard

foot_soldier

10-19-2004, 11:16 AM

October 19, 2004
The Future of the Planet: Which first -- Improvements or growth?
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1556/5039382.html

Garry Routh

10-19-2004, 12:20 PM

Making judgements on what mother nature is or will do is like telling someone to find a diamond by telling them to look for somethintg clear.. The Greenland project has been the most telling project conerning mother nature's real weather habits. Global warming, what a joke. Looking a the Greenland data it shows that the earth has been in some very violent temperature swings over and over. For the past recent then thousand years it has been behaving itself enough for life to get a foot hold. No cars, no planes, no wood burning stoves drove the temperatures up or down. For people to look at just 100 years of weather records to make some sort of law is folly. All they have are theories.

But liberals...they know it all even if they don't have the facts.

Garry Routh

halva

10-19-2004, 12:58 PM

Go and read this thread from the beginning.

foot_soldier

10-19-2004, 01:56 PM

Read this one, too, since you're interested in facts:

Cheney and Energy Connections
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13797

halva

10-20-2004, 07:37 AM

ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.unitedforpeace.org <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> |
212-868-5545
To subscribe, visit http://www.unitedforpeace.org/email
===========================================

NO STOLEN ELECTIONS!
http://www.Nov3.US <http://www.nov3.us/>

We all remember the votes that were never counted in Florida 2000.
While we are all working hard for a positive outcome on November 2nd, we
also have to be prepared for a repeat of a 2000 stolen election. Below
is a pledge for people to sign, supporting efforts to mobilize and
protect the vote on November 2nd and making a commitment to protest
starting on November 3rd in the case of a fraudulent vote count. By
signing this pledge, you will be joining with thousands of others in the
November 3rd Urgent Response Network. Please sign the pledge at
http://www.nov3.us/ <http://www.nov3.us/%A0> and pass it around far and
wide.

We are setting up a Fair Elections Advisory Council made up of U.S. and
international elections experts who will give us their assessment on
election day itself. If they find significant fraud, we will activate
the Urgent Response Network on or immediately after November 3rd,
calling on people everywhere to engage in protest, including non-violent
civil disobedience, in front of their local federal buildings and other
appropriate places. We will also be asking those who can to converge in
the states where the most serious fraud occurred, as well as in
Washington DC.

In addition to signing the pledge, please work with other people and
groups in your area to protect the vote on November 2nd and to build the
Urgent Response Network. Pick a venue for your local protest in the
case that the Urgent Response Network is activated, and list the time
and place on the website at http://www.nov3.us <http://www.nov3.us/> .
We also recommend that you find or organize a place to jointly watch the
election results on November 2nd.

Let us commit ourselves to making sure that this time around, the person
who occupies the White House is the one who won the election.

NO STOLEN ELECTIONS PLEDGE OF ACTION:

"I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to
take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts
to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November
2nd. If that right is systematically violated, I pledge to join
nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in
the states where the fraud occurred, or in Washington DC."

Please sign the pledge now at http://www.Nov3.US <http://www.nov3.us/>

INITIAL SIGNATORIES:
Stewart Acuff, Organizing Director, AFL-CIO
Fred Azcarate, Jobs with Justice
Patrick Barrett, RadFest: Midwest Social Forum
Brian Benford, Madison Common Council
Medea Benjamin, CodePink
Adrienne Maree Brown, League of Pissed Off Voters
Mike Brune, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network
Dennis Brutus, poet
Andrea Buffa, Global Exchange
Linda Burnham, Women of Color Resource Center
Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice
John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies
David Cobb, Green Presidential Nominee
Steve B. Cobble, political strategist
Rev. James Demus, III, Director, NAACP, Chicago Southside
Charlie Derber, Professor of Sociology, Boston College
Karen Dolan, Institute for Policy Studies & Cities for Peace
Theresa El-Amin, Southern Anti-Racism Network (SARN)
Daniel Ellsberg, author
Larry Fahn, President, Sierra Club
Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers
Arun Gandhi, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Ed Garvey, Fighting Bob Fest
Greg Gerritt, Executive Director, Friends of the Moshassuck
Ted Glick, National Coordinator, IPPN
Jim Goodman, Family Farm Defenders
Rev. Graylan Hagler, Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice
Jody Grage Haug, Green Peace Action (GPAX)
Andy Heidt, Madison Common Council
Dolores Huerta, United Farm Workers
Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rainbow/PUSH
Reverend James Lawson, civil rights leader
Natalie Johnson Lee, Minneapolis City Council
Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun
Pete Karas, Racine Common Council
Brenda Konkel, President, Madison Common Council
Doug La Follette, Wisconsin Secretary of State
Barbara Lubin, Middle East Children's Alliance
Ben Manski, Foundation for the Democratic Revolution
Jessica Marshall, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition
Elizabeth Martinez, Institute for Multiracial Justice
Mike McCabe, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Robert McChesney, Free Press
Holly Near, singer-songwriter
Maya O'Connor, Labor Greens Network
Jamala Rogers, Organization for Black Struggle, St. Louis
Rebecca Rotzler, Alder, New Paltz
Marc Sanson, Co-Chair, Green Party of the United States
Renee Saucedo, La Raza Centro Legal
John Sellers, Ruckus Society
Charles Shaw, Newtopia Magazine
Jane Slaughter, Labor Notes
Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority
Damu Smith, founder, Black Voices for Peace
Starhawk, activist and writer
Ajita Talwalker, United States Students Association
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council
Chris Vaeth, This Time We're Watching
Jason West, Mayor, New Patlz, New York
Bob Wing, War Times
Dean Zimmerman, Minneapolis City Council
Howard Zinn, historian

