It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[Insurrectionchemistry]

The Jews and Israel have been attempting to control the US for some time. The death of JFK is directly linked to Israel and the Jewish bankers want of a NW Ownership.

IMHO,
is

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm

Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.

Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist fellow travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Samaria. Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed that they would not allow the new state to become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy
the Americans freedom and before I leave office I must inform the Citizen of
his plight.”
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (10 days before he was murdered)

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/FED1.htm

[gaiacomm]

Well, Now if the Jews are blamed for our problems then why not round the Jews up and burn them? Then our problems will be less, right?

But we better round up everyone else as well!

[jayreynolds]

Is the effects of the fluoride effects that effects the effect of the Jews when effected by the Masonic effects on the titanium dioxide effects, effectively effecting the effects of the JR Mason Jews causing the effect of the acid rain effect of the chemtrail effect on the effects of the heavy metals effects.

How am I doing, Jimmy? Am I close?:D

IMHFO
es

It's not so much the effects, it's the effects of the methods on the method's effects.
LMAO

[jayreynolds]

What is it with your "Hard on" for Jewry.......?

For sure if Jim had his way the ovens would be fired up and working overtime.
One sick dude blind as he can be.

[jayreynolds]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/nyregion/05laser.html
"Banach was charged with interference of the operator of a mass transit vehicle, a felony under the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, carrying a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. A second charge of giving false testimony could bring an additional five years, and a $250,000 fine, if he is convicted."

Scapegoat or not, the guy finished himself off among his own family friends and community.
.
Terrible chemmie style liar, at first he blamed the lasering on his own daughter.

I say a guy uses his own child as a scapegoat for his terrorist activities, give him the full 20 years.

[halva]

Australia, US must join international strategy on emissions: report

SYDNEY (AFP) Jan 04, 2005

Australia and the United States will have to eventually participate in an international strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol, a minister was reported saying Tuesday.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said Australia was "very vulnerable" to climate change and achieving a comprehensive, worldwide approach on global warming must be a priority, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

"I have made a conscious decision to get the government more onto the front foot on climate change," he was quoted saying.

"Climate change is the preeminent environmental issue," he said.

Australia would continue to align itself with Washington in opposing Kyoto but Campbell conceded both countries would be part of a future global agreement, the newspaper said.

The protocol comes into force next month, but the United States and Australia have been two leading opponents.

Australia has argued it is too costly and unfair because developing countries are not bound to make specific pollution cuts, although Campbell conceded Monday that Australia needed to recognise the special needs of developing nations.

Greenpeace campaigner Catherine Fitzpatrick welcomed the government's recognition that climate change was a serious issue but said it was hard to take seriously until greenhouse gas emissions started coming down.

[halva]

Nuclear disarmament is an issue that could be taken up by those who wish to establish a healthier balance in relations between the United States and Israel.

A series of bilateral nuclear disarmament agreements on the Brazil-Argentinian model: Russia-European Union, Russia-China, China-India, India-Pakistan. The United States would not be required by international agreement to destroy its own nuclear arsenal but to oblige Israel to destroy the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

That, if what Jim Phelps says is true, would correspond with what John F. Kennedy would desire were he still alive.

[gaiacomm]

JR and company are fighting a losing battle on this forum!

[halva]

And you really cannot separate Teller being a Jew from the choices he made in life. Just as you cannot separate the fact that Teller was a gimp due to a street-car accident chopping off his foot.


In his autobiography (speaking as a very old man) Teller disarmingly confesses to feeling a greater affection for his artificial foot than for the rest of his body. He was impressed by the way that it seemed to have stood up better (pardon unintentional pun) to the passage of the years. It was the part of his body to which his mind felt most affinity.

[Yaak]

JR and company are fighting a losing battle on this forum!
Battle?

So, gaiacomm, you do not believe that the truth will prevail?

[gaiacomm]

Battle?

So, gaiacomm, you do not believe that the truth will prevail?

It always does no matter what!

[Insurrectionchemistry]

http://www.jabpage.org/posts/fourteen.html

The Jewish media make fun of "conspiracy theorists," not because they are sometimes wrong, but because they are sometimes right. —Jerry Abbott

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes:

"That, if what Jim Phelps says is true, would correspond with what John F. Kennedy would desire were he still alive."

========

Yes, very true. And perhaps even people like Sen Ron Paul from Texas who seems to understand the corruping effects of the Fed Res system and is trying to change it, and follows in JFK's footsteps on that issue.

IMHO,
is

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes:

"" On the subject of Teller: there is an urgent need for the last chapter of Teller's biography to be written. Peter Goodchild, who has written excellent biographies of both Teller and Oppenheimer, did not include the 'chemtrails' phase of Teller's career, breaking off just before for chronological reasons.

Gregg Herken, another talented biographer, does not cover the chemtrails phase for the same reason. He has written a very well-documented book on science policy-making in the USA. (Its title is 'Cardinal Choice'). ""

=========

Hello Halva,

Yes, the latter parts of Teller's involvements in chemtrails is missing. It is being kept from the public because of the huge economc impacts involved, which are assigned to fluorine, the Manhattan Project, and the strategic metals businesses. Plus, these issues as the related to religion produce a huge paradigim shift, which the Jews and the Rothschilds don't want made public. Plus, these uranium plants national security existance problems would be in huge trouble, if the local public discovered the impacts to their immune system to the point of excess cancers and risk for HIV infection. Because of this, We came to nickname Teller as the "Lying Story Teller" at ORNL as we discovered and watched his lies to support the lab systems he created.

You have to keep in mind that Tellers views of the Communists highly colored the US visions and fears of things. If there was anyone that started the Cold War, it was Teller. Teller not only started the Manhattan Project, he started the system of National Labs. So, Teller was given to exploit this power and given to almost tell any lie to get Congressional funding.

Russia was our ally against Germany, and after the war the world needed to be kept from learning the religion factors assigned to the Jews for both the Russian and German political systems. Teller was a principle in conceiling the sense and sensibilties of these factors.

Teller was affected by the Jewish quotas imposed in schools in Hungary, and this colored his responses. The real problem between the Communists, who are Jewish reformers called Marxists/Lenonists was that they recognized how religion would come to run over Governments. So, the Communists shifted toward athiest states and toward socialist economomies that avoided banking systems like the Rothschilds. They were attempting to short circuit the Jewish systems to gain control of Governments.

Naturally, the Jews and the Rothschilds banking systems hated this, as they could not work their games in athiest states and socialized economies. Castro adopted the same system. And even Hitler's was based on similar concerns, though Hitler allowed a form of religion to exist in Germany.

So, when Teller came out with the warnings of the Germans will develop the bomb, he set up a huge scare in the US system that was exploited for some 60 years. Tellers fears were based on these states rejecting the religion games of the Jews and upon rejection of their closely associated economic take over methods using wars.

Teller's Jewish fears set up this entire fear of Communism by the US, and the huge battle for economic domination of the planet.

Then, when we get into the issues of Chemtrails, here the big problem is the fluorides and this was a liability that the Manhattan Project would incur and the bankers that funded it. Plus, the greater investigations of the acid rain and global warming issues exposes the big Jewish issues connected to Revelations and the end of the huge Jewish attempts at economic domination of the US and extended toward attempts for the New World Ownership.

Teller set up a pivotal role in US politics and the manage of fear politics to accomodate the Jewish equation for world politics. The problem is the Jewish version of god, which sets the stage for all this vision is based upon falsehoods.

IMHO,
is

[whitemajikman]

"There are many myths and misunderstandings related to the topic of climate change. To help inform the public debate, Envirotruth has amassed a list of the "Top Climate Change Myths" that we often hear cited by supporters of the Kyoto Accord and other greenhouse gas reduction treaties. Click on a myth below to read the "Envirotruth"."


NOTE: It is important for citizens in countries that are outside of Kyoto to understand that Canada's recent ratification was driven largely by the mistaken belief that climate science is sufficiently mature to warrant a severe greenhouse gas reduction treaty. Since many environmentalists now claim that the United States and Australia should follow Canada's lead, it is useful to see the extent to which the science debate was skewed in Canada. Consequently, Envirotruth has now included, immediately following each Myth, a link to "What was said in Canada" - a listing of quotes from some of Canada's leading politicians and environmentalists. Such pseudo-science must be opposed at every possible opportunity.

MYTH #1: 'Humanity is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change.'
What was said in Canada


THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today.

Click here to see how temperature has varied since 1979.
Click here to see how temperature has varied in the past millennia.
Click here to see how it has varied in the past 18,000 years.
Click here to see how it has varied in the past 160,000 years.


For more than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.

However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar energy.

Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”

Professor Patterson gives an interesting, and easy to understand, verbal description of natural climate variation. Click here to listen to his three-minute presentation - please make sure your speakers are on.

Many other scientists are skeptical of the fashionable view that people are causing significant climate change. A particularly compelling one is Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project.




Myth #1a: 'Computer Models Show Catastrophic Warming in the Future.'

THE ENVIROTRUTH: The modern global warming debate was ignited in 1989 when NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen testified before a joint U.S. House and Senate committee that there was "a strong cause and effect relationship between the current climate" - then a blistering drought - "and human alteration of the atmosphere." His computer models predicted an average global temperature rise of 0.45°C between 1988 and 1997 and 8°C by 2050 due to greenhouse gas build-up. Despite enormous uncertainties in his simulations, it wasn't long before the politically correct view of the future included a global warming catastrophe.

Yet today, Hansen admits that his computer simulations were wrong and that current climate change models are unreliable (see related article by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia). After the U.S. spent $10 billion on this issue, Hansen wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "The forces that drive long-term climate changes are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." As more and more variables have been incorporated into the models, the amount of predicted change has decreased. Renowned Columbia University oceanographer/climatologist Dr. Wallace Broecker believes that more than one million variables influence climate change. Although not all are required to reasonably model climate, this fact underlines why contemporary computer simulations are not very accurate.

The problem is also due to the fact that, even though water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it is essentially ignored by climate models. These simulations are so primitive that they are even unable to determine today's climate when starting with known past temperatures and rates of CO2 level rise.

Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, explains that, despite these obvious flaws, much of the current debate on global warming has been hijacked by theorists, relying primarily on these inaccurate models but working with little actual data. With the support of biologists, who generally lack a proper understanding of long-term climate dynamics, mass media and government have treated the more extreme of these theoretical scenarios as credible indicators of future environmental change, which they clearly are not.

Dr. Michaels puts the controversy into perspective: “Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have risen about 0.7°C in the last 100 years, but about half of that warming occurred before most changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The other half, which has occurred in the last three decades, is often attributed to human causation."

“If this is true, then we have a very good idea of future warming,” says Dr. Michaels. “While global climate models are incapable of predicting the distribution of regional and vertical climate change, they generally agree that once human-induced warming begins, it takes place at a constant (not increasing) rate. This is because the response of temperature to carbon dioxide becomes damped at higher concentrations, while it is generally assumed that the carbon dioxide increase itself is exponential, along with population. The mathematical combination of the two is a straight line.”

Dr. Michaels concludes that the resultant warming predicted by these computer models works out to approximately 1.6°C in the next 100 years. "Half of this amount, in the last 100 years, saw a doubling of life span and a quintupling of crop yields where economic freedom reigned," he says. "There is no reason to expect a sudden turnaround; rather, continued adaptation and prosperity are much more likely."

Dr. Roger Pocklington of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography says, "Professional doomsayers always pick the least likely, upper extremity, of the temperature range for their polemics, never the average." They also never explain that most of the computer models forecast much lower temperatures and that the average of these models is more in the range cited by Dr. Michaels.

Dr. Michaels concludes, "Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide [the primary driver of temperature change in the computer models] have been much slower than anticipated by virtually all scientists 25 years ago. The increases are so small that they may not even be exponential. This predicts a damping of the already-small warming rate in coming decades."

A good illustration of how poorly today's Global Climate Models (GCMs) perform is obtained by comparing the rise in global average temperatures actually measured over the past two decades with how the GCMs used by the IPCC 'predict' they should have increased. As evident in the following graph (where measured temperature rise is indicated as an averaged trend) even the most conservative of the models used by the IPCC 'predict' significantly greater temperature rises than what actually occurred. How can we put any faith in the IPCC's predictions for the future when their forecasts are based solely on such inaccurate GCMs?

Continued.......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #1b: 'The Consensus of World Scientists, as Revealed by the UN's IPCC, Agree - Humanity is Causing Significant Climate Change.'



THE ENVIROTRUTH: "There is of course no consensus at all," according to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. "There isn't even a consensus on whether the atmosphere is currently warming -- never mind on whether humanity should be held responsible."

Most people don't realize that there are in fact two parts to the IPCC report - a large science section (the 'main report') which is a description of research activities in climate science, as well as a highly politicized "Summary for Policymakers". The summary is what is commonly quoted in the media and by those supporting Kyoto. They present it as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing. It only represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), NGO's and business, rather than of scientists. The Summary for Policymakers has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty and presents frightening scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Dr. Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London (England), explains, "The whole feel of the IPCC report differs between its political summary and the scientific sections. It comes as a shock to read the following in the conclusions to the science part: "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible." - quite a contrast to the alarmism of the Summary for Policymakers.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of the lead authors of the science sections of the IPCC report, has scathingly described the summary as "very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen," prepared by a "peculiar group" with "no technical competence." Professor Lindzen further described the inept and unethical behaviour of the IPCC in preparing their reports in his May 2, 2001 testimony to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee - the full transcript of that testimony can be viewed at http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/lin_0502.htm. On hearing about Canada's Minister of the Environment David Anderson's confidence in the dramatic conclusions of the IPCC summary report, Dr. Lindzen laughed, "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not."

"The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be," sums up climate specialist, Dr. David Wojick. "Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment." *

Even the science part of the IPCC report is suspect. "It is absolutely remarkable how inferior and one-sided this report is," said Dr. Nils Axel-Mörner, Professor of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at Stockholm University. "Where are all the real sea level specialists from our Commission and from IGCP? They have had little or nothing to say in this report. If science is treated in this way, it is bound to go wrong."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and a climatology professor for 25 years at the University of Winnipeg explains that these problems have resulted in many of the scientists who were originally part of the IPCC process withdrawing. "What most people don't understand is that all IPCC 'predictions' are based on computer models that assume, with no reasonable justification, a doubling of CO2," says Dr. Ball. "Every single prediction they have made has been incorrect."

When Dr. Ball appeared before the Canadian Federal government's Standing Committee on the Environment he experienced the whip of political correctness when he tried to explain the problems with some of their beliefs about atmospheric science. "Galileo would be ashamed of you!" chastised Marlene Catterall, Liberal Member of Parliament for Ottawa West-Nepean. Ms. Catterall was apparently unaware that Galileo continually challenged orthodoxy and would have chaffed at today's politically correct science. Regardless, Parliamentarians should be seeking the advice of leading experts in the field, not trying to muzzle them.


MYTH #1C: 'Climate Change is Occurring at an Unprecedented Rate.'




THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University explains that it is a serious mistake to regard the natural climate cycle as tranquil and predictable. In fact, there is no reason to believe that current rates of temperature change are in any way different to what one would expect due to entirely natural causes. Dr. Patterson says that, by examining Greenland ice cores, scientists have found breathtakingly sudden variations in climate throughout the geologic record.

“About 15,000 years ago, while the planet was still emerging from the last ice age, Greenland’s temperature rose by 9°C in only 50 years,” explains Dr. Patterson. “Once, 12,000 years ago, the temperature rose an astonishing 8°C in a single decade.”

Recent European data suggests that even more severe climate fluctuations occurred at the end of the previous interglacial warm period. Their data shows that temperatures varied from warmer than they are today to the coldest of the ice age in merely a few decades, and then bounced back up again over the next century or so. Dr. Patterson sums up - "the only thing constant about climate is change."

continued......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #2: 'Recent Global Temperature Rise Has Been Dramatic.'



THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Carleton University and others show that in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today, long before we began burning significant quantities of fossil fuels. (An important March 2003 Harvard University announcement confirms this). The following graph puts this in perspective (NOTE: The Sargaso Sea is a two million square mile ellipse in the North Atlantic that has been studied for centuries - its temperature variations generally indicate global trends and agree with the even longer (6,000 year) Chinese peat bog records.):


Source: Kegwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508.

From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Earth was warmer than it is today. In the 20th Century the global average surface temperature rose about 0.7oC, after a five hundred year cool period called the Little Ice Age. Only the 20th Century warming trend may have a human component attributable to fossil fuel use, which increased sharply after 1940. A closer look at the 20th century temperature record shows three distinct trends: First, a warming trend of about 0.5oC began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970's - fears of a coming glacial period dominated during the '70s when Iceland's fisheries were destroyed by advancing sea ice, winters in North America were unusually cold and it was first realized that global temperatures had fallen steadily between 1940 and 1975. Then a third warming trend occurred from 1976 to 1986, after which the increase becomes very small. The largest portion of the warming for the second half of the 20th century was limited mainly to winter in the coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America.

So where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple - they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space-based measurements, they quote error-prone, ground-based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends.

Until recently the best we could do to estimate the Earth's overall temperature was to average data collected at ground stations around the globe. These readings are notoriously inaccurate as most of them come from developing countries that do not properly maintain their stations or records. In addition, there are two other problems with data collected at the Earth's surface.

First, nearly all of these stations are land-based, even though three quarters of our planet is covered with water. There are far too few temperature-sensing buoys deployed at sea to give an even remotely accurate assessment of atmospheric temperature trends in these vast areas. This is especially significant in the Southern Hemisphere, which is 90 percent ocean.

Second, urban sprawl has enveloped many temperature sensing stations in "heat islands" significantly warmer that the surrounding countryside. The warming measured at these sites is therefore problematic in determining global trends.

The only way to properly take the planet's temperature is to use sophisticated space-based sensors mounted aboard Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Tim Patterson, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal a statistically significant, but very small, temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07oC per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.


With the exception of the recent El Niño warming event (temperatures quickly dropped to normal), both balloon and satellite data have shown only a minute rise in the planet's average temperature over the past two decades.

In the final analysis, the Earth is warming ... and it is getting colder … and it is staying the same. It all depends on what time frame you are speaking about and where (and how) you look.

continued......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #3: 'The Buildup of Human Induced Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Particular, Will Cause a Catastrophic Planetary Warming.'


THE ENVIROTRUTH: The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.

It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Niño climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.

Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."

Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the Sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. This idea is further supported by climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki who demonstrated in a recent edition of the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age of the latter seventeenth century, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "... the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed." Dr. Ball sums up, "Ignoring the Sun and water vapor as causes of climate change is like ignoring the transmission and engine when the car is not working."

Like carbon cycle modelers, Dr. Ball and Dr. Veizer believe that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. Here is some of the evidence that supports this hypothesis:
Global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise;
Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels finally increased;
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period, about 114,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 remained relatively high even as temperatures plummeted.
Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes, "It is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do."


continued......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #3a (a corollary to Myth #3): 'Historical Records Confirm That Global Warming Has Resulted From Increasing Levels of CO2 in Our Atmosphere.'


THE ENVIROTRUTH: The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

Considerable evidence now supports the carbon cycle modelers' assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:

Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.

Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century, or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "...the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed."

Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.

Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels - see Myth #3 for more on this point.



continued......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #4: 'If the Earth Warms, It Will Be Disastrous for the Environment and Human Society.'



THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished and weather was more moderate. In cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.

Between 900 and 1300 A.D., the Earth warmed 1 to 2°C; , depending on latitude - approximately what climate models now predict for the 21st century. This warming resulted in one of the most favorable periods in history. Food production surged due to mild winters and longer growing seasons. Primary agricultural regions had fewer droughts and floods so human populations rose accordingly. When Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder in 980 AD, he was fortunate that his banishment coincided with this unusually warm climatic period. Open sea-lanes allowed him to make his way to a wholly new and, at the time, reasonably hospitable land - calling it "Greenland" was not just an advertising gimmick to attract settlers. The pioneers who followed Erik had a reasonable prospect of prosperity in this new world. They raised sheep and cattle brought with them from Iceland and even grew grain.

However, about 1350, the weather began to cool. Crops failed and the settlers became increasingly dependent on supplies shipped in from Europe. Eventually, sea ice started to restrict shipping and, during the 15th century, the colonists were cut off from the outside world. Recent archaeological evidence shows a sad end to the westernmost outpost of the marauding Vikings - with the ground staying frozen throughout most, and finally all, of the year, famine-weakened Norsemen eventually could not even properly bury their own dead. The "Little Ice Age" had begun and the Greenland settlements were wiped out as effectively as the Vikings themselves had reduced many a European coastal town to ashes in raids of previous centuries.

With average temperature dropping 1.5° over the next hundred years, Iceland and Eastern Europe were depopulated and famines periodically ravaged much of Western Europe. Ice caps began to develop in the Arctic. Glaciers advanced throughout the Alps. Little Ice Age cooling was global in extent - evidence has been found in western North America from Alaska into the continental U.S., as well as in China, the Andes Mountains, New Zealand and equatorial Kenya. Wildly erratic and frigid conditions continued until the mid-19th century, when skating parties on London's Thames River finally had to be abandoned as conditions gradually warmed to those of the mid 1300s. Nevertheless, the 10th century, when Eric the Red settled Greenland, was still over 1°C warmer than the 20th century. This is worth remembering when we hear alarmist claims about today's temperatures.

Severe as it seemed to those who suffered during those centuries of cold winters, the Little Ice Age may prove to be minor indeed in comparison with what is in store for us if our climate follows past trends as expected (see Myth #1). In the last 1.6 million years there have been 33 glacial advances and retreats. It was only ten millennia ago, when humans were fashioning flint spearheads to hunt the last wooly bison and carving flint sickles to work our first farms, that massive ice sheets, some up to a mile thick, finally retreated from Europe and North America. As noted historian Norman Pounds has said, "The whole of human history has been lived in the shadow of the Ice Age."

Considering the massive impact cold periods have had on civilization, we have to wonder if global warming concerns of the past two decades have been overblown. Is the warming since the late 19th century due to natural oscillations, well recorded throughout geologic history, or is it due to industrialization? Since current conditions are only slightly warmer than those at the end of the last major ice age, were we saved from glacial devastation by industrialization?

No one truly knows the answer to these questions. However, what we do know is that the next glaciation, due within a few thousand years, is part of a natural climate cycle that is expected to continue for at least several million years more. The nature of our planet's orbital dynamics and position of the continents as they influence ocean circulation are the main controls, not human activities. Based on the impact of the 1350-1880 Little Ice Age, it is apparent that humankind, and particularly Northern countries such as Canada, benefits much more from a warmer climate than a cooler one.


continued......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #5 - 'Extreme Weather Events are Expected to be More Common if the World Warms. This Has Already Started - Drought, Floods, Forest Fires, etc. are on the Rise as a Result of Our Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'





THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a meteorologist with 25 years experience at Environment Canada, showed in a study about to be published that extreme weather events (heat waves, floods, winter blizzards, thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes) are not currently increasing anywhere in Canada. "Extreme weather events are definitely on the decline over the last 40 years," concludes Dr. Khandekar.

He shows that the hottest summers of the 20th century in Canada were during the dust bowl years of the 1920s and the 1930s, not the 1990s. Dr. Khandekar summarizes, "The observed climate change of the last 50 years is beneficial to most regions of Canada in terms of lower heating costs and an enjoyable climate."

According to Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, the frequency of hurricanes, thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes have not increased in recent years either. Weather just seems unusual and dangerous these days because of media focus. If the planet warms, the temperature differential between the Earth's poles and equatorial regions will drop, resulting in weather that is even more tranquil. The geologic record clearly shows that today's climate is in no way extraordinary or identifiably different from what one would expect due to entirely natural processes.



Source: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


The same is true of droughts. Dr. Christy explains, "When looking back over the past 2,000 years we see that the most significant droughts in the Southwestern U.S., for example, occurred prior to 1600." Dr Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, maintains that the present drought on the Canadian prairies is part of a natural cycle that has gone on for thousands of years. "There are many droughts that are documented to have been much worse than the present one, and long before the initiation of human produced greenhouse gases," Dr. Patterson explains. "The worst drought (in Canada) in the last 1,000 years lasted from 1680-1720 during an episode of cold from which we only began to recover in the 1890s." Not surprisingly, in previous centuries, North America's great plains were referred to as the 'Great American Desert,' an area that should not be extensively farmed, specialists recommended.

But what about the frightening predictions of computer models we keep hearing about? Dr. Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Science explains, "There is no consensus between (computer) models on changes in... temperature and precipitation. Even the best models perform poorly in simulating such variability."

Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agrees and adds, "...there is little agreement between models on... changes in storminess...Conclusions regarding extreme events are obviously even more uncertain."


continued.....

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #6: 'Sea level is Rising Quickly and it Will Get Worse if the Polar Ice Caps Melt Due to Global Warming. Coastal Settlements and Low-lying Islands Will be Submerged.'


THE ENVIROTRUTH: Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975.

According to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, ongoing sea level rise is due to the slow melting of Antarctic ice sheets that have been gradually disappearing for about 18,000 years, the date of the last glacial maximum. As far as we can tell from geological data, only temperature variations on a millennial time scale can affect this rate. Climate fluctuations lasting decades or even centuries are too short to affect this rate of melting appreciably. Our best estimate is that these ice sheets will continue to melt for another 5,000 to 7,000 years until they disappear. So unless another ice age commences in the meantime, sea level is bound to keep on rising and there is probably nothing that humans can do about this.

It is also important to understand that, just as the melting of ice cubes in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow, the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level changes. Only if massive quantities of inland Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melted would sea levels raise enough to submerge coastal settlements. Dr. Patterson and University of Hawaii Professor of Earth Science Dr. Charles Fletcher maintain that this did not happen 5,500 years ago, when the Earth was three degrees warmer. They also explain that sea level was only two meters higher 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were almost six degrees warmer than now.

Ordinarily, small island-nations like the Maldives and Barbados are not threatened by such a rise. This is because these countries are built entirely on coral and coral fragments. This coral is continually, and quickly, growing upward and, unless something very bad happens to the natural environment in a region, no sea level rise is fast enough to get ahead of coral growth. The Maldivian reefs have been coping with increasing sea level for the past few thousand years and were even able to keep up when the ocean was rising ten times faster than it is now, 10,000 years ago.

Oceanographer Klaus Schwarzer of Christian Albrechts University in Germany explains that today's problems in the Maldives are caused by two factors - local pollution that is killing the reefs (as is the case in Barbados) and inappropriate construction projects. Barriers built out into the ocean to stop the drift of sediment away from the coast are disrupting the circulation of nutrient rich water to the reefs and killing them.

As a result, the Maldives islands are sinking. This has nothing to do with climate change and is the fault of the Maldivian government, which selected a barrier design maladapted for a coral atoll (it was designed for the rock-based Mediterranean Sea coast). Yet, Ismail Shafeeu, the Maldives' Minister of the Environment, still complains, "In the next hundred years or so, what the rest of the world does is going to determine whether we are going to be around or not. We need commitment on the part of people living in countries that are causing this problem. If these countries and the people living in these countries do not change their lifestyles in a way that will allow us to survive, they will have the murder of a nation on their hands." Clearly, Mr. Shafeeu is either misinformed about the science or is engaging in propaganda.

The Barbados has lost nearly all of their reefs due to runoff from their own agriculture. Their wells are becoming more salty simply because they are extracting so much water to irrigate crops that they are actually drawing sea water into their aquifers. As in the Maldives, its problems are caused by flawed domestic practices and have nothing to do with climate change.

If the U.N. and environmental groups are genuinely interested in solving environmental problems in the Maldives and other developing countries, then they should focus on their true causes. To do otherwise virtually guarantees these problems will continue, no matter how sensational an example it provides for climate change alarmists.

continued........

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #7: 'Humanity is Causing Earth's Polar Regions to Warm Quickly Resulting in Unusual Rates of Ice Melting.'





THE ENVIROTRUTH: Arctic ice primarily just responds to changing wind patterns, thinning in some regions while piling up in others without generally melting. P. Winsor of G¨oteborg University, in Sweden used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published last year, "... there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant."





Source: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national and international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland.


It is revealing that actual measurements show conditions in arctic regions to be very different to what our theories predict. For example, Greenland warmed considerably during the 1920s and 1930s long before the recent buildup in greenhouse gases. Since then the temperatures of Greenland coastal stations are decreasing at the rate of 0.2 to 0.3oC per decade (according to Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, the summer temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have also been decreasing - in this case at the rate of 2 deg centigrade per decade since 1980's!). So where is the amplified warming of the Arctic? All we are seeing is a shift in regional climate; one part of the Arctic is warming and another is cooling. It is also important to remember that a thousand years ago conditions were so warm that the Vikings were sailing in Arctic waters that are now permanent pack ice.

Professor Fred Michel, an arctic regions specialist in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, explains that the problem being experienced by the natives in the north is not due to any unnatural climate change. Instead they are having more difficulty now than in previous generations because they have evolved from a nomadic, hunting society, one which moved as the climate changed, into one that is now staying in one place with fixed buildings highly susceptible to structural problems due to the normal freeze/thaw cycle and natural climate variations.

Dr. Michel also points out, "… glaciers have retreated but this is not unusual in a global history perspective." He explains that the changes natives have observed in stream flow are generally the normal result of variations in daily temperatures - what was a tranquil stream in the morning can transform, on a sunny day, into an impassable torrent raging down the valley by mid afternoon. By mid evening the flow begins to subside and by midnight the stream is again passable. Dr. Michel concludes, "Things are changing, but man may not be the cause."

The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by about 6 metres, isn't melting. Instead, its thickening and Antarctica is getting cooler. A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.

Another study, published in a recent edition of the journal Nature, found that air temperatures measured in Antarctica's polar desert valleys actually declined by almost 0.4oC from 1986 to 1999. The study's lead author, limnologist Peter Doran, an expert on the study of fresh water at the University of Illinois at Chicago concludes, "We went into this project with the idea that global warming was going to hit us any time now, and we kept waiting for the warm summers to come and they never came. It just kept getting colder and colder, and that's the story."


continued.......

[gaiacomm]

http://www.jabpage.org/posts/fourteen.html

The Jewish media make fun of "conspiracy theorists," not because they are sometimes wrong, but because they are sometimes right. —Jerry Abbott

That is true!

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #8: 'Kyoto Will Save Thousands of Lives by Cutting Air Pollution.'



THE ENVIROTRUTH: Many people support the Kyoto Accord because they believe it is a clean air treaty that will reduce pollution. It is not. Kyoto is a treaty designed to reduce human production of so-called 'greenhouse gases' (GHG), the recent increase of which has been associated with unnatural global warming by some scientists. Greenhouse gases include water vapor (99% of all the GHG in the atmosphere), methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Only about 2% of all GHG are produced by human activity; the rest is produced by nature.

The first time frame of the Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries (including Canada and the United States) to reduce their overall emissions of GHG so that their yearly average between 2008 and 2012 will be an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels (targets vary - for example, Canada's is a 6% reduction; Australia's is an 8% increase). Since most of the developed world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.

Many commentators refer to Kyoto and other treaties that address CO2 levels as 'pollution treaties', implying that CO2 is somehow a pollutant. This is incorrect. CO2 is a benign 'trace gas', constituting only about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and not toxic in any fashion. Besides helping keep the earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age with average global temperatures 33°C lower than they are now, CO2 is a plant nutrient critical to the process of photosynthesis. A recent paper by Robinson, Baliunas, Soon and Robinson concludes, "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century … has markedly increased plant growth rates… the [future] effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms."

Many scientists maintain that imposing CO2 treaties is consequently unnecessary and imposes an unreasonable burden on the economy of energy intensive societies such as the United States and Canada. Whether human production of CO2 is in any way contributing to climate change is simply unknown in the scientific community. It will be at least ten years before the science has matured sufficiently to make any meaningful predictions of the influence of CO2, if any, on global climate. When it comes to this trace constituent of the atmosphere, the alarmism of government, special interest lobby groups and some in the media is clearly unwarranted.

On the other hand, real pollution is an important concern that must continue to be addressed. Besides the detrimental effect of substances such as mercury, real air pollution problems include smog and acid rain. The two key components of smog are airborne particles ('particulate matter' such as smoke) and ground-level ozone. The latter is produced when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds react. Acid rain is formed when two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX, react together to acidify rain, snow or fog.

Some people believe that, since Kyoto would require significant cuts in the consumption of fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2 emissions, the treaty is important because it would also result in pollution reduction. Such a strategy makes no sense. Instead of using a GHG treaty to reduce air pollution, actions should continue to be taken specifically aimed at reducing air pollution. An example is the installation of scrubbers on smokestacks to remove SO2. Such measures are far less expensive that a more general GHG reduction plan. It is also more effective since all of the effort and technology is then focused on the problem at hand instead of a more nebulous concern that may not be a concern at all.

There are even examples where a focus on GHG reduction will lead directly to increases in pollution. The Canadian trucking sector has warned recently (Calgary Herald, September 25, 2002) that a concentration on GHG instead of pollution would undo years of technological advancements in so-called 'cleaner-burn' engines. The newer truck engines emit less particulate matter that contributes to smog but burn a bit more fuel, which leads to production of more CO2. "So you have to decide, which one do you want to concentrate on?" said Kim Royal, executive director of the Alberta Motor Transport Association. Reverting to older, dirtier machinery, simply to satisfy Kyoto, defies common sense.

Professor Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph in Canada, also explains why it is counterproductive for countries like Canada to implement Kyoto when their neighbours do not. He says that, if Canada implements Kyoto (Prime Minister Jean Chretien ratified the accord in late 2002 over loud objections from industry, scientists and many other Canadians), with the U.S. out of the deal, major energy consumers would be driven south where power generators burn higher carbon-based fuels than does Canada. This would result in the greenhouse gases and pollution produced by North Americans as a whole rising over what would be the case if these energy consumers stayed within the relatively low carbon energy supply network in Canada. "There's a very good chance that Kyoto will make Toronto's air quality worse just by the fact that it will intensify emitting activity in Ohio," says Dr. McKitrick. Finally, it is important to realize that no otherwise healthy person 'dies of air pollution'. It may be a contributing factor to death in the case of people who have other serious life-threatening problems such as advanced heart disease or emphysema. Dr. McKitrick also points out that air quality has generally improved since the 1970's. Ontario's Environment Ministry, which accurately tracks smog levels throughout most of the province, shows clearly that smog levels are nearly unchanged in the past two decades. As is so often the case, environmental extremists have exaggerated the 'problem' simply to promote their own agenda.

continued........

[whitemajikman]

Myth #8a (a corollary to Myth #8): 'Scientists are able to make meaningful climate predictions based on observed, and anticipated, changes in CO2 levels.'




Canadian environmental activist Dr. David Suzuki and Monte Hummel, President of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, said recently in an open letter to Canadian Prime Minster Chretien, "A doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the potential to destroy over 35% of the world's terrestrial habitats (due to climate change)…"

THE ENVIROTRUTH: Credible global warming forecasts are not possible until we have a far better understanding of the science involved. Here's why:


Atmospheric CO2 is part of a highly complex, and poorly understood, system called the carbon cycle. Within this system, 745 billion tons of carbon pass through the atmosphere each year exchanging CO2 with other components of the carbon cycle such as the oceans, soil and plants. Of the seven billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere each year from human activities, three billion tons remain there causing the observed increase in the CO2 level. Another two billion tons of carbon are absorbed by the oceans each year, leaving two billion tons unaccounted for.

Scientists assume that there must be a yet-unidentified carbon sink, something that is sopping up this excess carbon. One popular hypothesis is that the biosphere itself could be the sink since CO2 is critical to plant photosynthesis.

It is not known whether temperature rise is a result of, or a cause of, CO2 level changes. Most climate models start with the basic assumption that changing CO2 concentrations drive temperature variations. However, in carbon cycle models, the opposite is assumed; carbon cycle modelers first impose temperature changes and then calculate the resulting changes to the world's carbon reservoirs (including CO2 levels in the atmosphere).

This is more than an academic argument. If temperature changes drive CO2 levels, and not the other way around, then even the most severe reductions in our production of CO2 would have no effect on global climate.

As described in Myth #8, current computer simulations of our climate are far too unreliable to form the basis of good forecasts.


continued..........

[whitemajikman]

Myth#9: Associated Energy Myth: 'Solar and Wind Power Can Soon Be Significant Contributors to the Base Load Energy Needs of Canada and the United States.'




THE ENVIROTRUTH: Environmentalists tell us that we can break the fossil fuel habit by massively expanding our use of "clean" wind and solar power to provide much of Canada's power needs. Unfortunately, this is hopelessly impractical. Both of these energy sources are far too diffuse and intermittent to ever provide more than a small fraction of the energy needs of any major industrialized nation, let alone vast, northern countries like Canada and United States. The problems of diffuseness and intermittency are ones that can never be completely overcome, no matter how much research and development is done in the field.

Wind Power
Corrections to CNN/Reuters wind power report (26/11/04)

Regarding wind power, Dr. H.I.H. Saravanamuttoo, Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) Professor Emeritus of mechanical engineering, shows that to provide the electrical power needs of even a small city such as Ottawa, would require hundreds of windmills, each as high as the Peace Tower, located in a windy area. The environmental cost of building these monstrosities would be enormous and they would cause significant visual and noise pollution, not to mention the death of thousands of birds that would collide with the moving blades.

Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut laughs at the notion that wind power can ever make a significant contribution to our energy needs, "After all, since wind energy schemes have a thousand-year head start on fossil fuels, there must be some reason why wind makes so little contribution to our energy picture!" Indeed there is - Dr. Hayden explains, "To produce an average of 1000 MW, the power produced by any large conventional (coal, oil, nuclear, gas) power plant, would require about 833 square kilometers of wind turbines. That's the area of a mile-wide swath of land extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Multiply that by about 30 and you have California's electricity."

After decades of embracing, supporting and subsidizing windmills, California now has 3,200 wind turbines. However, this made no difference at all to the state's recent energy crisis, as the net contribution of all of these wind turbines was still only about 1.1% of California's electricity. But what about if California had 100 times as many windmills? Could they get 100% of their power from windmills?

"Not a chance," says Dr. Hayden. "Most of the time, the windmills would produce very little power, and, of course, when there's no wind, there's no power at all. At those times, other power sources have to be ready to produce 100% of the power requirements so windmills do not allow any other power plants to be taken out of service. In the several times per year that the winds were strong enough that the windmills could produce their full capacity, the 320,000 hypothetical windmills would produce about five times as much power as California needed at the moment. Under those circumstances, about 80% of them would simply have to be turned off, because at all times the power put into the grid must equal the power consumed."