Please join us by signing the pledge now at http://www.nov3.us/

===========================================
ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.unitedforpeace.org <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> |
212-868-5545
To subscribe, visit http://www.unitedforpeace.org/email
===========================================

--
Tara Dorabji
Outreach Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
www.trivalleycares.org
tara@trivalleycares.org
ph: (925) 443-7148
fax: (925) 443-0177

Before the word, was the silence. In this silence existed neither thought nor judgment. First came laughter,then the tears, and the sound was born. With the sound, the world flooded with memories.

halva

10-21-2004, 02:58 AM

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and one of the most diverse. It covers approximately 11,400 square kilometers and stretches 332 kilometers from Virginia Beach, Va., to Havre de Grace, Md., at the mouth of the Susquehanna River (fig. 1). Its watershed drains a region of 165,800 square kilometers. The Chesapeake is the shipping artery for Norfolk, Va., and Baltimore, Md., and it is highly valued for its sea life, waterfowl, sport fishing, and recreational boating. At the same time, the bay is threatened by environmental degradation caused by man-induced pollution from a variety of sources.

There is little awareness, however, that the rapidly rising relative sea level within the bay is also having dramatic and wide-ranging effects. Islands once populated in colonial time and during the past century have disappeared due to submergence and related shore erosion. The artifacts of early European settlers and prehistoric peoples are sometimes found by watermen working over land areas now covered by the shallow waters of the bay. Sharps Island, described and mapped by John Smith in 1608, has since disappeared, although it was shown on maps and charts as recently as the beginning of the 20th century. Submerged and eroded Sharps Island (fig. 2), formerly at the mouth of the Choptank estuary, is recalled only by a prominent lighthouse erected in 1882 and is now covered by 3- to 4-meter water depths. Expanding wetlands are claiming low-lying communities on Smith Island and Tangier Island. Settlements begun in the 18th and 19th centuries, together with their churches and cemeteries, are often surrounded by the rising water of the bay during periods of extreme high tides -- a prologue to the rising sea level (fig. 3).

Figure 2. Map of Sharps Island, showing extent of land mass in 1848 (U.S. Coast Survey, 1848). Inset shows Sharps Island lighthouse, which was built in 1882 (photograph from Vojtech (1997); used with permission from Tidewater Publishers). The former Sharps Island is now submerged, and the lighthouse is surrounded by water 3 to 4 meters deep.

Figure 3. Extreme high tide, March 1, 1998, Hoopers Island, Eastern Shore, Md. Photograph by J. Williams.

The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, situated on Maryland's Eastern Shore, is unique in its coastal marshland waterfowl habitat. The refuge is being widely affected as steadily rising sea level converts vegetated marshlands into shallow ponds and changes important shallow-water marsh habitat into deeper water plant and animal communities. In short, the bay is changing and changing rapidly, even in human timeframes. With the potential for climate warming in the near future, relative sea-level change could accelerate and bring about even more dramatic change for the bay in the next century.

Sea-Level Change
The Chesapeake Bay is the drowned, ancestral valley of the Susquehanna River; the bay is fed by runoff from tributaries of the Potomac, Patuxent, Rappahannock, and James Rivers (fig. 4). About 18,000 years ago, the Susquehanna riverbed extended beyond present Cape Henry and Cape Charles and continued to the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean, at that time at the edge of the continental shelf. During the last glaciation, ice sheets covered most of Canada and extended southward into the Midwestern United States and eastward into northern New Jersey and along Long Island. Water, once contained in the ocean basins, fell as snow onto the continents, where it was stored as glacier ice. Worldwide sea level fell as glaciers expanded.
At the full extent of the last glaciation, sea level was approximately 100 meters lower than at present, and as a result continental shelves were exposed throughout the world. At the end of the last glacial epoch, sea level rose relatively rapidly as continental glaciers melted. By 15,000 years ago, the outer continental shelves had been submerged, and by 10,000 years ago, the main channel of the ancient Susquehanna River valley was flooded and became a narrow estuary. Between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago, the rate of submergence began to slow, and the Chesapeake Bay took on its characteristic "drowned river valley" shoreline pattern. Sea level at that time stood approximately 9 meters lower than the present level. Since then, the rate of sea-level rise over much of the last 6,000 years has been an almost-imperceptible 1.4 millimeters per year (about 6 inches per century). The present general shoreline configuration was attained by the time the first European and colonial maps were prepared (fig. 5), but as tide gauges and the continued inundation of low-lying areas indicate, relative sea level in the bay is still rising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4. Ancestral channel of the Susquehanna River and its tributaries 18,000 years ago at the peak of the last glaciation (modified from Colman and Mixon, 1988). Sea level was about 100 meters below the present level. The Chesapeake Bay is the drowned ancestral valley of the Susquehanna River. NM, nautical miles.

Figure 5. Early colonial map of Maryland and Virginia (from Ogilby, 1671). The map is oriented with north on the right, reflecting its original purpose as a port-finding chart for ship captains approaching the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay.

halva

10-21-2004, 02:59 AM

Relative Sea Level
Sea-level change during the past 10,000 years has varied from place to place and region to region. Sea level is measured relative to datums on land, but the altitude of the land changes as well, due to imperceptible natural subsidence and uplift of the Earth's crust. If the land surface is subsiding at the same time that ocean volumes are increasing, then the rate of submergence will be greater than it would be due to changes in ocean volume alone. If the land area is rising relative to the sea, apparent sea level may fall. Human changes such as ground-water extraction and fluid withdrawal from petroleum reservoirs can induce subsidence and influence relative sea-level change. Monitoring altitudinal changes in the Earth's crust is a difficult task, although satellite measurement with global positioning systems promises to give more accurate results than were formerly possible. To complicate the picture further, changes in ocean volumes due to natural or man-induced climate changes can cause relatively short-term fluctuations in sea level, by changing the thermal expansion of the ocean.

The Modern Setting
Continuous tide gauge records around the Chesapeake Bay show that the rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century has not been constant and that modern rates are more rapid than those determined by geologic studies conducted two decades ago. The current rate of sea-level rise at the mouth of the Chesapeake is about 4 millimeters per year (about 1.3 feet per century) and decreases northward. Tide gauges with longer periods of record, like that at Solomons Island, Md., midway along the length of the bay, record mean sea level since 1937 and illustrate a 3-millimeter-per-year rate of rise (about 1 foot per century) (fig. 6). Areas described as marsh in colonial times have given way to shallow creeks. Dead trees farther up tributary creeks characterize areas only recently submerged to become marsh. Tree stumps of former forests can be found beneath the sediments of tributary creeks. Sea-level rise continues.

Figure 6. Annual mean relative sea level recorded at the Solomons Island, Md., tide gauge 1937*97 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, written commun., 1998).

The Chesapeake Bay Today
Tide gauges for the Chesapeake Bay and the Mid-Atlantic coast show rates of sea-level rise twice that of the worldwide average. Scientists disagree on the cause of the recent increase in the rate of rise. Is the increase caused by land subsidence, or is it related to a changing climate and ocean volume? Anthropogenic (man-induced) causes are often sought to account for anomalies in the short historical records of environmental change. Sediment compaction resulting from extraction of ground water is another popular explanation used today to account for land subsidence. On a much broader scale, a zone of subsidence along the entire Mid-Atlantic coast has been attributed to crustal adjustment still taking place following the removal of vast thicknesses of glacier ice to the north thousands of years ago (isostatic adjustment).
The Chesapeake Bay has also been identified as one of four anomalous areas along the U.S. East Coast that appear tectonically active. A zone of crustal downwarping and sediment accumulation known as the Salisbury embayment has long been recognized beneath the Delmarva Peninsula. It is clearly possible for vertical movement to occur along such zones. Another geologic factor that might account for anomalous rates of sea-level change, at least for the mouth of the bay, is possible subsidence related to compaction of the fill of a large buried impact crater that underlies much of the Norfolk, Hampton Roads, and Cape Charles area. For the Chesapeake Bay, the rate of sea-level rise has certainly accelerated, but just as certainly, rising sea level is the norm in the region rather than the exception. The applied scientific issues in this area revolve around understanding, coping with, and more importantly, planning for an ongoing dynamic Earth process like sea-level change.