Dr. Hayden concludes, "In recent years, Denmark has gained a certain amount of fame with its wind turbines. No, they don't get much electricity from them. They sell them to suckers."

Solar Power
The story is similar with solar power. Dr. J. Terry Rogers, Carleton University Professor Emeritus of mechanical engineering, has shown that an efficient solar plant would have to occupy over 600 square kilometres, about the same as that of Metro Toronto, to match the energy provided on a regular basis by the Pickering nuclear station. The construction of such massive solar plants would require millions of tons of concrete, steel and glass, the production of which would produce air pollution equivalent to several years of fossil fuel plant operation. These behemoths would also ruin the local natural environment for wildlife and could even upset local weather patterns due to ground reflectivity changes caused by the mirrors. Not surprisingly, Dr. Rogers maintains, "Solar energy can never be a significant contributor to large-scale energy needs in a major industrial country like Canada."

But what about installing photovoltaic cells on the roofs of residential houses to collect the home's energy needs. Dr. Rogers shows that this too is vastly insufficient. "Assuming that the roof is oriented at the optimum angle for solar energy collection (most would not be), the average electrical energy produced in a day in December for a typical single-family dwelling in the Ottawa area would be about 10 kilowatt-hours, compared to a typical demand for an average December day of about 50 to 60 kilowatt-hours, ignoring space-heating needs," calculates Dr. Rogers. "If space-heating needs are included, the average daily demand in December would be more than 200 kilowatt-hours. Of course, the energy from the solar cells would not be available at night or on cloudy days."

Dr. Rogers concludes, "We should certainly use solar energy in applications where it makes practical and economic sense, such as designing houses to make better use of passive solar energy." But a major transition to solar energy is simply impossible, no matter how much wishful thinking environmentalists engage in.

The same is generally true of all renewables. Consider that in 2001 there was a total global installed capacity of eight gigawatts (GW) of geothermal power, 25 GW of wind power and negligible photovoltaic solar power. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, geothermal, wind and photovoltaic add up to only one quarter of one per cent of worldwide primary energy production. To replace fossil fuels, you would need to increase all these renewables by a staggering 33,000 per cent! Clearly, unless we have a major collapse of civilization, renewables will continue to be a very small player on the global energy scene. Only nuclear power has the potential to replace large quantities of fossil fuel in the foreseeable future and, considering the regulatory hurdles that must be overcome to get nuclear plants into operation, there is no chance that such a solution could be employed before the Kyoto target dates starting in 2008.


continued......

[gaiacomm]

Study this: http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[whitemajikman]

Myth#10: 'The Kyoto Accord, and other climate change initiatives, are focused solely on solving environmental problems.'


THE ENVIROTRUTH: There are many indicators that a social agenda is what really drives Kyoto, not environmental concerns. Consider the following:


Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calls global warming a "moral issue". Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."
Canada's past Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said, "No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony ... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world".
And finally, David Anderson, Canada's current Environment Minister, is the President of the UNEP governing council, an organization that focuses, among other things, on global environmental governance. Kyoto is the flagship of this effort so one has to wonder where his priorities lie in this debate.

And why should we believe the political leaders of the various U.N. Conference of the Parties (CoP) get-togethers? After all, the CoP series of meetings are part of a U.N. environmental convention that has the mandate to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human caused) interference in the climate system". Michael Williams, of the Information Unit for Conventions of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP/IUC), explains, "The COP is a political forum about how to respond to climate change, and not a scientific forum." So, if it turned out that human activities had negligible effect on Earth's climate, this organization, and its extravagant international conferences, would have no reason to exist. Clearly, the globetrotting band of climate change bureaucrats and environmental groups have a vested interest in convincing us that the science behind their proclamations is conclusive no matter what specialists in the field actually say.

Paying developing nations billions of dollars to buy the pollution credits awarded by "environmental" treaties may be the real objective of many alarmists. The transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries should be discussed for what it is, not incorporated into environmental agreements.

continued.......

[whitemajikman]

MYTH #11: 'Those Who Question Whether Human Activity Contributes in Any Significant Fashion to Climate Change are Secretly Funded by Coal, Oil, Gas and Other "Smokestack" Industries.'



Brandon MacGillis of Ozone Action, a Washington DC-based public interest group, refers to global warming doubters as "part of a handful of skeptics, mostly coal producers and users, who are still trying to debate the scientific certainty of this threat." David Suzuki, an influential Canadian environmentalist, makes a similar claim and refers to those who oppose his views on this topic as "anti-environmentalists."

THE ENVIROTRUTH: Despite the condemnations of radical environmentalists, it is a safe bet to conclude that scientists who express skepticism about the likelihood of an imminent, human-caused climate change catastrophe act independently of their funding sources - in other words, they aren't motivated by money. With all scientists competing for very limited funding resources, and due to the strong media and government interest in this area, it has become an attractive selling point for scientists to be able to associate their research in some way with global warming. As a consequence, reference to global warming tends to be made whenever possible, often for projects that are often only distantly related to that line of research. Global warming skeptics are unable to make this association and, thus, have no covert incentive to oppose the alarmists. More to the point, the vast majority would receive more funding if they did endorse the more politically-correct global warming theory.


WMM

[gaiacomm]

According to the Christian bible the Jews will be destroyed by fire...just like the ovens in Germany except this time it will be in nanoseconds from the blast and then they will hopefully see their Christ who they murdered...oh yes that goes for quite a few!

The Jews of Israel need to give the lands back to Palestine and just maybe their god might spare them!

[whitemajikman]

Sierra Club or Club Sierra?
A look at environmental organizations


In April 2001, the Sacramento Bee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Tom Knudson placed the environmental movement under a microscope and discovered that the “high-powered fundraising, the litigation and the public relations machine” that is today’s environmental movement has started to bear a startling resemblance to what it purportedly fights against. Knudson’s series, Environment, Inc., is based on extensive research conducted over 16 months with travel to 12 states and northern Mexico. Read some highlights of the weeklong series and then click on the links to view the articles, charts and photos in their entirety.


PART 1 – The price of power
Fat of the Land (April 22, 2001)

Is it the Sierra Club or Club Sierra? “Extravagance is not a trait normally linked with environmental groups. The movement's tradition leans toward simplicity, economy and living light on the land. But today, as record sums of money flow to environmental causes, prosperity is pushing tradition aside, and the millions of Americans who support environmental groups are footing the bill.”

Read about Chad Hanson’s letdown upon election to the board of the Sierra Club: “Here I had just been elected to the largest grassroots environmental group in the world and I am having martinis in the penthouse of the Westin St. Francis….What's wrong with this picture? It was surreal."
Five major groups–including household names such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club–spend so much on fundraising, membership and overhead they don't meet standards set by philanthropic watchdog groups. Click here to see CEO salaries for these “philanthropic” groups.

PART 2 – Mission adrift in a frenzy of fund-raising
Green Machine (April 23, 2001)

“Using the popular North American gray wolf as the hub of an ambitious campaign, Defenders has assembled a financial track record that would impress Wall Street. In calculating its fundraising expenses, Defenders of Wildlife borrows a trick from the business world. It dances with digits, finds opportunity in obfuscation. Using an accounting loophole, it classifies millions of dollars spent on direct mail and telemarketing not as fundraising but as public education and environmental activism.”

Save the Planet? “Even a single fundraising drive generates massive waste. In 1999, The Wilderness Society mailed 6.2 million membership solicitations–an average of 16,986 pieces of mail a day. At just under 0.9 ounce each, the weight for the year came to about 348,000 pounds. Often, just one or two people in 100 respond.”


Is it a Charity or a Business? “The Sierra Club, which scrambles to replace about 150,000 nonrenewing members a year out of 600,000, produces new fundraising packages more frequently than General Motors produces new car models.” Check out the American Institute of Philanthropy’s ratings of environmental groups here.


Fact vs. Fiction “Much of what environmental groups say in fundraising letters is exaggerated. And sometimes it is wrong.” View the FACTS about popular fundraising campaigns by Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

PART 3 – A flood of costly lawsuits raises questions about motive
Litigation Central (April 25, 2001)

“Suing the government has long been a favorite tactic of the environmental movement–used to score key victories for clean air, water and endangered species. But today, many court cases are yielding an uncertain bounty for the land and sowing doubt even among the faithful.”


The crush of cases is prompting some lawyers and government officials to speculate that the suits could be motivated, at least in part, by money. Under federal law, an attorney who wins an environmental "citizen suit" against the government is entitled to an award of taxpayer-funded attorney fees.


Attorneys for environmental groups are not shy about asking for money. They earn $150 to $350 an hour, and sometimes they get accused of trying to gouge the government. In 1993, three judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington were so appalled by one Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund lawyer's "flagrant overbilling" that they reduced her award to zero.


Few firms win larger fee awards than San Francisco-based Earthjustice, formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. When Earthjustice won a coho salmon suit recently, for example, it submitted a bill for $439,053 to the Justice Department, and settled for $383,840. Most of the invoice was for 931 hours of legal work by Earthjustice senior attorney Michael Sherwood–at $350 an hour.

[whitemajikman]

Caught in the Act


“Rather than promoting unilateral boycotts that are based on misinformation and coercion, organizations like Greenpeace should recognize the need for internationally accepted criteria…”

Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace


Most environmental organizations portray themselves as selfless watchdogs whose mission is to alert the public to alleged risks. They are quick to make demands, sound false alarms, point fingers and place blame. Do they really perform a public service or are they just a public nuisance? Several independent organizations reviewed activist scare-mongering activities.

The True Green Report - This report looks at and make comments concerning specific actions that Green Peace has undertaken.


“Greenpeace Criticized by Spanish Advertising Standards Organization” (2000) In Madrid, the Asociacion Autocontrol de la Publicidad, (http://www.aap.es/) the Spanish equivalent of an advertising standards organization, passed a resolution condemning Greenpeace for spreading untruths in a press statement concerning chlorine. The organization also criticized Greenpeace for using unsubstantiated fear as a way to recruit new members.


“Greenpeace Serves No Public Benefit” (1999) – Canada’s National Post reports that Revenue Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the IRS, refused to recognize the Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities had "no public benefit" and that lobbying to close polluting industries could send people "into poverty."


Ads for Greenpeace Card Rapped as Alarmist (1999) – The Advertising Standards Authority of the U.K. dubbed the Co-operative Bank as too extreme in its attempt to market a PVC-free Greenpeace credit card. In the ad, the Co-operative Bank claimed that significant health risks would ensue unless people began switching to the Greenpeace card made without PVC, which has a large component of the chemical dioxin. The Advertising Standards Authority found no evidence that credit cards made with PVC would increase health problems, as the level of dioxins had decreased in the UK since 1989.


“Greenpeace Advert Condemned by the RCC”(1998) – The Dutch RCC, the committee for advertising ethics, passed a judgment condemning and criticizing Greenpeace for “too categorical and therefore misleading” advertising aimed at soft rubber toys.


Advertising Campaign by Environmentalist Group is Blocked in the Netherlands (1997) - The Netherlands affiliate of the World Wildlife Fund undertook a fundraising campaign on Dutch television, broadcasting a commercial intended to scare people about species demise (below). Acting on a complaint by the Heidelberg Appeal Foundation-Netherlands (HAN), the Netherlands Commercial Code Commission recently ruled that the WWF advertisement is misleading and can no longer be broadcast in its present form. HAN complained that WWF's fundraising commercials are not a charity under Dutch law but a commercial operation subject to the commercial advertising code.


"Every twenty minutes a species disappears–forever.

Only man can prevent this.

WWF

Become a donor."


Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth caught being “Charitable with the Truth” (1995) - Greenpeace was condemned by the Advertising Standards Authority of the U.K. after running an advertisement that declared chemicals being dumped off of the Brent Spar oil platform were directly responsible for the shrinking of male sex organs in the area. Greenpeace later admitted that the statement was exaggerated as it was based upon false facts.

[whitemajikman]

True Green Report



July 29, 2002

Average Canadians from all walks of life are registering concern about the myths promoted by Greenpeace--now the world's largest environmental organization. Toronto Free Press wrote that "Greenpeace Must Be Made Responsible for Its Actions". "....Greenpeace is really the creation of a small group of Canadians. Greenpeace owes Canadians and their neighbours in the global community responsibility for their actions. If not, the conduct of Greenpeace should be dealt with in court."

Toronto Free Press also believes that the best way to counteract the myths of Greenpeace is with the mantra of the group's respected former co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "Truth based on fact". The True Green Report can be found on our website: www.ourtoronto.on.ca. Readers with story ideas, or letters, pro or con about the activity of Greenpeace are welcome to email the True Green Report at tfp@torontofreepress.com

Did you know?

That more than 17,000 scientists (including hundreds of climate experts) have signed a petition saying they see "no convincing scientific evidence that humans are disrupting the earth's climate?"

Giving terrorists road maps

"Is Greenpeace a tool of state-sponsored ecoterrorism?" asks Dan S. Borne, President of the Louisiana Chemical Association in a recent letter to the Times-Picayune.

"Its most recent affront, posting petrochemical worst-case scenarios on the Internet, is one of the organization's most egregious.

"Sophomoric antics like hanging a sign from a building have been replaced by giving terrorists road maps to the nation's critical facilities.

"People know chemical plants and refineries can be dangerous. The building blocks for virtually every product from miracle drugs to smart bombs guidance systems are often, in their early stages problematic if not handled properly. So are stepladders and SUVs when you're not careful.

"That's why our plants preach safety, safety, safety. That's why they have long-standing relationships with local emergency responders, sheriff's offices and the State Police.

"That's why plants shared with their communities the worse-case scenarios Greenpeace has made available to the world. And that's also why, long before Sept. 11, plants sided with the FBI, the Defense Department and the country's intelligence community to oppose posting these scenarios on the Internet. Who on some other continent would need to know about a plant in South Louisiana?

"Greenpeace is an organization that owes its allegiance to no nation. It has put its own agenda ahead of America's well-being, answering only to its left-wing ideology and to unnamed fellow travelers who pump millions into its coffers. Federal investigators and enterprising journalists should ask whether its funding is influenced by donors who do not have America's security interests at heart."

Beam us up, Scotty: Earth 'will expire by 2050'

"Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report recently claims," write Mark Townsend and Jason Burke in The Observer.

"Earth's population will be forced to colonize two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to the report.

"A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

"In a damning condemnation of Western Society' high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

"The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

"…Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests-which absorb carbon dioxide emissions-are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

"The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption.

"Systemic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

"African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically. With the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

"The US places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare."

Defining Kyoto

Kyoto…``changing the way societies produce and use energy, and justifying a powerful system of global government.

"Indeed, French Premier Jacques Chirac told delegates to the plenary session at the Sixth Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP-6) in the Hague that the Kyoto Treaty is "the first component of an authentic global governance."

-Nick Nichols, Rules For Corporate Warriors

The Green Anarchy Tour

If you are looking for a way to while away those hot summer days, you might be interested in Green Anarchy Tour, coming to "urban hells" throughout the United States this summer. The tour began in Ashland, Ore. in mid-July and travels through California and the southwest before making its way to Washington, D.C. in August.

The purpose of the tour, according to its sponsors is "to destroy civilization on this stolen land."


Green Anarchy Tour is a chance for "environmental" activists, animal "rights" activists, anarchists and urban hell-dwellers of all stripes to gather together to enjoy the musical stylings of bands such as Bongizilla and The Fartz, and to participate in what they call "Direct Action Workshops".

Direct action is the euphemism that anarchists and ecoterrorists use in lieu of "sabotage", "arson" and other words that might better describe their attacks against government, the business community or society at large.

Wildfires raging in the West and plumes of smoke drifting across the Eastern seaboard from Canadian forest fires are reminders of the consequences that environmental extremism brings to ordinary citizens.

Decades of mismanagement prompted by extreme preservationist groups have resulted in the firestorms now erupting in our national forests. Burned-out buildings, bankrupt businesses, lost jobs, amid the destruction of years of valuable medical research all bear the imprimatur of anarchists and terrorists of the sort that Green Anarchy want to attract.

Proceeds from the tour, if there are any, will, according to the official website, go to help West Coast anarchists and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) prisoners such as Jeffrey "Free" Luers amd Craig "Critter" Marshall, both convicted of arson for fire-bombing a car dealership in Oregon. Writing from his prison cell, Luers had this to say about "direct action" by ecoterrorists: "For years, decades, we have pleaded and petitioned those in power, those responsible for injustice, genocide and ecocide. This pleading has gone unanswered. It is time to use actions that can not (sic) be ignored.

"In defense of life, these actions are justified. `Strike a match, light a fuse. We only have the earth to lose.'"

"The Green Anarchy Tour," the group posts on its website, "is an attempt to bridge the gap between the punk movement, the revolutionary anarchist movement, the ecological movement, and prisoners of war who have been incarcerated for their involvement in the struggles listed above. "Through the media of slides, videos, spoken word and music, we will share our perspective to comrades across turtle island in what may very well be the last state-permitted summer of `above-ground organizing'. We understand that time is running out, for us and for the earth. And thus we will take our words, ideas, music and spirit on the snakes of concrete, the civilized transportation infrastructure to various movements in America."

But for the more serious ecoterrorist who eschews the sort of fun and good times that Green Anarchy Tour is bringing to towns acoss turtle Island, there is this alternative option proposed by Earth First: "To those feeling suicidal: This may be the answer to your dreams: If you are determined to end it all, don't slink off to some garage and intensify acid rain and the greenhouse effect by CO poisoning. Don't jump off a bridge-blow up the bridge! Who says you can't take it with you?" Unfortunately, As Earth First! And Green Anarchy Tour remind us, and as we have been reminded in recent weeks by concerns about a dirty bomb possibly in the hands of a U.S. citizen, not all terrorism threats come from outside the country."

-NewsMax.com Wires

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Shenanigans at Greenpeace—And the Media Yawns
Joel Mowbray
November 20, 2003

After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.

Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called “Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,” which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.

Much like Enron’s dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world—all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.

In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.

Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.

That’s why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.

Here’s where things get sticky with Greenpeace’s green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy—and typically illegal—media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.

According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.—the most recent available—over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.—which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs—gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group’s 1999 budget.

Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.

PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace’s accounting gimmicks: “It’s a form of money laundering, plain and simple.”

That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media’s interest didn’t perk up given the list of big-name Greenpeace donors. Foundations established by such high-brow last names as Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard, and Turner have all given large sums—tax-exempt—enabling Greenpeace to move its funds around more easily.

But because those groups have a legal duty to make sure that tax-exempt funds are used appropriately, the amount of salivating copy this mess could generate is substantial. Yet the media collectively yawns.

A quick search of news archive Nexis revealed that only a dozen stories—in both print and television—covered PIW’s Greenpeace complaint. And the only thorough rendering was written by tireless columnist Deroy Murdock at National Review Online.

It’s possible, of course, that Greenpeace will be cleared of malfeasance. But maybe it won’t. Old-fashioned investigative journalism would seem to dictate some digging take place. Too bad the media’s evident bias makes clear that won’t happen.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Terrorists with Tofu breath
Michelle Malkin
November 19, 2003

They are bomb-throwing Birkenstock brats. Wolves in hemp clothing. Enemies of scientific progress. Inveterate haters of humanity.


They are environmental extremists and animal rights zealots. They are running loose. And they are endangering us all.

The national press, which has put a happy green face on the environmental movement for three decades, has largely ignored a recent rising tide of violence being waged by eco-nuts across the country -- and around the world. In August, someone planted explosives at biotechnology giant Chiron Corp. in Emeryville, Calif. Less than a month later, cosmetics manufacturer Shaklee Corp. in Pleasanton was hit. Both targets have ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a research lab that conducts animal tests for pharmaceutical, agrochemical and biotechnology products. Huntingdon has for years been the victim of a sustained campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence by anti-science thugs.

No one was hurt in the northern California attacks, but the bomb blasts struck terror in researchers at both companies who have dedicated their careers to improving their fellow citizens' quality of life.
The chief suspect in the bombings is Daniel Andreas San Diego. The feds, who have issued an all-points bulletin listing him as armed and dangerous, say he has gone underground -- most likely with the help of a loose-knit network of radical animal-rights activists. The San Francisco Chronicle described San Diego as a "clean-cut, soft-spoken 25-year-old Sonoma County man, who was trying to invent a vegan marshmallow."

"Vegan marshmallows." What an apt metaphor for domestic terrorists who take cover under the guise of "mainstream" environmental activism with its mushy and harmless facade. PETA, the pet charity of famous vegans such as Alicia Silverstone and Paul McCartney, may seem as pale and innocuous as a marshmallow. But it doesn't just dole out money for celebrity anti-meat ads. The group has provided financial support for the Earth Liberation Front, which along with its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front, is responsible for committing more than 600 criminal acts between 1996 and 2002, according to the FBI. In Washington, mainstream green lobbyists are silent about anti-biotech mayhem that has resulted in the destruction of experimental crops in the Pacific Northwest, Louisiana, France and India.

What's at stake? While aspiring terrorists with tofu breath build nail bombs and play with matches, the best and brightest scientists around the world are forging miraculous breakthroughs that will benefit all mankind -- and especially the poor in underdeveloped nations that the leftists and Luddites claim to care about so much.

Science journalist Michael Fumento comprehensively documents such stunning developments in his eye-opening new book, "Bioevolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World." It's an invaluable antidote to the irrational hysteria of eco-terrorists. Fumento reports on how agricultural biotech researchers are refining methods of pumping up protein levels in corn, boosting vitamin levels in a wide variety of crops, making crops resistant to the cold, and finding ways to accelerate the growth of cotton, potatoes and tomatoes. They've developed a process called "gene silencing" to fight bacterial diseases that can devastate fruit and nut harvests and have even come up with a potato plant that glows green when it's thirsty.

The same technology that is producing miracle crops is producing miracle medicines to improve human health and longevity. Biotech is also being used to tackle toxic waste, reduce lead contamination and clean up sewage systems. But in the minds of the technophobes, the only politically correct way to cure disease is to wear red-string bracelets, eat organically grown ginger and pray to Gaia. The only environmentally acceptable way to improve the earth is to compost banana peels and recycle soy milk cartons. And the only morally tolerable way to use modern technology -- e.g., the Internet -- is to use it to preach violence and destroy the progress of others.

With each new scientific breakthrough, the anti-biotech militants have grown more desperate and reckless. "Ultimately," Fumento writes, "only two things can defeat such negativism. One is education; the other is the products themselves." There is a third force: the voices of biotech's myriad beneficiaries, from the cancer patients whose lives have been saved by Gleevec to the Third World consumers of golden rice. It's time to verbally roast the vegan marshmallows and let biotech move forward without fear.


WMM

[whitemajikman]

Science skimpy on global warming: Latest 'alarming' report has skipped a genuine peer review process
The Edmonton Journal
Sun 05 Dec 2004

You may have heard recently that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet.

A highly publicized "report" released last month predicted all sorts of dire results -- sea-level rise, shoreline erosion, species extinctions, a disappearing ice cap, maybe even another ice age as the Earth warms and the ice caps melt and the cold runoff chills the oceans and triggering a massive global cooling.

I wrap the word "report" in quotation marks, because what was released in November was not the full Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), but rather the layman's version -- a lengthy executive summary, if you will, almost devoid of "observable data" -- scientific facts and figures.

The report that caused the stir was a sort of Arctic Warming for Dummies, if you like.

Of its 140 pages, just four were devoted to hard data. The rest were, in effect, a lengthy abstract written by Susan Joy Hassol, an environmentalist and author -- but not a scientist -- affiliated with the Aspen Global Change Institute. The technical volumes of the ACIA will not be available for another month or more.

Cute.

Release a "study" to a gullible media and public without any data which can be analysed in detail, so that no one else can reproduce or verify your conclusions independently. Wait for the media furor to die down. Then quietly release the actual data once the lay world has moved on.

This will ensure that there is almost no scientific criticism of your conclusions while they are receiving their maximum media exposure. That will reinforce the public impression that there is no significant opposition to the greenhouse-gas, global-warming theory.

And it will reinforce the impression you want the public to have: that global warming is upon us, humans caused it, the results are going to be disastrous and the only way out is to curtail free markets and give governments massive new powers to regulate even more aspects of our lives.

That's the description of a political process, not a scientific one.

Much has also been made of the fact that the ACIA was "peer-reviewed," meaning its findings were sent around to other scientists for independent analysis and recommendations.

Peer reviewing is intended to make scholarly studies more objective by challenging their assertions, interpretations and conclusions.

But just how critical do you think the ACIA's peer reviewers were when only one of seven was an Arctic climatologist and among the other six were an employee of the World Wildlife Federation, a renewable energy activist and a former diplomat who is an aboriginal rights advocate?

Much of the above has been noted by, among others, Kenneth Green, a PhD environmental studies analyst at the Fraser Institute.

"But," you say, "The Fraser Institute is biased in favour of free markets. And you, Gunter, are no scientist, yet you expect us to believe what you write about global warming."

True. Fraser is at least as biased as the ACIA and I am no more a scientist than Susan Joy Hassol.

The difference is neither Green nor I pretend to be objective. We don't wrap our personal biases in sacred robes of scientific impartiality and peer review, then insist we speak an incontrovertible truth.

The ideologies and biases of the scientists, authors and activists behind the ACIA should be subject to the same skepticism by reporters, politicians and voters.

A prominent 1997 study on the Arctic's climate of the past four centuries -- the Overpeck study -- concluded that at least half of the Arctic warming since 1840 "took place from 1840 to 1920," long before rapid increases in greenhouse gas levels due to industrialization and automobiles.

It also found that Arctic warming varied from place to place. The warmest temperatures in the past 400 years in the Arctic above eastern and central Canada, Greenland and Alaska generally occurred in the late 20th century.

But above Western Canada, the Arctic was much warmer in the mid- to late 18th century, over Quebec in the 17th century and in the European Arctic regions around 1750.

Overall, Arctic temperatures peaked between 1935 and 1960 when an uncommonly small number of volcanic eruptions around the globe -- not just in the Arctic -- "contributed to (higher) Arctic summer temperatures."

The Arctic was warmer than today "during the early to middle Holocene period, about 11,000 to 6,000 years ago."

What's more, while "Arctic summers of the 20th century were generally the warmest in the last 400 years, they may not have been the warmest of the last millennium."

We know, too, that Arctic seas have far less ice today than in some previous centuries -- and far more than in others, too. The Arctic's climate, like the rest of the planet's, has waxed and waned for eons, naturally.

So far, there has been too little research to assert as firmly as the ACIA does that the recent Arctic warming is remarkable, unprecedented, or that it is for sure man-made.

Even though the ACIA represents the consensus view of 250 scientists and claims to have been peer-reviewed, its conclusions, so far, seem to be as much political science as earth science.

Their purpose seems to be to discourage further skeptical inquiry -- the core function of science -- and provoke political action instead.


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

Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
E-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca

[whitemajikman]

The Broken Stick
By Terence Corcoran

Financial Post
Tuesday, July 13, 2004

One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate change machine, and the Kyoto process, is about to get swept away as a piece of junk science. The icon is The Hockey Stick, a nifty graphic that claimed to show that the world climate drifted along at a nice, stable temperature for almost 1,000 years until the late 20th century, when temperatures suddenly started to soar. News that The Hockey Stick, reproduced and cited in thousands of reports and publications, is about to get zapped is sweeping the climate science community.

The Hockey Stick graphic sits today on the Web site of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. After 1,000 years of apparent stability, the line breaks dramatically, around the year 1900, and then shoots up like the blade of a hockey stick, indicating a big jump in temperature over the last century. Environment Canada has reproduced the concept countless times. "The 20th century has been the warmest globally in the past 600 years. In fact, the 1980s and 1990s are the warmest decades on record," says Environment Canada. The department's sole evidence for this is The Hockey Stick.

Doubts about the validity of The Hockey Stick were given fresh life on July 1 when Michael E. Mann, one of scientists who created the 1,000-year chart, published a corrigendum in Nature. Corrigendum is science publication jargon for correction. "It has been drawn to our attention that the listing of the 'proxy' data set ... contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said "none of these errors affect our previously published results."

Not true, say the Canadian researchers -- Ross McKitrick of Guelph University and Toronto analyst Steve McIntyre -- who pointed out the errors. They had asked Nature (which published Mann's original Hockey Stick paper in 1999) to investigate. Nature would have ordered the corrigendum. However, in a note responding to Mr. Mann's corrigendum claim that nothing had changed, McKitrick and McIntyre said, "We have done the calculations and can assert categorically that the claim is false."

So who's right? McKitrick and McIntyre say they have written another paper on the Hockey Stick debate and will be in a position to defend their conclusion "when that paper is published." They have already written, in a paper described on this page last October, that the Mann numbers were "unreliable" and "could not be used" to compare between centuries. The result, they say, is that Mann's claim that the 20th century was likely the warmest years of the last 1,000 years is wholly unsubstantiated.

More important, McKitrick and McIntyre charge that the Mann correction "is a clear admission that the disclosure of data and methods ... was materially inaccurate." There are "extensive errors" in the description of the data, revelations "for the first time" that key steps in the computations were left out of "and indeed conflict with" the description of methods in the original paper." They allege that the corrigendum "is a vindication of our view that, prior to our analysis, there had been no independent evaluation of this influential but deeply flawed study."

This should come as a major embarrassment at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN agency that has been using the Hockey Stick as a central propaganda tool. Robert Watson, former head of the IPCC, used the Mann work to bolster the climate scare at the IPCC meeting in The Hague in November, 2000. "The Earth's surface temperature this century," he said, "is clearly warmer than any other century during the last one thousand years." The Hockey Stick graph was suspect right from the beginning. It flew in the face of historical record and denied the existence of famous hot times, such as the Medieval Warm Period. Other scientists have also deconstructed parts of the Stick and found it to be unsupportable. And that means one of the great climate claims, that 20th century carbon emissions caused unprecedented global warming, is just plain wrong.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

The science behind climate change forecasts adds up to a lot of hot air, says Martin Agerup

By Martin Agerup

The Daily Telegraph
May 3, 2004

HOW would you react if fellow members of your profession were violating good practices of that discipline? What if the same people had massive amounts of taxpayers' money to develop flawed ideas, and wielded influence over public policies? Most people would be appalled. Yet this is exactly what is happening with the climate scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body charged with advising governments on the causes and consequences of climate change, which met in Geneva last week. The IPCC has received much attention for its projections, which suggest that the earth's climate will warm by anywhere between 1.4°C and 5.8°C in the next century. These projections are largely based on scenarios about how people will use energy in the future, which in turn determine future emissions of greenhouse gases. These scenarios are developed by economists (not climate scientists, as many are led to believe by misleading press releases issued by the IPCC).

The scenarios are presented as an exercise in free thinking about the future. The Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) published in 2000 describes them as "images of the future or alternative futures" which should not be seen as predictions or forecasts, rather as "computer-aided storylines." Unfortunately, they appear to present a very concrete result in terms of numbers for emissions. When fed into a computer, the results are more numbers, the 1.4°C and 5.8°C range for temperature rises. The SRES tries to have it both ways: a noncommittal scenario process and a clear numerical result. The SRES claims that the scenarios "are not assigned probabilities of occurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations", but since each scenario gives a result which translates into a number, there is an implicit bias towards the extremes.

In the real world, scenario builders would normally treat an extreme outcome as less likely and therefore assign it less importance. It is normal not to assign probabilities when working with scenarios, since the point is to cover the full range of possible futures. By the same token, scenarios should not be used as forecasts, because a forecast makes no sense without a discussion of probability. Meteorologists only make weather forecasts three to five days into the future because of the tiny probability of being right with longer forecasts. Yet the SRES scenarios are indeed used to make forecasts, far into the future. Two out of the six so-called "marker scenarios" push up the IPCC's temperature range by 2°C, but neither is likely given historical trends. The first, which produces global warming of 5.8°C, assumes that by 2100, emissions will be more than twice what the historic growth trend would imply. To this must be added the least likely of the climate models, which assumes a very high sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, to get to the apocalyptic number of 5.8°C. This scenario is entirely unrealistic.

The second absurd scenario, which produces global warming of 4.8°C, uses a projection for world population growth which is the UN's top estimates, while assuming a reversal of the global trend of the past 100 years towards less carbon-intensive energy sources. Again, this is extremely unlikely. Others have criticised the SRES methodology and practices. John Reilly of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, calls the SRES approach an "insult to science". Reilly suspects that the scenario teams started with an emissions projection, estimated the relationship between emissions and growth, and finally calculated the growth rate needed to achieve the desired emissions projection. Ian Castles, former president of the International Association of Official Statistics, and David Henderson, former chief economist of the OECD, have criticised the SRES for using market exchange rates instead of purchasing power parity. This results in models that overestimate future growth rates in poor countries. Some of the SRES scenarios produce a world economy which, by 2100, is up to 25 times larger than it is today. Few would complain if this happens, but history suggests that it won't. Since 1975, world GDP growth per capita has averaged 1.2% annually, a rate which would produce a figure 3.7 times today's GDP per head by 2100. Even if world population doubles (a high estimate), the global economy would be only 7.4 times larger than at the base year (1990). With such sloppy practices, ignoring historical data and trends, and turning scenarios into forecasts, the SRES has misled the public and policy makers. This is serious because the results are being used as a basis for policies to regulate energy consumption - of which the Kyoto Protocol is the most obvious - that will cost billions of dollars and harm economic growth. Worse still, there is no proof they will have any measurable effect on the world's climate.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Extreme Weather Events NOT linked to Global Warming
Governments should base decisions on real data,
not shaky computer models
By: Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, environmental consultant and former research scientist with Environment Canada


Figure 1: Claims of increasing extreme weather due to global climate change are unfounded. Photo used with permission, courtesy of Jack "THUNDERHEAD" Corso. As a primary justification for allocating a billion dollars towards implementing the Kyoto Accord in Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien inexplicably chose to highlight the supposed connection between extreme weather events and climate change. In his mid-August 2003 speech announcing the new funding, the PM confidently told Canadians, "Extreme weather events around the world, and here in Canada, have underscored the harsh reality of climate change. Scientists have sounded the warning. We have no choice but to act. It is our moral responsibility."

In reality, governments have a 'moral responsibility' to properly consider what nature really tells us, even if the data scientists collect doesn't support the rhetoric of political leaders. While it is true that some scientists "have sounded the warning", many have not and the connection between global warming and extreme weather is being seriously questioned in many scientific studies and appears tenuous at best.


Figure 2: Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson out of touch with the findings his own department's scientists. Mr. Chrétien's belief in a global warming/extreme weather link originates with Environment Canada's senior managers who promote the extreme weather hypothesis despite having done no in-depth analysis of the relevant data. Mirroring Ex-Vice President Al Gore's proclamations (Gore: "Global warming is real and … unless we act we can expect more extreme weather in the years ahead."), Mr. Henry Hengeveld and other Environment Canada spokespeople have tried to associate everything from snowstorms to floods to droughts with planetary warming. In my recent contract report to Alberta Environment (Alberta Provincial Government), I concluded that extreme weather events such as heat waves, rainstorms, intense windstorms, thunderstorms/tornadoes, winter blizzards, etc. are NOT increasing anywhere in Canada at this time. I also concluded that the probability of these events increasing in next 25 years remains very small.

My report uses studies based on 100 years of climate data as well as some excellent research done by Environment Canada scientists that has been ignored by senior managers in the department for political reasons. Environment Minister David Anderson (right) seems unaware of his own department's findings in this regard and exhibits a naïve faith in simplistic computer models when he laments that we will experience "an 8-fold increase in extreme heat waves by 2050" that would cause "thousands of additional deaths across the country" (Speech from Federal Environment Minister, David Anderson, Toronto, Ontario, April 5th, 2002).

Editor's Note: Many others share the mistaken belief that human-caused global warming will be disastrous, and is causing, and will continue to cause, extreme weather:

"Reckless human use of fossil fuels - overwhelmingly by industrialized countries - has helped raise the specter of climate change, which darkens everyone's horizon. But poor people in poor countries suffer first and worst from extreme weather conditions linked to climate change. Today, 96% of all deaths from natural disasters occur in developing countries."
- International Federation of Red Cross, World Disasters Report 2000

"In the long-term, there is no greater environmental challenge facing the United States - and the world - than global climate change. Two recent scientific reports, one by the United Nations and a second by the National Academy of Sciences, have confirmed our fears about climate change. These reports concluded that the Earth is warming, that the warming is caused by human activities and that unless we reverse this trend we will face potentially dire consequences, including rising sea levels, widespread drought, the spread of diseases associated with warmer weather, and an increase in extreme weather events."
- Opening Statement from Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001 meeting, July 18, 2001




Correcting Environmental Group Extreme Weather Myths

Contrary to the alarmism of environmental groups:

In the higher latitudes of the northeast, from the eastern Arctic in the European sector and the Northwest Atlantic all the way from Baffin Bay to Labrador, we have seen cooling over the past 50 years and extreme cold spells, not warmer weather events, have increased during this period. Professor Igor Polyakov of the International Arctic Research Center (University of Alaska at Fairbanks) conducted a comprehensive analysis of arctic weather records and announced in December 2002 that the Arctic had actually cooled since the 1920s (See http://www.scienceroundtable.com/032403B.html for an excellent description of this research and a discussion about how radically different conclusions can be derived depending on the time period over which data is analyzed). Despite assertions of environmental groups that the recent Ellesmere Island ice break-up is yet another result of human-induced global warming, temperature variability in the Arctic is still far from being understood.
The hottest summers of the 20th century in Canada were during the dust bowl years of the 1920s and the 1930s, not the 1990s, as many Kyoto supporters claim (the deadliest heat wave in Canada occurred in July, 1936, when the temperature in Toronto hit 41oC three days in a row, killing more than 1,000 people in the Prairies and Southern Ontario).
Overall, the small amount of warming observed in the last 50 years is beneficial to most regions of Canada in terms of a more enjoyable climate and lower heating costs.
The worst flood in Canadian history was due to Hurricane Hazel (October, 1954) and killed more than 75 people in the western suburbs of Toronto. No meteorologist or climatologist has blamed this on global warming.

Figure 3: Frequency of hurricanes has not increased. Neither has their intensity. NOAA satellite image of Hurricane Isabel making landfall on North America's eastern seaboard. Scientists from other countries come to similar conclusions. According to Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, the frequency of hurricanes, thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes have not increased in recent years. Dr. Robert Balling, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, has demonstrated that there has been no increase in extreme weather over the United States.