The USGS Role in Sea-Level Research in the Chesapeake Bay
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) role in sea-level research is national in scope and ranges from remote sensing and geologic mapping of wetlands to studies of coastal erosion and evidence of older shorelines in the geologic record. Both short- and long-term environmental records are taken in account. One goal is to be able to determine the rate of sea-level change on century to thousand-year time scales in order to compare consistency and agreement (or lack thereof) with the decadal and annual records of the tide gauges. In the Chesapeake Bay, the USGS is conducting research to reconstruct the detailed pattern of relative sea-level change during the last 6,000 to 8,000 years. Few modern data are available from which to establish baselines to compare with the ongoing rate of sea-level rise. Current research efforts focus on the central region of the Chesapeake Bay. For example, coring studies of marshes and tributary creeks in the Patuxent River basin are providing sedimentary and biological records of rising sea level.
One aspect of USGS research is to place in perspective the role of sea-level rise as a natural ongoing process that continues to modify the bay and its resources. Another aspect is to demonstrate the effects of sea level on past and present settlement, as well as environmental change. The Patuxent River was a center of 17th and 18th century settlement and so is a key study site from which to obtain geologic information that can be applied to a variety of societal and scientific problems. Data from sediment cores obtained to document the sea-level history can also furnish records of sedimentation rates, temperature and salinity changes, and water chemistry and can be used to measure human impacts on the natural systems from pre-European settlement times to the modern industrial world. Understanding the history of sea-level rise and associated changes in sedimentation and salinity will help resource managers better formulate and refine restoration strategies for the bay and its resources.

jayreynolds

10-21-2004, 04:29 AM

Well, congratulations, you spammed this thread right into page 300, Wayne. It gives me great pleasure to see you, with this albatross around your neck. Don't think you can leave, because I haven't given you permission. You are simply in a holding pattern.

halva

10-21-2004, 01:05 PM

Raynolds defines as spam any posting on which his own dirty thumbprint is not visible.

DvdGStwrt

10-21-2004, 03:49 PM

What is spam? Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Lets count how many times Mr. Reynolds asked his ten big super important questions and then go back to the definition of SPAM. No, I don't want to spend hours tallying that count.

Who here is the broken record, broken record, broken record?

DvdGStwrt

10-21-2004, 03:55 PM

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=6574047

Global Warming Effects Faster Than Feared - Experts Thu Oct 21, 2004 03:32 PM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Recent storms, droughts and heat waves are probably being caused by global warming, which means the effects of climate change are coming faster than anyone had feared, climate experts said on Thursday.

The four hurricanes that bashed Florida and the Caribbean within a five-week period over the summer, intense storms over the western Pacific, heat waves that killed tens of thousands of Europeans last year and a continued drought across the U.S. southwest are only the beginning, the experts said.

Ice is melting faster than anyone predicted in the Antarctic and Greenland, ocean currents are changing and the seas are warming, the experts said.

"This year, the unusually intense period of destructive activity, with four hurricanes hitting in a five-week period, could be a harbinger of things to come," said Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Epstein and colleagues called a telephone news conference to raise their concerns, which they have also laid out before Congress in recent weeks.

"The weather patterns are changing. The character of the system is changing," Epstein said. "It is becoming a signal of how the system is behaving and it is not stable."

Experts have long said that people are affecting the world's climate, and this is no longer in any real dispute. Fossil fuels such as oil, in particular, release carbon dioxide that forms a blanket that holds in heat from the sun's rays.

But several experts have disputed the idea that this year's hurricane season was unique.

"Recent history tells us that hurricanes are not becoming more frequent," James O'Brien, a professor of meteorology and oceanography at Florida State University and colleague said in a recent statement.