A recent Special Issue of the Netherlands-based International Journal of Natural Hazards has several peer-reviewed papers on extreme weather events in different parts of the world - windstorms over the Canadian Prairies, floods in North Carolina, Global Monsoons (which have diminished in last 50 years), etc. - and no support was demonstrated for the global warming/extreme weather hypothesis. Climate researcher, Dr. Tad Murty, one of the editors of the journal and previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada explains, "While everyone recognizes that the impact of hazards is increasing at an alarming rate (due to population rise and great increases in coastal infrastructure) not a single paper based on actual observations, and not on speculation through computer models, out of the hundreds of manuscripts that passed through the editor's desk in the past several years ever claimed that global warming has anything to do with extreme weather events."

"For example," Dr. Murty continues, "we did a study on the cyclone-generated storm surge events in the state of Orissa, on the Bay of Bengal coast of India and laboriously documented the total number of events, as well as their intensity and impacts. Our data showed that during the 19th century, there were 72 events, while there were only 56 such events during the 20th century."


Figure 4: Extreme weather damage is a function of societal change, not change in actual weather. Photo used with permission, courtesy of Mike Theiss. According to Environment Canada meteorologist Mr. David Etkin, "...Based upon historical data, it is difficult to support the hypothesis that the recent run of disasters both world-wide and in Canada are caused by climate change; more likely other factors such as increased wealth, urbanization and population migration to vulnerable areas are of significance...". Highly respected American climatologist, Dr. Stanley Changnon agrees and just demonstrated in an important scientific paper (Natural Hazards 29 (2): 273-290, June 2003) that increasing losses from extreme weather in recent years are merely a result of societal change and increasing wealth, NOT global warming.

None of this is surprising - one would expect that weather would moderate if the planet warms since it is the difference in temperature between Earth's poles and equatorial regions that drives major weather patterns and this difference will diminish in a warmer world. Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, explains further, "In general, a warmer world has a lower equator-to-pole temperature contrast, and it is this contrast that provides energy for the jet stream, which powers almost all surface cyclones. Reducing this contrast reduces their intensity."

continued........

[whitemajikman]

Governments should stop paying so much attention to environmental alarmists such as the David Suzuki Foundation who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still claim on their web site that "The frequency of extreme weather events has increased steadily over the 20th century" and "... as the atmosphere warms, the climate will not only become hotter, but much more unstable" - both claims are clearly incorrect.

Prairie Drought

But what about drought concerns? Toronto area Member of Parliament Sarmite Bulte (Liberal) told the Canadian House of Commons during last year's Kyoto debates (24/10/02), "Look at the drought experienced by the farmers out west this year. ... we owe it to them to ensure that we do something so those kinds of droughts do not happen."

Blaming the current cycle of drought on the Prairies on human activity is both unscientific and irresponsible. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, explains that the present western Canadian drought is part of a natural cycle that has gone on for thousands of years. "There were many droughts that are documented to have been much worse than the present one, and long before the initiation of human produced greenhouse gases," Dr. Patterson says. "The worst drought (in Canada) in the last 1,000 years lasted from 1680-1720 during an episode of cold from which we only began to recover in the 1890s."


Figure 5: Droughts are caused by natural cycles over which humans have little, if any, influence. In fact, North America's great plains were referred to as the 'Great American Desert' in previous centuries and specialists of the day recommended that the region should not be farmed extensively.

The situation is similar in the U.S. Dr. Christy explains, "When looking back over the past 2,000 years we see that the most significant droughts in the Southwestern U.S., for example, occurred prior to 1600."

Although better understanding the cause and precise nature of droughts is exceptionally important, Canada has no national institute to study drought and so we rely to a considerable extent on the National Drought Research Institute in Nebraska. A national drought organization should be established in Canada and would cost a small fraction of the funds being devoted to Kyoto's implementation.

Editor's note: In another of Dr. Khandekar's reports, the draft of which he has just submitted to the Government of Alberta, he concludes that the primary mechanism for drought occurrence on the Canadian prairies is a certain phase of the ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) cycle in the equatorial Pacific, accompanied by colder waters in the northeast Pacific. Dr. Khandekar further explains that, "In some years, remote forcing from the Asian Monsoon region may have influenced the occurrence of drought on the Prairies, for example in 1961 and 1988, both drought years on the Canadian Prairies that were associated with strong Monsoons over India and south Asia. The role of solar forcing through sunspot cycles may have aggravated the droughts of 1916/17 and 1936/37. However, there is no apparent link between recent droughts and global warming."

Computer Models Unreliable

So what do the much vaunted computer models cited by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tell us about extreme weather events in our future? Not much, it seems. Dr. Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research explains, "There is no consensus between (computer) models on changes in ... temperature and precipitation. Even the best models perform poorly in simulating such variability."

Even Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the IPCC, agrees and adds, "...there is little agreement between [computer] models on... changes in storminess... Conclusions regarding extreme [weather] events are obviously even more uncertain."

In fact, the computer models used by the IPCC can be 'tweaked' to produce either warming or cooling in the next 50 to 100 years by suitably adjusting the input variables. For this reason, at US Congressional hearings in 2002, it was concluded that such computer models cannot be used for making long-term decisions such as Kyoto. Dr. James O'Brien, director of Florida State University's Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, commented that the Canadian model appears to be simulating climate for a planet other than Earth! Dr. O'Brien further revealed that the Canadian model does not simulate El Niño or tropical monsoon, both being important climate signals without which future climate projections are meaningless. Dr. Michaels sums up: "The Canadian Climate Centre model performs worse than a table of random numbers when applied to 10-year averages of U.S. temperatures."

Yet in Canada itself, the government refused to allow such scientific hearings to take place and still continues to ignore the research findings of many of the country's top climate scientists. Instead, they base billion dollar decisions on the PM's 'gut instinct' and computer models we already know to be unreliable. To make matters worse, none of the recent billion dollar funding was set aside for the research vitally needed to improve our understanding of the real impact, if any, of increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) in the Earth's atmosphere.

Instead, Environment Canada ignores the fact that many reputable studies show that Earth's warming is unlikely to be caused by our emissions of GHGs and that solar variability is a major driver of Earth's climate. Most notable was the blockbuster paper by University of Ottawa geology professor (paleoclimatolgy) Dr. Jan Veizer, and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem) published in July 2003. Their research clearly demonstrates that, over geologic time scales, CO2, the greenhouse gas most restricted by the Kyoto Accord, is not a significant climate driver at all. Instead, their study supports the growing belief among scientists that most of the global warming of the past century is caused by changes in the brightness of the Sun. Other studies strongly support the theory that urbanization and land-use change play a more important role than the increasing GHGs.

Clearly, there is a need for policy formulation to be based more on the analysis of available data instead of inadequately verified computer models. Present climate change is quite likely occurring as part of natural climate variability and may not be at all linked to observed warming of the last 25 years (which is now largely attributed to urbanization, energy consumption and land-use change around many land-based observing stations).

Trying to Silence Kyoto's Science Critics

Mr. Chrétien attempted to diffuse mounting criticism of Kyoto's science by reassuring the public in his August announcement, "To keep Canada on the cutting edge of climate change research and discussion we are asking ... the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) to report to Canadians on the science of climate change." This is hardly comforting. The CFCAS are well known to fund only those projects that support the global warming hypothesis and rely too much on the same flawed computer models used by Environment Canada - none of CFCAS' funding money goes to reducing important uncertainties in the science such as:

the impact of urbanization on Canadian mean temperatures;
the discrepancy between warming rates at the surface versus the lower atmosphere;
the impact of solar variability on climate over geologic time scales;
the cooling of eastern Canada and the northwest Atlantic Ocean in the last fifty years;
the reasons for the anomalous climate of the US and Canadian prairies in the dust bowl years (1920-1940) and the warming of the earth's surface from 1910-1940.
Such issues must be properly studied and understood before any large-scale funding to GHG-reduction programs such as the Kyoto Accord are warranted.


Figure 6: The release of CO2 from the Earth's oceans vastly exceeds that from human activity. Regardless of what science eventually determines to be the real causes of the modest warming we have seen in the past hundred years, increased energy efficiency and the development of cleaner ways of generating the energy needed to power society are clearly worthwhile goals. But the capture and long term storage of CO2, and other expensive projects to 'stop climate change', a problem that may not even exist, makes absolutely no sense at this time. Humanity's emission of this harmless gas is but a tiny fraction of that emitted by the ocean, forest fires, volcanoes and decaying vegetation.

Incoming Prime Minister Paul Martin clearly needs to take a fresh look at the Kyoto file. Unlike his predecessor, he must welcome the input of leading non-governmental climate scientists, experts who have been locked out of the government's consultations to date, and develop environmental policy that is truly based on the latest environmental science.



WMM

[whitemajikman]

Ecoterrorism

Letters To The Editor
Chemical Association Blasts Maps on Web site


From the Times-Picayune
06/12/02


Is Greenpeace a tool of state-sponsored eco-terrorism?

Its most recent affront, posting petrochemical worst-case scenarios on the Internet, is one of the organization's most egregious.

Sophomoric antics like hanging a sign from a building have been replaced by giving terrorists road maps to the nation's critical defense facilities.

People know chemical plants and refineries can be dangerous. The building blocks for virtually every product from miracle drugs to smart bomb guidance systems are often, in their early stages, problematic if not handled properly. So are stepladders and SUVs, when you're not careful.

That's why our plants preach safety, safety, safety. That's why they have long-standing relationships with local emergency responders, sheriff's offices and the State Police.

That's why plants shared with their communities the worst-case scenarios Greenpeace has made available to the world. And that's also why, long before Sept. 11, plants sided with the FBI, the Defense Department and the country's intelligence community to oppose posting these scenarios on the Internet.

Who on some other continent would need to know about a plant in South Louisiana?

Greenpeace is an organization that owes its allegiance to no nation. It has put its own agenda ahead of America's well-being, answering only to its left-wing ideology and to unnamed fellow travelers who pump millions into its coffers. Federal investigators and enterprising journalists should ask whether its funding is influenced by donors who do not have America's security interests at heart.


Dan S. Borné

President
Louisiana Chemical Association

Baton Rouge

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Ecoterrorism and PETA



Tax-exempt PETA Supports Eco-terrorism
From the Colorado Springs Gazette – June 14, 2002
By Mike Rosen

PETA once content to conduct silly demonstrations and acts of intimidation and petty vandalism has grown increasingly radical providing financial aid and comfort to individuals and groups involved in ecoterrorism; groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI reports have been involved in more than 600 attacks, causing more than $43 million in damage since 1996. PETA's tax-exempt status presumes that it operates exclusively for the charitable purpose of prevention of cruelty to animals. A recent congressional hearing, chaired by Rep. Scott McInnis of Colorado, looked into revoking that status. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing this bunch.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Ecoterrorism in Eureka, California

"It Ain't Easy Being Green" from the December 1997 issue of Off Road Magazine

"October 16, 1997. Eureka, California. Approximately 60 EarthFirsters, including two advance men wearing black ski masks, black gloves and black clothing, attacked the field office of Congressman Frank Riggs (R-1st), terrorizing female staff members and causing serious vandalism damage from a tree stump dumped on the floor along with a six-inch deep litter of wood chips, sawdust and tree debris. Office computers were covered with fine sawdust. The female staff members choked on the sawdust for several days thereafter. A female EarthFirster also urinated on the floor. Supporters of the attackers described the action as a "non-violent civil disobedience protest" against logging of privately owned commercial redwood trees belonging to Pacific Lumber Company. Environmentalists are seeking to confiscate the company's timberlands through legislation. The company is negotiating to sell a portion of the timberlands to the government for use as a park.

"Staff members of Rep. Riggs's Eureka office described the incident: A loud boom sounded, shaking the building and rattling windows. A female staff member said, 'I thought a bomb had gone off and we were going to experience Oklahoma City all over again.' The sound was the tree stump being dumped from a hand truck. Another female staff member said, "I saw figures with black ski masks covering their faces, black hoods, black gloves. I remember the blood draining from my head and feeling dizzy. Thoughts of my two children came into my head, as if they would be my last thoughts on this earth."' A female staff member said, 'I went around the corner of the building to witness a white male reach up to his face and pull something off his head. I concluded it to be a ski mask. The white male held a walkie-talkie and said, "It's a green light. It's a go, it's a go. Let's go." '

"Law enforcement officers responded to the scene and attempted to dislodge the EarthFirsters, but they refused to leave peacefully. Police applied pepper spray with swabs to their eyelids following county and city guidelines and removed the protesters under arrest.

"Four EarthFirsters were arrested: 1) Jennifer Beth Schneider, 28, of Carmel Valley; 2) Terri Lee Slanetz, 34, of Oakland; 3) Lisa Marie Sanderson-Fox, 30, of Oakland; 4) Maya Portugal, 16, hometown unknown.

"Humboldt County and the city of Eureka have been sued in a civil rights complaint by nine anti-logging EarthFirsters whose eyelids were swabbed with pepper spray at three separate demonstrations, including at Rep. Riggs's office. The civil suit seeks a restraining order against the county and city use of pepper spray, but U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker declined to hear arguments on their motion for a restraining order because attorneys for the plaintiffs neglected to serve the county and city properly with copies of the complaint and a summons to a court hearing, which would violate constitutionally mandated due process rights. Macon Cowles, an attorney for the EarthFirsters, apologized for the error: 'It is a matter of some distress to us that we have started this case out stumbling on this very important issue.' "







WMM

[whitemajikman]

Self-proclaimed Earth Liberation Front Ecoterrorism Acts


November 5, 2001 - The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for spiking trees throughout the Otter Wing Timber Sale in the Nez Perce National Forest. "This action was taken in protest of the wholesale destruction of 'public' forests by private companies and the degradation of pristine ecosystems leading to habitat destruction affecting hundreds of species of fish, insects, birds and mammals."


July 27, 2001 from The Earth Liberation Front's Web site: "An 'anonymous' group of individuals have claimed responsibility for placing spikes in hundreds of trees in Units 5, 6, and 7 of the Upper Greenhorn Timber Sale in the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District located in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest."


June 18, 2001 – The Earth Liberation Front officially claimed responsibility for sabotaging the University of Idaho biotechnology building in opposition to genetic engineering on June 10, 2001. This was the second strike by the ELF at the new biotech building.


June 13, 2001 – The Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front took credit for attacks on five Bank of New York buildings on Long Island. They claim to have glued locks and ATM machines, spray-painted slogans on all branches and smashed more than 25 windows at a Bank of New York office in Farmingdale. The actions are reportedly part of a larger campaign to encourage the Bank of New York to divest itself of association with Huntington Life Sciences, a company that conducts animal testing.


January 24, 2001 – The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) vandalizes property in Louisville, Kentucky 1/23/01: Five windows were broken and 18 vandalized, causing upwards of $800 in damages in the first wave of attacks against corporate sprawl in Louisville, Kentucky. The damage affected two nearly finished buildings including a PNC Bank.


January 1, 2001 – Glendale, OR, USA: The ELF has officially claimed responsibility for burning down the Superior Lumber Company offices in Glendale. This latest action by the ELF caused at least $400,000 in damages.


December 29, 2000 – Mount Sinai, NY, USA: The ELF burned down four new luxury homes at Island Estates.


December 9, 2000 – Middle Island, NY, USA: The Earth Liberation Front claims responsibility for a fire that erupted in a condominium under construction, saying the homes were "future dens of the wealthy elite." The group, announcing "an unbounded war on urban sprawl," claims it checked for occupants–human and animal–in 16 condos before setting incendiaries in them that caused more than $200,000 in damages.


December 1, 2000 – Middle Island, NY, USA: The Earth Liberation Front visited another housing construction site, monkeywrenching 12 vehicles and smashing over 200 windows. The ELF claim this action was to make the point that Long Island's unique Pine Barren ecosystem will not vanish without a fight.


November 27, 2000 – Longmont, CO, USA: Fire hits one of the first luxury homes going up in a new subdivision. The Earth Liberation Front later sends a note, made of letters clipped from magazines, to the Boulder Weekly newspaper: "Viva la revolution! The Boulder ELF burned the Legend Ridge mansion on Nov. 27th."


October 18, 2000 – Martin County State Forest, Indiana, USA: Logging equipment valued at $55,000 was damaged and spray-painted with the slogans Earth Raper, Go Cut in Hell and E.L.F.


March 17, 2000 – Sonoma County, California: The offices of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau were trashed by EarthFirst! and Animal Liberation Front activists in what they claimed was retaliation for the posting of a $50,000 reward for information regarding several arsons directed at some Farm Bureau member companies. (from Barry Claussen's book Burning Rage.)


February 14, 2000 – 800 genetically modified oat plants were killed when members of the Earth Liberation broke into and vandalized FrontGreen Hall at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul.


October 1998 – The Earth Liberation Front set fire to a ski facility in Aspen, Colorado, causing $12 million in damage. Text of an e-mail sent from ELF to the Vail, Colorado sheriff's department and various media outlets:
"ATTN: News Director, On behalf of the lynx, five buildings and four ski lifts at Vail were reduced to ashes on the night of Sunday, October 18th. The 12 miles of roads and 885 acres of clearcuts will ruin the last, best lynx habitat in the state. Putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated. This action is just a warning. We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded areas. For your safety and convenience, we strongly advise skiers to choose other destinations until Vail cancels its inexcusable plans for expansions. Earth Liberation Front."
October 27, 1996 - Detroit, Oregon. The Earth Liberation Front, a decoupling group linked to EarthFirst!, set a government truck on fire and spray-painted Earth Liberation Front, Forest Rapers, and other anti-logging graffiti on U.S. Forest Service buildings and vehicles at the Detroit Ranger District Ranger Station.


July 31, 1994 – Near Olympia, Washington. A log skidder, two fire trucks and a bulldozer were set on fire, causing damage of over $80,000. On August 9, the Washington Contract Loggers Association's answering machine recorded a message transmitted by a computer-generated robotic voice: "The recent destruction of logging equipment was retaliation by the EarthFirsters to protect the planet Earth from logging."

WMM

[Insurrectionchemistry]

While crooked impersinator and ID theft person WMM spams the list with dozens of propaganda listings, meanwhile chemtrails ring in the new year as seen here:

http://rense.com/general61/york.htm

And where are the studies for global warming effects and acid rain effects inclusive of jet plane cloud shielding and jet plane cloud seeding rainout of poison acids on land masses.

So goes the propaganda ministries of the Jewish corperate system.

When WMM isn't making web pages on greasy stringy haired Rabbis, he is spamming the lists and threatning people, plus stealing their IDs. What a crook. It is said that a Torah and Talmud based Jewish Rabbi can tell more lies in one hour than other persons can in a lifetime. Their Jewish law is based on their taking control of the world financial systems, their New World Ownership.

They reject Christ because the global warming equation of Jesus Revelations predicts the end of the Jews big lies and of their economic conspiracy.

They are very despirate to cover this up. People don't pay much attention to thugs attempting to suport their corrupted fifedom.

Irony upon irony is the very bomb they were so despirate to make to burn Hitler is the instrument that Jesus predicts what decimate the Jews once and for all. Their god will have spoken. Only those of the truth will survive.

Gaia's observation that extortionist JR and his thugs are loosing, seems to have made some attempts at spamming.

The truth justs keeps on coming out regardless of their futile attempts to mask it. JR and his thugs lost.

IMHO,
is

[Yaak]

Gaiacomm: “JR and company are fighting a losing battle on this forum!”

Yaak: “So, gaiacomm, you do not believe that the truth will prevail?”

Gaiacomm: “It always does no matter what!”



JR and company’s battle is for the truth.
Your statements contradict each other.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Perhaps this is what the Jewish-Mason was trying to hide with spamming---guess they don't want all of Europe and Halva seeing the associations and it suddenly making sense....
IMHO,
is


Halva writes:

"" On the subject of Teller: there is an urgent need for the last chapter of Teller's biography to be written. Peter Goodchild, who has written excellent biographies of both Teller and Oppenheimer, did not include the 'chemtrails' phase of Teller's career, breaking off just before for chronological reasons.

Gregg Herken, another talented biographer, does not cover the chemtrails phase for the same reason. He has written a very well-documented book on science policy-making in the USA. (Its title is 'Cardinal Choice'). ""

=========

Hello Halva,

Yes, the latter parts of Teller's involvements in chemtrails is missing. It is being kept from the public because of the huge economc impacts involved, which are assigned to fluorine, the Manhattan Project, and the strategic metals businesses. Plus, these issues as the related to religion produce a huge paradigim shift, which the Jews and the Rothschilds don't want made public. Plus, these uranium plants national security existance problems would be in huge trouble, if the local public discovered the impacts to their immune system to the point of excess cancers and risk for HIV infection. Because of this, We came to nickname Teller as the "Lying Story Teller" at ORNL as we discovered and watched his lies to support the lab systems he created.

You have to keep in mind that Tellers views of the Communists highly colored the US visions and fears of things. If there was anyone that started the Cold War, it was Teller. Teller not only started the Manhattan Project, he started the system of National Labs. So, Teller was given to exploit this power and given to almost tell any lie to get Congressional funding.

Russia was our ally against Germany, and after the war the world needed to be kept from learning the religion factors assigned to the Jews for both the Russian and German political systems. Teller was a principle in conceiling the sense and sensibilties of these factors.

Teller was affected by the Jewish quotas imposed in schools in Hungary, and this colored his responses. The real problem between the Communists, who are Jewish reformers called Marxists/Lenonists was that they recognized how religion would come to run over Governments. So, the Communists shifted toward athiest states and toward socialist economomies that avoided banking systems like the Rothschilds. They were attempting to short circuit the Jewish systems to gain control of Governments.

Naturally, the Jews and the Rothschilds banking systems hated this, as they could not work their games in athiest states and socialized economies. Castro adopted the same system. And even Hitler's was based on similar concerns, though Hitler allowed a form of religion to exist in Germany.

So, when Teller came out with the warnings of the Germans will develop the bomb, he set up a huge scare in the US system that was exploited for some 60 years. Tellers fears were based on these states rejecting the religion games of the Jews and upon rejection of their closely associated economic take over methods using wars.

Teller's Jewish fears set up this entire fear of Communism by the US, and the huge battle for economic domination of the planet.

Then, when we get into the issues of Chemtrails, here the big problem is the fluorides and this was a liability that the Manhattan Project would incur and the bankers that funded it. Plus, the greater investigations of the acid rain and global warming issues exposes the big Jewish issues connected to Revelations and the end of the huge Jewish attempts at economic domination of the US and extended toward attempts for the New World Ownership.

Teller set up a pivotal role in US politics and the manage of fear politics to accomodate the Jewish equation for world politics. The problem is the Jewish version of god, which sets the stage for all this vision is based upon falsehoods.

IMHO,
is

[whitemajikman]

Australia, US must join international strategy on emissions: report

SYDNEY (AFP) Jan 04, 2005

Australia and the United States will have to eventually participate in an international strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol, a minister was reported saying Tuesday.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said Australia was "very vulnerable" to climate change and achieving a comprehensive, worldwide approach on global warming must be a priority, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

"I have made a conscious decision to get the government more onto the front foot on climate change," he was quoted saying.

"Climate change is the preeminent environmental issue," he said.

Australia would continue to align itself with Washington in opposing Kyoto but Campbell conceded both countries would be part of a future global agreement, the newspaper said.

The protocol comes into force next month, but the United States and Australia have been two leading opponents.

Australia has argued it is too costly and unfair because developing countries are not bound to make specific pollution cuts, although Campbell conceded Monday that Australia needed to recognise the special needs of developing nations.

Greenpeace campaigner Catherine Fitzpatrick welcomed the government's recognition that climate change was a serious issue but said it was hard to take seriously until greenhouse gas emissions started coming down.


Wayne........ Ian Campbell is a SCHMUCK .................

And not a well respected member of Australian politics.............

Because he too is part of the Radical Environmentalist Scourge.............

WHICH you have the Nerve to promote .........UNTRUTHFULLY .........

Your Whole Environmental Demeanor is Suspect..........NOW.

YOU are Nothing But a Cerebral ECO-TERRORIST.........

Who Simply has not Graduated to Acts of TERRORISM ......YET.

THis Whole Thread is a Tribute to......YOUR STUPIDITY..........YOUR DECEPTION..........YOUR LIES.......AND HOW YOU HUNGER FOR A TASTE OF RECOGNITION ...........

WELL YOU NOW HAVE WHAT YOU WANT...................


RECOGNITION........


WE RECOGNIZE THAT WAYNE HALL AND HIS OTHER CRONIES CAME TO THIS FINE FORUM TO TRY AND SUBVERT THE MINDS OF THE READER INTO SWALLOWING ........HOOK ,LINE,AND SINKER .........WAYNES RANTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING........AND AT FIRST TRIED TO MAKE SOME IN ROADS WITH ANOTHER CLIMATE HOAX.....WHICH IS KNOWN AS CHEMTRAILS........

IN THE PROCESS HE HAS BUILT A RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THE INTERNET'S PREMEIR ANTI-SEMITES AND INTERNET SCHIZOPHRENICS KNOWN AS JIM PHELPS WHOM HAS STATED THAT HE DESIGNED ,BUILT AND IMPLEMENTED HAARP,CREATED CHEMTRAILS,WORKED FOR OAK RIDGE LABORATORIES WHERE HE FOUND A CONNECTION BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE ENVIRONMENT........HE STYLES HIMSELF A WHISTLEBLOWER ALL OF WHICH IS FANTASY ON HIS PART.....BUT NOT TO WAYNE HALL WHO IN HIS NEED FOR ALLIES HAS ACCEPTED JIM AT FACE VALUE.........BECAUSE HE IS LOSING HIS DEBATE ON THIS THREAD MORE AND MORE EACH AND EVERY DAY..........

WHAT IS NOT FANTASY IS JIM'S HATRED FOR ANYTHING JEWISH........AND WHO HAS BLAMED WORLD JEWRY ON EVERY KNOWN CONSPIRACY THAT HAS BEFALLEN MANKIND........

HIS STYLE IS NOT UN-LIKE MOST OTHER ANTI-SEMITES WHO TRY TO JUSTIFY THEIR HATRED THROUGH THE USE OF SUPPOSED COMMON- SENSE.........

BUT LETS BE HONEST HERE FOLKS HATRED IN ANY FORM CAN NEVER BE TRULY JUSTIFIED AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMON SENSE......

IN THIS NEW MILLENIUM IT IS HARD TO REALIZE WHO IS THE GOOD GUYS AND WHO IS THE BAD GUYS........

BUT NOT ON THIS THREAD.........

THAT FINE LINE IS CLEARLY DEFINED WITH-IN THIS THREAD..........

ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS READ IT TO REALIZE THIS......

WAYNE HALL HAS STATED A HUNDRED TIMES THAT HE IS TRYING TO GET HIS MESSAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC AND MORE IMPORTANTLY BY THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED........

BUT WHAT HIS MESSAGE CONSISTS OF IS NOT ACCURATE,NOR IS IT TRUTHFUL.........

IN FACT WAYNES AGENDA IS CLEARLY TO DECEIVE..........IS IT ANY WONDER THAT HE HAS ALLIED HIMSELF WITH JIM PHELPS........

THEN THERE IS GAIACOMM A.K.A LANCE HAUBRICK A.K.A JUDAH BEN-HUR WHO IS A FENCE SITTER AND SAYS HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE MAKES SILLY ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENTS BROUGHT ON BY ANOTHER ONE OF JIM PHELPS'S REDICULOUS POST'S ON HOW THE JEWS MUST PAY,FOR THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EARTHLY EVIL........

AND WE CAN'T FORGET ABOUT FOOTSOLDIER (DEBORAH STARK).......WHAT KIND OF REPUTABLE ,PEACE LOVING, ENVIRONMENTALIST WOULD USE THE NAME OF FOOT SOLDIER TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERNET PERSONA.....?....NONE......BUT ANOTHER RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST ECO-TERRORIST THAT USES PROPAGANDA INSTEAD OF BOMBS.......DEBORAH STARK FITS THAT DESCRIPTION TO A TEE..............


NORTH AMERICA AND INDEED THE WORLD BETTER WAKE UP TO THE REALIZATION THAT THESE RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECO-TERRORIST'S HAVE AN AGENDA ,AND IT IT DOES NOT CONSIST OF SAVING THE PLANET OR HAS ANYTHING REMOTELY TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.........

THERE AGENDA IS A SIMPLE ONE ..........BUT BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT DANGEROUS TO ALL WHO FALL FOR IT........

THERE AGENDA IS TO GAIN GLOBAL POLITICAL POWER THROUGH THE USE OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE ..........EFFECTING POLITICAL,ECONOMIC ,AND SOCIAL CONTROL OVER THE EARTH IN THE NAME OF ENVIRONMENTALISM.......

IF YOU REALLY DO CARE FOR THE TRUTH.........

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THIS THREAD IN IT'S ENTIRETY..........

AND TO QUESTION ANY AND ALL ENVIRONMENTALIST'S REGARDING THEIR FINDING'S AND THEIR AGENDA'S ..........

MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX ,JUST AS KYOTO IS A WEAPON.........

ITS TIME THE WORLD WOKE UP TO THESE FACTS...........

AND DEALT WITH THEM ACCORDINGLY........

WMM

[Yaak]

It appears that The Shadow has depleted its repertoire of anatomical flames and insults. It may have an excellent grasp of the English language, but it lacks the ability to create and converse with it. Having a skill but no talent to use it is comparable to having an endless supply of gasoline but no vehicle in which to use the gasoline.

For Example:
"If any agents were to show up at my front door, due to your [Jay Reynolds] influence, let me assure you that you do not have enough insurance to prevent me from being the future owner of your home and property.The Shadow knows how to deal with criminals..."

The Shadow has been reduced to making baseless, idiotic threats. You have no idea just how amusing you are, Shadow.:D

--------------------------------------
Regarding the photo you posted, Shadow, were you searching for praise?

Everyone say, “Ahhhhh!”

Everybody go, “Ooooo!”

You endured 25° F weather to take photographs?

[whitemajikman]

While crooked impersinator and ID theft person WMM spams the list with dozens of propaganda listings, meanwhile chemtrails ring in the new year as seen here:

http://rense.com/general61/york.htm

And where are the studies for global warming effects and acid rain effects inclusive of jet plane cloud shielding and jet plane cloud seeding rainout of poison acids on land masses.

So goes the propaganda ministries of the Jewish corperate system.

When WMM isn't making web pages on greasy stringy haired Rabbis, he is spamming the lists and threatning people, plus stealing their IDs. What a crook. It is said that a Torah and Talmud based Jewish Rabbi can tell more lies in one hour than other persons can in a lifetime. Their Jewish law is based on their taking control of the world financial systems, their New World Ownership.

They reject Christ because the global warming equation of Jesus Revelations predicts the end of the Jews big lies and of their economic conspiracy.

They are very despirate to cover this up. People don't pay much attention to thugs attempting to suport their corrupted fifedom.

Irony upon irony is the very bomb they were so despirate to make to burn Hitler is the instrument that Jesus predicts what decimate the Jews once and for all. Their god will have spoken. Only those of the truth will survive.

Gaia's observation that extortionist JR and his thugs are loosing, seems to have made some attempts at spamming.

The truth justs keeps on coming out regardless of their futile attempts to mask it. JR and his thugs lost.

IMHO,
is


WELL JIM ,YOU SURE HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOURSELF INTO MORE OF AN ICON OF FOOLS WITH EVERY POST YOU MAKE........

J.R. HAS DEBUNKED YOU INTO THE GROUND........

AS CAN BE SEEN ON THIS LONG THREAD........FOR ANYONE TO SEE IF THEY SO DESIRE.....

JUST AS YAAK(ED SNELL),STUART ALLSOP,AND MYSELF .......HAVE PLAYED AROUND WITH YOUR CHILDISH FANTASIES AND HAVE DEBUNKED THEM INTO THE GROUND......

BY THE WAY YOUR LITTLE LINK THERE IS FROM JEFF RENSE.COM.........

WHO HAS A HUGE DISCLAIMER ON HIS SITE SAYING.......

Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest our endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein. Journalism is the profession of gathering multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information about the events of our times and presenting them to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise.

JEFF RENSE.COM IS IN THE SAME VEIN OF JOURNALISM AS THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.......

IT IS LITTLE MORE THAT AN INTERNET RAG MAG FULL OF SENSATIONALISM PURELY INTENDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES......

BUT JIM THINKS IT IS ALL FACTUAL AND REAL...........

THIS IS JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF JIM'S MENTAL HEALTH........

WHICH CAN ALSO BE VIEWED ON THIS THREAD IF YOU WISH TO KNOW THE TRUTH.......

BECAUSE THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO MAKE SURE THE TRUTH DOES NOT GET LOST AMONG THESE PROMOTERS OF HOAXES AND HATRED...........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

For decades the planet has been awash in doomsday environmental propaganda proclaiming the imminent demise of earth due to environmental calamity, which only drastic action (and large amounts of government money) can avert. As the avalanche of horror stories mounted - a mixture of truth and fiction - various legislative bodies passed laws and regulations based largely on the recommendations of extreme leftist environmental activists, whose prescription usually advocated some combination of the following:

A gradual elimination of capitalism and replacement of it with socialism;

Expansion of governmental control over private life and the diminishing of personal rights by a multiplication of mind-boggling environmental laws, regulations, and controls;

Gradual abolition of private property or private control over property;

Application of extreme financial and criminal penalties for "polluters"; and finally,

In its extreme form, removal of humans from large portions of the earth's surface and return of the environment to its pristine state. (The forest fires in the western U.S. last summer are an example of what happens when forests are left alone.) Humans are viewed on a par with the rest of creation, since they are all equally evolved.
While it is noble to protect the environment and rescue endangered species, the reality of radical environmentalism is far from that.

Idealism: Bad Science and Economics

In the past, environmental laws were frequently enacted while ignoring the fact that environmental issues do not exist in an idealistic vacuum - the laws themselves may have a negative impact on people, the economy and, yes, even the environment. Each new government policy ripples throughout a broad spectrum of other concerns as well.

Quite often, the "science" cited to support environmental causes later proves incorrect, but this is rarely ever publicly acknowledged, and the legislation that was originally passed doesn't get repealed or altered. New horror stories simply replace the old and the crisis rolls forward.

In the U.S. many property owners consider finding an endangered species on their property to be a disaster, when it should be a privilege to participate in helping preserve a species. In business, excessive clean water and clean air standards skyrocket the cost of manufactured items, affecting all consumers.

Ranchers, farmers and property owners have lost houses and land due to excessive and, oftentimes, unreasonable regulation. In some cases they were desperately trying to comply with laws or even improve the environment. Property has been seized, fines issued and, in some cases, jail time served. Contrary to the hype, the "polluters" are frequently not big businesses belching out tons of pollutants, but private property owners who just can't keep up with the blizzard of environmental do's and don'ts.

Radical Environmentalism Built on Junk Science

The effects of decades of unwise, unscientific environmentalism are now becoming evident. California's electricity crunch is just one example of radical environmentalism run amok in a socialistic state, a totally man-made crisis. Over the past two decades, environmental groups fought the construction of new nuclear power plants in California and even forced the shutdown of plants which were on-line but had not been on long enough to pay back the immense costs of construction, which was multiplied several times over due to a labyrinth of environmental regulations. As a result, power companies quit building plants.

As the state's population expanded, demands on power rose with no corresponding construction of generating facilities. Then the state "deregulated" (only in the most bizarre sense of the word) the power utilities, allowing wholesale prices to float but capping retail prices to consumers. They also prohibited power companies from engaging in long-term energy contracts, forcing them into daily energy bidding to outside power sources, which drove wholesale prices ridiculously up. Power companies were economically caught in an impossible situation and the power crisis was on...or off as the case may be.

While California looks to the Northwest to make up its energy shortfalls, environmentalists in that part of the country have been trying to tear down the hydroelectric dams on the rivers there, another example of returning nature to its pristine state no matter the cost.

So who got blamed for California's problem? The state government and radical environmentalists that created the situation? Of course not. It was the greedy power companies trying to make a filthy profit. This was consonant with the long-term rhetoric of environmentalism that business is bad but environmentalism is good.

continued.......

[whitemajikman]

Environmentalism Is Big Business

But environmentalism is mega-big business. It is popular to portray environmentalism as pitting big business (the polluters) against the small guy and helpless nature. But saving the earth, even when it doesn't need saving, is itself a big business growth industry.

In 1999, environmental organizations received $3.5 billion in contributions and work out of posh offices in big cities, a far cry from the dedicated granola-eating environmentalists of 30 years ago, who were close to the land and worked for free to "save the planet."

Environmental organizations engage in mass-mailing campaigns of unsupported horror stories and environmental claims. Some groups spend so much money on fund-raising that only a very small percentage ever goes to saving the environment.

According to Sacramento Bee journalist Ken Knudson:

Six national environmental groups spend so much on fund-raising and overhead they don't have enough left to meet the minimum benchmark for environmental spending - 60 percent of annual expenses - recommended by charity watchdog organizations. Eleven of the nation's 20 largest include fund-raising bills in their tally of money spent protecting the environment, but don't make that clear to members. 1

Environmentalism is no longer tied to science, but has now entered the realm of big politics and big money. Scientific facts are only utilized when they appear to support the latest political fad.

Few people have seen the radical environmental plans of the future and what it will cost them. In the U.S., the Wildlands Project is an active proposal to relocate Americans off about 50% of the landmass they currently occupy and return the land to its pristine state.

According to Matt Bennett of Citizens with Common Sense:

The Wildlands Project (TWP) is "the most ambitious and far-reaching attempt yet to reinvent the North American" continent...Wildlands will be core reserves of millions of acres connected by vast corridors following rivers and other migratory paths from west to east, from Central America and Mexico through the U.S. and Canada, using national forests and other government lands . 2
Other countries conforming to the terms of Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty of the Rio conference face a similar fate.

The Greening of Religion

Various Christian denominations are falling prey to efforts to recruit congregations into what is essentially a pantheistic belief system. The philosophy of radical environmentalism is based in the religious belief of pantheism, that god is in all and all is god; that earth is our mother (Gaia); that all living things have equal value and that mankind has overstepped its bounds, even being a cancer on the rest of nature. Socialism, they say, is the only form of government said to be capable of saving the planet, which must be returned to its pristine, prehuman state. Capitalism, above all, is bad.

A key player in introducing the pantheistic environmental movement into Christian churches is the Lucis Trust organization, originally called the Lucifer Publishing Company, founded by Theosophist Alice A. Bailey. Lucis Trust is a major consulting organization to the U.N.