"According to meteorological measurements, extreme weather is not increasing."

SOONER THAN FEARED
James McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University and former co-chair of the impacts group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agreed said it is impossible to say any one storm or drought is caused by climate change.
But, he added, "We know that the Earth's temperature pattern is changing ... On every continent it is now evident that there are impacts from these changes in temperature and precipitation."

Not even the most anxious scientists had predicted that some of the changes that have occurred would come so soon, he said. For example, several high-profile reports have described the unexpected rapid loss of ice in the Antarctic and Greenland.

"They are really important components of the interactive climate system," McCarthy said. "They really should serve as a wake-up call."

Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said carbon dioxide levels are more than 30 percent higher than they were in the pre-industrial era.

"Global sea level has risen about an inch and a quarter in the past 10 years," he added. "Most of this rise in sea level is due to the expansion of the ocean as it warms," he added, saying that 25 percent to 30 percent was from melting ice.

Insurance companies are taking the trend seriously, said Matthias Weber, senior vice president and chief property underwriter of the U.S. Direct Americas division of insurer Swiss Re.

"It was the first time since 1886 that we had four hurricanes affecting a single state in the same season," Weber said. "More than 22 percent of all homes (in Florida) were affected by at least one of the hurricanes."

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

DvdGStwrt

10-21-2004, 04:00 PM

Of course Japan got its record breaking Typhoon too:

Posted on Thu, Oct. 21, 2004

Search Begins for Japan Typhoon Victims

AUDREY McAVOY

Associated Press

TOKYO - Rescue workers and Japanese troops waded through sludge Thursday to search for victims of mudslides in Japan's deadliest typhoon in over a decade that ripped across the country, killing 63 and leaving 25 missing.

Typhoon Tokage, the record eighth typhoon to hit Japan this year, unleashed towering waves and rapid mudslides that demolished homes and flooded dozens of communities when the storm slammed into western Japan Wednesday.

Tokage, which means lizard in Japanese, headed east into the Pacific Ocean Thursday after losing power, leaving clear blue skies in its wake and rescue workers combing the sea for victims feared washed away in the typhoon.

Tsutomu Mukai on the small island of Awaji 279 miles west of Tokyo said a mudslide buried his home and killed his 72-year old mother.

"We panicked. We had no time to escape," Mukai, 50, told broadcaster TV Asahi. "I called out, 'Mother, are you alive?,' but there was no answer."

Powerful gusts uprooted huge trees, flash floods submerged cars to their windows and entire hillsides crumbled in landslides across southern and central Japan. Delivery trucks, tipped over by winds, lay on their sides.

By Thursday evening, the death toll had risen to 63 and 25 others were still unaccounted for, the National Police Agency said. Injuries totaled 273.

Crews rescued a tour group of 36 senior citizens and their bus driver early Thursday after a river overflowed and flash floods nearly submerged their bus in the city of Maizuru in Kyoto prefecture, or state. The group spent the night on the roof of the bus as fast-moving waters delayed help.

"We called to one another to keep moving and to stay awake," one unidentified passenger told public broadcaster NHK. "I was so relieved when the lifeboat came."

Nationwide, more than 23,210 homes were flooded and hundreds of others ripped apart or buried, Fire and Disaster Management Agency spokesman Hideyuki Aoki said. More than 13,000 people across the country were staying at temporary shelters, officials said.

Workers in southwestern Okayama prefecture found the bodies of elderly people - a couple in their 80s and two others, aged 76 and 83 - who had been among the missing after a mudslide buried homes, prefectural government spokesman Tatsuya Sugita said.

A landslide in western Kyoto prefecture left two elderly women - aged 72 and 79 - dead in their homes, police spokesman Chibana said. A 70-year-old man living in the same village had drowned, he said.

The last time storms killed more people was in September 1988, when 84 died in a nearly continuous two-week spell of typhoons, Fire and Disaster Management Agency spokesman Yoshikazu Nishiwaki said.

Japan had just been recovering from Typhoon Ma-on, which killed six people earlier this month, when Tokage hit. The country suffered 22 deaths from Typhoon Meari in late September.

This year's typhoons have far outstripped the previous post-World War II record of six, set in 1990. ** The storms have left nearly 220 people dead or missing, the largest casualty tally since 1983.

Monetary damage from the storms and other natural disasters this year reached an estimated $6.72 billion in mid-October, Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki told a parliamentary committee Thursday.

(**my emphasis added to point out the record)