According to Dr. Michael Coffman, Ph.D. of Environmental Perspectives:

...one of the mechanisms for ensnaring the Christian Church... comes through the Temple of Understanding, whose interfaith purpose is the "reintegration of the sacred into our lives" via "the world's religious traditions" and through "universal spiritual wisdom." The Temple is housed in the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the St. John the Divine in New York City, which is considered by many Christian researchers to be the new age center in the U.S. [emphasis ours]
Dr. Coffman goes on to say:

...the Temple cosponsored a number of international interfaith meetings leading to the creation in 1992 of the National Religious Partnership on the Environment, also housed in the Cathedral of the St. John the Divine. Billed as a "federation of major American faith communities," it is in fact a sanitized version of the new age Temple of Understanding packaged in a way that doesn't alarm Christians ...3
The Partnership has sent environmental literature to over 67,000 congregations and 100 million congregants calling for the Church to make the protection of the earth a central message of the Church. Although written in "Bible-eze," it nonetheless represents a deceptive interfaith attempt to shift the emphasis of the Church from the Gospel of Christ to one of protecting mother earth by creating guilt in Christians for not protecting God's creation...Church leaders are fair game for this kind of deception because they actually believe we are destroying the earth. Like most Americans, exaggerated or false reports of environmental destruction is the only thing they have been told .4
Stewardship vs. Radicalism

In all fairness, there have been serious environmental problems in the past. Much of this was a learning process as technology advanced. But while many problems are being or have been corrected, environmentalism has now gone beyond sane policy and is a mixture of radical idealism and big business/politics, yelling the "sky is falling!"

It is important to be good stewards of the environment that God created and we have indeed learned lessons from the past of what should and should not be done. But true stewardship demands that wisdom be based on sober science and sound economic policy. As God intended, such policy should encourage good stewardship rather than punish those who can't seem to comply with thousands of confusing, complex, arbitrary and constantly changing regulations. If California is any indication, left unchecked, radical environmentalism promises to trash the planet in the name of saving it.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Coloring the Data
Greens get caught red-handed committing scientific fraud.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

So many federal agencies have been exposed falsifying environmental data
that you have to wonder how many other frauds remain undetected. First came
the December revelation that employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Forest Service had planted fake wild lynx hair in states where there
were no lynx, so that the areas could be labeled critical habitat, and thus
off limits to human use.

Then came the National Academy of Sciences' findings that shut off water to
1,000 farms in the Klamath Lake Basin in Oregon and California--all to save
the suckerfish. That turned out to be based on faulty science too. Farms
disappeared and people suffered because the Endangered Species Act had been
invoked based on junk--or maybe political--science.

In February the Forest Service admitted that it had erroneously reported
920 million national-forest visitors in 2000. The correct figure was 209
million, not exactly a rounding error.

By March it had to confess to another misrepresentation. Court documents
showed the Forest Service had knowingly used false data on spotted-owl
habitats to prevent logging in a California forest. "Arbitrary, capricious
and without rational basis" was how the judge characterized the service's
actions.

So why the lying? It seems deceit is the only way the greens can advance
their Luddite agenda. They are ideologically inspired to try to limit, slow
and if possible stop economic growth, for they believe that prosperity is
harmful to the environment. But our nation's and the world's environments
are getting better all the time, in fact so much better so much faster that
it is hard to wave the green shirt based on honest data. Subterfuge and
misrepresentation are thus left to energize the greens' antiprosperity cause.

Consider fossil fuel consumption and its resulting pollution. The Cato
Institute recently reported that since the first Earth Day, in 1970,
"energy consumption has risen 41 percent, most of it from fossil fuels. But
during that same period sulfur-dioxide emissions . . . have dropped by 39
percent . . .; volatile organic compounds . . . by 42 percent; carbon
monoxide emissions . . . have dropped by 28 percent; and large
particulate-matter emissions . . . by 75 percent." Not much of an
environmental crisis in these data.

And if the environmental alarmists are right, how come we're not running
out of food, minerals or oil? Leading environmental groups preach that the
globe's natural resources are being so depleted that the human race's very
existence will soon become impossible, both economically and
environmentally. The truth is just the opposite. Bjorn Lomborg's seminal
book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," details the facts: Since 1960 world
grain production has increased to 680 pounds per capita from 560, and grain
prices have fallen. Per capita daily calorie intake in the developing world
has grown to nearly 2,700 from 1,900, and we work fewer hours to buy the
food we eat. Poverty is declining and life expectancy is increasing. Proven
global oil reserves have increased by a factor of 20. Production of copper,
to take one nonenergy resource, has increased to over 12 million tons in
2000 from two million tons in 1950. Not much to worry about here either.

As for global warming, several things are agreed: The temperature on the
surface of the earth rose in the 20th century, and man burned more fossil
fuels during that time. And that's about it, for it is not at all clear
that the two are linked. Most of the warming occurred early in the century,
before the surge in man-made gasses, and as Canada's Fraser Institute's
2001 study concluded, "There is no clear evidence of the effect of CO2 on
global climate, either in surface temperature records of the past 100
years, or . . . balloon radio-sondes over the last 40 years, or [from]
satellite experiments over the last 20 years." In fact, NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies now reports that global warming has slowed so
much that temperature increases predicted for 2050 won't happen until 2100.

And the population explosion? Well, the threat is not of escalating
birthrates but that in many countries--Italy, Russia and Germany, to name a
few--they have fallen so far below the replacement rate that there soon
won't be enough workers to support their economies and welfare programs.
The U.N. reports that as of 2000, "44 percent of the world's population now
lives in countries where the birth rate was below the death rate." It is
below the replacement rate in others, so within a few decades the world's
population will be in decline. In any case, the entire population of the
world could fit in Texas, with each person enjoying 1,200 square feet of
individual space.

So the rhetoric and proposals of the green organizations that make their
living and raise their money through predictions of cataclysmic catastrophe
are far divorced from reality.

The world is a different place than the environmentalists would have us
believe. Prosperity is increasing and so pollution is decreasing, because
it is prosperity, not increased regulation, that enables a society to
support sound environmental policies. Poverty has been reduced more in the
last 50 years than in the previous 500, according to the U.N. Yet with all
the industrialization, energy generation, economic expansion and
uncontrolled growth that made poverty reduction possible, the environment
is still improving. Fewer cries of environmental catastrophe and more
advocacy of growth and prosperity would encourage a cleaner world.

Meanwhile over at the Fish and Wildlife offices, it's ethics that's facing
extinction.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

FBI: Green Terrorists - The Most Active Terror Organization In The U.S.

''You build, we burn again.''

By J.J. Johnson

Editor, Sierra Times.com

WASHINGTON -- Move over Al-Queda. It's now official: The Earth Liberation Front, a fringe environmentalist organization that has carried out 600 attacks since 1996, has become the largest and most active U.S.-based terrorist group, the FBI's top domestic terrorism officer said Tuesday.

Enron's Kenneth Lay will get all the glory for taking the fifth in front of Congress Tuesday. But the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health's efforts to shed light on the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and it's partners in crime, the Animal Liberation Front, (ALF) were frustrated when former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh also refused to answer questions from members of Congress. Go figure - he's got more to hide.

"I'll take the Fifth Amendment," Rosebraugh said more than 50 times to questions ranging from whether he helped produce an ELF terrorist training film to who was paying for his attorney.

Rosebraugh was subpoenaed to testify by Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., Chairman of the House Subcommittee.

Rosebraugh was the mouthpiece for the environmentalist terrorist organization. He at least admitted relaying anonymous messages on ELF's behalf from 1997 until he quit last September, but had no firsthand knowledge of any attacks.

According to FBI expert James F. Jarboe, the price tag in the name of environmental activism: $43 million in more than 600 attacks since 1996. Their tradecraft includes spray-painting graffiti, breaking windows, firebombing research centers and ski resorts. $12 million alone in the Vail, Colorado attack.

"They're the most active (ELF). They cause the most damage," Jarboe told the subcommittee.

Nobody has been killed in an ELF or ALF attack yet, but McInnis said it is wrong to think of the green terrorists as "nature-loving hippies" or misguided youths. Such would be an insult to "nature-loving hippies" and misguided youths, respectively.

"These are hardened criminals," he said. "They are dangerous, they are well-funded, they are savvy, sophisticated and stealthy, and if their violence continues to escalate, it is only a matter of time before their parade of terror results in a lost human life."

In a report the ELF and ALF issued last month, the groups admitted responsibility for 67 illegal actions in 200, including burning down a $5.4 million horticulture building at the University of Washington. In 1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for an arson attack at Vail Ski Resort that did $12 million in damage.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said he understands that die-hard environmentalists are frustrated with some of the Bush administration's policies, but eco-terrorism hurts the green cause by making it harder for him and others to promote more environmental-friendly policies.

Rosebraugh's attorney/mouthpiece, Stuart Sugarman, said he wanted "to thank Mr. McInnis for providing attention for this important cause," as if the hearings were merely a way to further the cause of eco-terrorism.

February 11th in Phoenix, Arizona, Earth Liberation Front activist Mark Sands was sentenced to 18 years in prison for torching seven luxury homes under construction as he tried to stop development near protected desert areas. He also admitted writing letters to the media and property owners warning that the fires would continue as long as people continued to build next to the protected land in Phoenix and Scottsdale.

One note, found April 29th said, ''You build, we burn again.''

WMM

[whitemajikman]

As a Nation Struggles, Domestic Terrorists Brag
By Tom Randall

The National Center for Public Policy

They proudly take credit for striking in the
night, often torching homes, schools, and workplaces. Even now, as the
nation struggles back from the vicious attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they continue to boast of their
assaults, recruit others to join them, and offer training in
how to use arson and elude the authorities.

They call themselves ELF. On their web site,
www.earthliberationfront.com, they take credit for over 30 acts of
terrorism over the last six years, inflicting millions of dollars
in damage.

ELF stands for the Earth Liberation Front, which,
along with its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),
commits its crimes in the name of "environmentalism."

Their most recent attack, claimed by ELF, came on
September 8, just three days before terrorists slammed planes into the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ELF and ALF
are suspected of burning a McDonald's restaurant in Tucson, Arizona
and spray painting "ELF" and "ALF" on it.

This prompted what police are calling a copycat
vandalism attack on a Ronald McDonald House for seriously ill children in
Tucson, just seven days after the Trade Center and
Pentagon carnage, according to the Ronald McDonald House's
spokesperson, Denisa Casement. There, swastikas,
"ELF," "ALF," and anti- fast food graffiti were scrawled on a life-size
statue of Ronald McDonald.

Casement said she now lives in fear for the safety
of the unfortunate families who stay at the house, while their children are
undergoing treatment for life- threatening
diseases. "These people [ELF and ALF] have to understand," Casement said,
"that they set the example for others and are just as
responsible as if they had done this themselves."

On its website, ELF directly encourages others to
participate in terrorism.

The ELF website offers several publications;
"Setting Fires with Electrical Timers - An Earth Liberation Front Guide,"
is one. They say it provides "the politics and
practicalities of arson, down-to-earth advice, and how-tos about devices,
fuel requirements, timers, security, and more."

"If an Agent Knocks," is another publication
offered by ELF. ELF advertises it as, "What to do if a federal agent tries
to question you, the scoop on agencies that gather
political intelligence, how the feds infiltrate political organizations,
and much more." In this context, "political organizations"
appears to mean terrorist organizations like ELF.

While these terrorists are small-time, compared to
the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and
are not known to have killed anyone yet--they
appear to be intent on expanding their violence and putting American lives
at risk.

Earlier this year, ELF claimed to have expanded
its operations to enable it to strike two targets in a single night. The
group claimed that on May 21, "The research office of
Toby Bradshaw was reduced to smoke and ashes. We attacked his office at
the University of Washington, while at the same
time; another group set fire to a related target [an office and 13 trucks
burned at the Jefferson Poplar Farms] in Clatskanie,
Oregon."

Over the years, the frequency of attacks ELF has
taken credit for has dramatically increased from just two in 1996 to nine
last year, including attacks in Rhinelander, Wisconsin,
Shoals, Indiana, Niwot, Colorado, and three in Bloomington, Indiana. Then
they moved to the state of New York to hit Middle
Island, Miller Place, and Mount Sinai, to wrap up the year, on December 30.
Six of the nine attacks were arsons.

The organization has claimed credit for seven
attacks already this year.

ELF first gained national attention in 1998 with a
$12 million dollar arson blaze at a ski resort, under construction, near
Vail, Colorado.

FBI sources say, under current law the maximum
penalty, for these crimes, is only a $10,000 fine -- a penalty so light as
to make investigation and prosecution almost a waste
of time.

Representative, George Nethercutt of Washington,
is now seeking to change that. He has revised and reintroduced his
Agro-terrorism Prevention Bill, H.R. 2795, which
stiffens the minimum penalty to five years and provides for the death
penalty when acts of eco-terrorism cause loss of life.

A Nethercutt aide said the congressional
representative might succeed in attaching his bill to the broader
international terrorism bill, now being drafted.

This kind of legislation would be a welcome
advance in fighting homegrown terrorists, as the nation goes to war with
those from overseas.


WMM

[whitemajikman]

Radical Environmentalists Want Your Children

Congressman Michael Castle (R-DE) has referred an egregious piece of legislation titled "The John H. Chafee Environmental Education Act" (H.R. 4745). This bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to spend money and resources cultivating "the proper environmental attitudes" in public school children. This has nothing to do with biology, chemistry or even natural science. Instead, the EPA, in conjunction with radical environmental groups, aim to turn public school children into little green lobbyists for global warming, animal rights, endangered species and world population growth. The information disseminated is completely one sided, coming directly from extreme organizations such as the Sierra Club, and consequently, schools become highly politicized and children are deprived of real learning and independent thought. In fact, funding from this bill will actually subsidize the already fat coffers of environmental groups.

Rep. Castle has referred H.R. 4745 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in
hopes of reauthorizing the EPA to invade our classrooms. If he succeeds, your innocent children may be forced to advocate the mantra of radical environmental groups.

**ACTION TO TAKE**

1. Call Rep. Michael Castle and voice your opposition to "The John H.Chafee Environmental Education Act." Our children need to learn basic science curricula, NOT one-sided environmental politics. Congressman Castle's number: (202) 225-4165.

2. Call Chairman William Goodling of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and urge him to hold hearings on H.R. 4745 in which opposition to the bill is invited to testify. Rep. Castle has already held hearings, but the testimony he invited was completed biased in favor of this disastrous bill. Rep. William Goodling's number: (202) 225-5836.

3. Call your Congressman and tell him not to support "The Environmental Education Act."
Capitol Hill House Switchboard: (202) 225-3121.


WMM

[whitemajikman]

Environment & Climate News
June 2000
Contents
Environmental education: Ripe for reform
http://www.heartland.org/environment/jun00/education.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time to separate education and advocacy. We don't mean discouraging
environmentalists or business representatives from speaking in the
classroom. We mean keeping government agencies from supervising our
children's environmental education.

Two government agencies with well-known regulatory agendas--the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--are
promoting programs that teach children to accept their rules and
regulations.

FWS spends much of its time regulating habitat as part of the Endangered
Species Act. EPA is the quintessential regulatory agency: It decides what
emissions standards must be met and what technologies can be used to reduce
air and water pollution, and it dictates how cities must meet air quality
standards. EPA also operates Superfund--though designed to clean up
abandoned waste sites, a program that has made it almost impossible to
redevelop old industrial sites ("brownfields").

Whether the actions of these agencies are right or wrong is not the issue
here. The point is that regulatory and enforcement agencies with
often-controversial policies should not be supervising, disseminating, or
organizing materials for students in schools across the country.

If the federal government is going to be involved in education, it has a
multi-billion-dollar department to do it with: the Department of Education.
If it is going to encourage scientific education (of which environmental
education is a subset), it has an agency to do it with: the National Science
Foundation.

FWS goes to school

Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service distributes an environmental education
program called "Wild about Life: An Instructional Program about Biodiversity
for Middle and High School Students." While some of the program does in fact
teach students about wildlife, its stated goal is to move students from
"awareness to action." By "action," the FWS program means "to emphasize
political and personal skills--from lobbying, to use of mass media, to
empathizing with politicians and other community change agents, . . . to
learning and practicing the skills of effective political advocacy within
the democratic system."

In this program, children learn that large changes are made in small steps.
"A series of small steps is what is necessary in order to effect change in
this culture," notes one of the essays in the program guide. "The combined
impact of these small steps leads to the desired major change in behavior."

One lesson is designed to bring children around to the idea that, while
Americans once supported control of predators such as bears, cougars,
coyotes, wolves, and hawks, public opinion has changed. Today, the lesson
explains, "it is now more generally recognized that these animals have a
role in the overall health of the ecosystem." The children are expected to
validate this claim. The goal of the lesson is not learning, but persuasion.
This "education" program appears to be little more than an attempt to lead
children to accept Fish and Wildlife Service policies.

Another lesson, providing case studies of student activism, describes how
students helped develop a city's regulations for protecting bald eagles. In
Florida, another case study notes, children examined EPA policies and
regulations that had led to an injunction against a power company. The
students decided the policies were "excellent" and that the agency "should
in no way weaken those regulations."

And then there is the "Biodiversity I.Q." test, which teaches children to
control mosquitoes by installing a backyard bat house rather than using
insect repellant.

EPA's education bureaucracy

The Fish and Wildlife Service project represents a relatively new effort by
an expanding agency eager to justify its policies. By contrast, the
Environmental Protection Agency has had a formal Office of Environmental
Education since 1990.

In ten years of "supervising" environmental education programs in classrooms
nationwide, EPA's Office of Environmental Education has yet to acknowledge
the flaws in environmental textbooks that have been widely criticized by
others. In 1994, the Office published the "Environmental Science Education
Materials Review Guide" to help teachers, educators, and curriculum writers
understand what makes "quality" materials. One guideline states that
materials should "reflect EPA policy on the topics explored."

How can students taught from such materials ever look critically and
independently at EPA's regulatory efforts? Scientists and policy analysts
within and outside the agency have called attention to the perverse impacts
of Superfund legislation; have documented cases of costly and ineffective
air pollution regulations; and have demonstrated that in the Tar-Pamlico
Sound in North Carolina, pollution control improved significantly when EPA
backed away and let the locals work things out. Yet educators are being told
that a good environmental education curriculum won't challenge EPA policy.

It all comes down to politics

Starting in 1995, EPA began to pass federal money through two private
organizations for a campaign to build political action coalitions in 26
targeted states. The effort is aimed at pressuring state legislators to pass
more environmental education mandates in their states.

Congress takes up reauthorization of the Office of Environmental Education
this legislative session. Lawmakers have the opportunity, by refusing to
reauthorize the Office, to make an emphatic and valuable statement: that
education and advocacy are two different things, and that advocacy in the
classroom by a government agency is inappropriate.

Education about the environment should involve scientific knowledge and
scientific analysis. Our children should be taught to be objective
observers, not (as one environmental magazine called them) "warriors" in a
government-managed battle to rescue the Earth.

Michael Sanera heads the Claremont Institute's Center for Environment
Education Research; Jane S. Shaw is a senior associate of PERC in Bozeman,
Montana. They are the coauthors of Facts, Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to
Teaching Children about the Environment.

WMM

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes:

"On the subject of Teller: there is an urgent need for the last chapter of Teller's biography to be written. Peter Goodchild, who has written excellent biographies of both Teller and Oppenheimer, did not include the 'chemtrails' phase of Teller's career, breaking off just before for chronological reasons."

=========

One of the most interesting things involving Teller is the naming of "Star Wars", which was mainly about the Jewish Star (of David) vs Communist states----the cold war factors that arise from the Jewish problem areas of states within states. All the Star Wars defensive stuff came directly from the cold war that Teller basically started with the bomb and the ways the Jews seek economic controls.

The first of the bombs were dirty and turned out a bunch of fission products with lots of the energy around the Sr-90 and Cs-137 isotopes. As things improved they get more yeild and used less material and the bombs became somewhat cleaner.

Tellers move toward the "Super" or the H-bombs was about more moves to the cleaner burn systems that avoided the fission isotopes of Sr-90 and Cs-137. Teller wanted to use his cleaner bombs to make canals and shape the planet. But they JFK started reading about the fears and health problems connected to atmospherica atomic testing and JFK banned atmospheric testing, with Teller saying there is not a problem. There was a problem.

JFK smacked down ole Teller, then went after the Rothschilds Fed Res., and after the Jews bomb in Israel. JFK was understanding the problems and who was making them----and this would mean peace. Oak Ridge and Teller did not want peace-----they wanted at all times to push their Jewish methods of world conquest.

Using the ideals of Star Wars energy beam techniques, I found even cleaner methods for energy releases using the Tesla like methods of Atmospheric discharges. All that type information was related to how the Earth's magnetic field and the Sun's ionizing radiation pulled pollutants to the poles, setting up higher levels of heat absorption and ozone depletion.

The very naming of Star Wars is purely about the Jewish Problem.

IMHO,
is

[gaiacomm]

More Jewish crap: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#STRATEGIC

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213729

It appears that The Shadow has depleted its repertoire of anatomical flames and insults. It may have an excellent grasp of the English language, but it lacks the ability to create and converse with it. Having a skill but no talent to use it is comparable to having an endless supply of gasoline but no vehicle in which to use the gasoline.

For Example:
"If any agents were to show up at my front door, due to your [Jay Reynolds] influence, let me assure you that you do not have enough insurance to prevent me from being the future owner of your home and property.The Shadow knows how to deal with criminals..."

The Shadow has been reduced to making baseless, idiotic threats. You have no idea just how amusing you are, Shadow.:D

--------------------------------------
Regarding the photo you posted, Shadow, were you searching for praise?

Everyone say, “Ahhhhh!”

Everybody go, “Ooooo!”

You endured 25° F weather to take photographs?





Regarding this post, Yaakass, are you seeking approval from your associates? You are aware that you are in violation of the TOS for ImageShack with how you have used your uploads here and at Maverick Goose's board. Do not be surprised if you suddenly lose your access.

As far as I am concerned, you can stick that corkscrew up your ass and give it a few twists, but be careful to avoid scraping your cerebral cortex.

[Yaak]

The Shadow threatened: "Do not be surprised if you suddenly lose your access."




I repeat:

"The Shadow has been reduced to making baseless, idiotic threats. You have no idea just how amusing you are, Shadow.:D "

[gaiacomm]

The Shadow is a very interesting poster who likes to have fun!

[gaiacomm]

Who we are
Racial Greetings White Brothers and Sisters!
The American Nazi Party is a Political-Educational Association, dedicated to the 14 WORDS. We are committed to bringing American National Socialism, first created and embodied by our late Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, out of the past Phase One activities which at the time served their purpose well, and into the 21st Century.

Although National Socialism encompasses many various issues of concern to Aryan Americans, including a healthy environment, children's welfare, and freedom of belief without fear of System persecution...the two main tenants of National Socialism embodies the Struggle for Aryan Racial survival, and Social Justice for White Working Class people throughout our land.

As Aryan Revolutionaries, we recognize the fact that behaving in the manner of past activities, little progress has been achieved for our Cause. That is why we have taken a new direction. In the American Nazi Party, you will find no uniforms or ranks, we do not engage in publicly exposing our Comrades to undo publicity through pointless and dangerous Rallies or Marches. We instead stress Small Cell, and Individual Activism as the path for which to build our Movement, as securely and in a responsible manner as possible.

We are looking for Men and Women, who are willing to sacrifice for the Good of the Folk, not people who are looking for aggrandizement, titillation, or simply causing undirected and useless mayhem. This is not a game or a gang.

It is a very serious Struggle that we are involved in for the very existence of our White Nation of people. Those who are simply intent on pranks or causing trouble should perhaps look elsewhere for stimulation.

If you are interested in learning more about the American Nazi Party, we suggest writing to our National Headquarters and requesting an Info Pack.

Please enclose a $5 donation to cover costs. This information will be relayed to you as quickly as possible.

Each of us must decide just how far we will let the situation in America deteriorate, before we decide to take action to correct it. If you have had enough, and are willing to join the ranks of your ancestors who forged this land from a wilderness teeming with savages, and to keep it from returning to that state, we urge you to become involved. For your children's sake, if not for your own. for White WORKER Power!


Rocky J. Suhayda - Chairman, American Nazi Party

[Yaak]

Who we are
Racial Greetings White Brothers and Sisters!
The American Nazi Party is a Political-Educational Association, dedicated to the 14 WORDS. We are committed to bringing American National Socialism, first created and embodied by our late Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, out of the past Phase One activities which at the time served their purpose well, and into the 21st Century.

Although National Socialism encompasses many various issues of concern to Aryan Americans, including a healthy environment, children's welfare, and freedom of belief without fear of System persecution...the two main tenants of National Socialism embodies the Struggle for Aryan Racial survival, and Social Justice for White Working Class people throughout our land.

As Aryan Revolutionaries, we recognize the fact that behaving in the manner of past activities, little progress has been achieved for our Cause. That is why we have taken a new direction. In the American Nazi Party, you will find no uniforms or ranks, we do not engage in publicly exposing our Comrades to undo publicity through pointless and dangerous Rallies or Marches. We instead stress Small Cell, and Individual Activism as the path for which to build our Movement, as securely and in a responsible manner as possible.

We are looking for Men and Women, who are willing to sacrifice for the Good of the Folk, not people who are looking for aggrandizement, titillation, or simply causing undirected and useless mayhem. This is not a game or a gang.

It is a very serious Struggle that we are involved in for the very existence of our White Nation of people. Those who are simply intent on pranks or causing trouble should perhaps look elsewhere for stimulation.

If you are interested in learning more about the American Nazi Party, we suggest writing to our National Headquarters and requesting an Info Pack.

Please enclose a $5 donation to cover costs. This information will be relayed to you as quickly as possible.

Each of us must decide just how far we will let the situation in America deteriorate, before we decide to take action to correct it. If you have had enough, and are willing to join the ranks of your ancestors who forged this land from a wilderness teeming with savages, and to keep it from returning to that state, we urge you to become involved. For your children's sake, if not for your own. for White WORKER Power!


Rocky J. Suhayda - Chairman, American Nazi Party


Thank God for the freedom of speech. It allows for perverts, malcontents, idiots, haters and hoaxters to step forward and identify themselves.

[Yaak]

The Shadow is a very interesting poster who likes to have fun!
You must know The Shadow better than I, gaiacomm. Blowing hate, hollow threats and insults is enjoyable for some, I suppose, but like a popped, limp balloon The Shadow is spent; all farted-out.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within." ~ James Madison, President of the United States


"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." ~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." ~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild

[stuart_allsop]

By the way, on the subject of Castro being saved from assassination by having a Jewish mother: did you know that Henry Kissinger and Salvador Allende are/were both Masons?Well, Kissinger is still alive, and Allende blew his own brains out with a gun given to him by Castro, so what is your point? Does that make Castro a Mason too?

[stuart_allsop]

Greetings,

Perhaps folks on this Forum have taken note of the number of Jews and Masons here.Actually, I hadn't noticed, since I am neither mason nor Jewish. Why do you have this fixation on Jews?


Jews won't accept Jesus as their lord and savior,Yes they wil.. There are a great many Christian Jews around.


They all know that to accept Jesus means that they must accept Revelations and that the wrongs of the Jews were so extreme they must stop. No it doesn't. Some Christain sects do not accept Revelations.


Moses moved to Midian which is down in Arabia for a long time40 years or so, roughly.


... and married the ugliest girl of the local leader of Midian, Jethro. [/quote\How do you know that she was ugly? And Jethro was the local priest, who may also have been the leader, but this is not stated explictly in the Bible, and therefore cannot be stated as fact.

[quote] Midian is real close to the volcano called Mt. Sinai or "jabbel al laws" in the region there. Jethro and his followers there became very well versed in how to live next to a volcano and survive its toxic effects.Sinai is not a volcano.


Some of this comes out in the discussions of the golden calf, which is a metals method to offset the toxic dangers of fluoride from volcanos.Volcanoes do not emit toxic levels of flouride.


In the ORNL chemtrails related issues, we would have used gold if it were cheap, but it is not. So, the next metal that was like the gold effect that was cheap and plentiful was the titanium dioxide.In what way is Au chemically simialr to TiO2? They are TOTALLY different!


These Jews that follow the Torah and Talmud are just humans that attempt to play god, What a kook! A Jew who follows the Tamlud or the Torah is NEVER going to play god!!! That is the most rediculous statement I've heard in a LONG time!

[stuart_allsop]

Is the effects of the fluoride effects that effects the effect of the Jews when effected by the Masonic effects on the titanium dioxide effects, effectively effecting the effects of the JR Mason Jews causing the effect of the acid rain effect of the chemtrail effect on the effects of the heavy metals effects.

How am I doing, Jimmy? Am I close?:D

IMHFO
es
Dammit, Yaak! You NAILED it, spot on! How'd you do that? ... :)

[stuart_allsop]

The very naming of Star Wars is purely about the Jewish Problem.
Strange, but the rest of the world thought it was named after an old movie starring a cute little whistling robot on wheels, alongside some kid with a flaming stick that he uses to knock off his own dad in the end. Are you saying that Darth Vader was Jewish?

PS. The correct technica name was "Strategic Defense Initiative". Star Wars was a title invented by the press to ridicule SDI. not to NAME it! But then nobody expects a kook like you to understand these things, so you are forgiven because you know not anything at all....

[stuart_allsop]

Thank God for the freedom of speech. It allows for perverts, malcontents, idiots, haters and hoaxters to step forward and identify themselves.Yup. So I guess it's your turn, then> Identify yourself! :)

[Yaak]

Yup. So I guess it's your turn, then> Identify yourself! :)I guess I shouldn't have included perverts in that list.:p

[halva]

What led Edward Teller, who did not recognize the reality of global warming, to dedicate time, energy and resources to finding ways of 'mitigating' global warming?

[halva]

(South Australia, which is dependent for its water supply on one river, is greatly threatened by the prospect of drought. W.H.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1276790.htm

Rann calls for urgent climate change meeting

The South Australian Government is calling on Prime Minister John Howard to convene a special meeting of government heads to urgently address the issue of climate change.

Premier Mike Rann wants a special Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting to be held in the next three months.

Mr Rann says the COAG meeting must be convened to set concrete targets and clear timelines on reducing greenhouse emmissions, which are affecting the world's climate.

"We need to see the same kind of resolve that the world is giving to terrorism to be applied to climate change because quite frankly in the long-term the issues confronting us concerning climate change will be worse than terrorism," he said.

Mr Rann says Australia's record on fighting climate change is deplorable and the first step forward would be to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol.

"I just think that it's shameful that we're one of the few countries in the world that is refusing to sign the Kyoto agreeement," he said.

"I mean Russia decided to sign just a few months ago.

"Country after country around the world have embraced Kyoto as a way of dealing with climate change."

[halva]

The Cuba crisis, which - despite all the disinformation - had allowed the world a glimpse into some of the realities of the 'nuclear arms race', did have some positive spinoff.

The brief period before the assassination of Kennedy and the overthrow of Khrushchev saw one of the few positive steps that have been taken to deal with the worst side-effects of nuclear weapons possession: the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was made politically possible through the demonstration of absolute and undeniable superiority of the United States evinced through the outcome of the crisis. This would not have occurred if Kennedy had followed Khrushchev's bidding and overthrown, or tried to overthrow, Castro.

At this period Edward Teller made superhuman efforts to retrieve the image of the Soviet Union as infinitely cunning, implacable and dangerous enemy. His fertile brain dreamt up dozens of different conceivable ways in which the Soviet Union might 'cheat', if Teller had been its leader, any attempt at effective arms control.

Finally Teller managed to put the brakes on the promising process that appeared to be starting with the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Then the assassination of Kennedy and overthrow of Khrushchev (who, for all his nuclear weapons fetishism and megalomania, did introduce reforms that benefited the people of his own country) finished the job that Teller started.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213983

The Shadow threatened: "Do not be surprised if you suddenly lose your access."




I repeat:

"The Shadow has been reduced to making baseless, idiotic threats.
That must be wishful thinking on your part. I accept your challenge, though, Yaakass!



You have no idea just how amusing you are, Shadow.:D "
Of course I do. I thought the part about the location of your cerebral cortex was quite humorous. In fact, I would wager that when you have your next colonoscopy, the doctor will ask you to open wide and say, “Ahhhhh.” (there I go again)

[halva]

For those looking for something more substantial than this shadow-boxing with the deadshit/ deadhead contingent, two articles from the Ruppert site:

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/010505_russian_pipeline.shtml

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/010405_poverty_draft_summary.shtml

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes:

"What led Edward Teller, who did not recognize the reality of global warming, to dedicate time, energy and resources to finding ways of 'mitigating' global warming?"

===========

After around 1986 everyone knew the global warming equation driven by radiation ionizing pollution and these ions concentrating over the pole making the ozone hole. CFC's were chlorine and fluorine. Cl competed with ozone formation, and HF absorbed IR.

They knew about HF LASER systems that work on IR wavelengths and the very same effects of HF IR absoption in air.

They saw the writing on the wall.

To do the studies on Star Wars x-ray LASER systems in atmosphere---they had to know the atmospheric absorption factors. These type things started with the HF LASERS to shoot down planes and migrated on up to using A-bombs as X-ray sources. These A-bomb X-ray sources and reflector arrangements are how all the H-bombs work to compress the secondary. Oak Ridge made these X-ray mirrors for H-bombs.

You can't do Star Wars type directed energy studies without knowing the essential components of the global warming equation. Teller and the National Lab systems did not talk of the HF links to global warming, but that does not mean they did not know the problems.

IMHO,
is

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Greetings,

I think everyone can see that Hitler designed a system of religion that was a knock off of the Jews symbolisms. Hitler, the father, and his cross, the swastika. And so on for the Roman Third Right. Hitler even had some nice new weapons. The Germans invented Jet Engines, Huge Rockets, the flying wing bombers, and even RADAR stealth planes. These all used to battle the economic system that declared war on him.

Germany even discovered that nuclear fission thing that the Jews think is the god thing that is going to destroy them all.

Now one would think that intelligent people could see similar effects in the movie called Star Wars?

Star Wars is clearly an old world theme with a space age setting for final conflict. All the cast is running around in Jerusalem Cruiser outfits, plus there are Jedi Knights as in the Knights Templar that protected the Crusaders. These Jedi's recognize a force that is about natural order responses.

We have Luke Skywalker, who seems to fit the imagery of Jesus return from the skies, as per Revelations. We have tools of defense involving light, which is synonymous with truth weapons.

And most of all we have two servants of man, one old generation with the code "R2D2," which mathematically reduces to "RRDD." To most, that means "Right Reverend Doctor of Divinity. " And then we have the bright new shinny gold model code named C3P0, which mathematically reduces to "CCCP." To most, that means the symbol of the Soviet Union and their superior logic's ban on crazy religion effects. C3P0 was the superior servant to man, superseding R2D2.

But perhaps most of all we have the Dark Sinister Force called Darth Vader, who seems to take on the symbolism of the Alchemical world of the Black Sciences of old Egypt. The roots of Moses inspiration on making god and the father. Darth Vader corrupted the force or the natural order.

In the final conflict, the Skywalker has to kill off the old father because of his bad ideals. The cathartic event of the truth prevailed. Good triumphs over evil. Truth overcomes deception.

Not at all unconnected from the theme of Jesus and his attempts at reforming the Jewish version of god the father.

Yes, the movie Star Wars and the weapons system name Star Wars have much in common, a central theme. Which all but the highly intellectually compromised can connect quite easily.

Everyone saw a connection between gimpy ole Teller and gimpy Darth Vader, it was patently obvious. Even the bit on directed energy weapons to distroy worlds. The term Star Wars stuck to Tellers project like glue and they could not shake it---or the themes from the movie.

Teller forgot one little thing in his big designs, and that was if you fire an ionizing LASER into the atmosphere that it will set up a huge discharge from the ionization layer to the surface and something along the order of the Tunguska Blast effect in Russia. I kinda pointed out to them, that trying to hit a missle and blowing a huge hole in the planet's surface was none to helpful a defense system.

Teller had a lot of pipe dreams to sell Congress.

Children identify with these themes, as they are so common in their upbringing and only the "Space Balls" seeking to lose the message of the Movie Star Wars can't seem to fathom what is obvious in a children's movie.

I do think there are a number of "Space Balls" hanging around here, all recognizable by big helmets with tiny pin heads inside ratting around making grunt noise. Tiny equipment they have and can't seem to make others impressed of their impotence.

Perhaps we have some new characters called the impotent ones, these days.

IMHO,
is

[halva]

Halva writes:

"What led Edward Teller, who did not recognize the reality of global warming, to dedicate time, energy and resources to finding ways of 'mitigating' global warming?"

===========

After around 1986 everyone knew the global warming equation driven by radiation ionizing pollution and these ions concentrating over the pole making the ozone hole. CFC's were chlorine and fluorine. Cl competed with ozone formation, and HF absorbed IR.

They knew about HF LASER systems that work on IR wavelengths and the very same effects of HF IR absoption in air.

They saw the writing on the wall.

To do the studies on Star Wars x-ray LASER systems in atmosphere---they had to know the atmospheric absorption factors. These type things started with the HF LASERS to shoot down planes and migrated on up to using A-bombs as X-ray sources. These A-bomb X-ray sources and reflector arrangements are how all the H-bombs work to compress the secondary. Oak Ridge made these X-ray mirrors for H-bombs.

You can't do Star Wars type directed energy studies without knowing the essential components of the global warming equation. Teller and the National Lab systems did not talk of the HF links to global warming, but that does not mean they did not know the problems.

IMHO,
is

This is what I would describe as a useful answer. Thank you Jim.

Prior to his engagement with global warming, Teller had always got funding for his projects by drumming up threats or discovering 'needs'.

Why in this particular case did he downplay the threat and express scepticism about the need?

Was this a conscious political strategy, or an unexamined reflex?

[jayreynolds]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[gaiacomm]

Thank God for the freedom of speech. It allows for perverts, malcontents, idiots, haters and hoaxters to step forward and identify themselves.


Yes, you are right!

[gaiacomm]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


I agree with him. What is wrong with his opinion!

[gaiacomm]

You must know The Shadow better than I, gaiacomm. Blowing hate, hollow threats and insults is enjoyable for some, I suppose, but like a popped, limp balloon The Shadow is spent; all farted-out.




Yes, you are right. The posts I place on the "hate the Jews" is just cut and paste from the internet. I wish for those that think that it is safe to go back into the water to think again.

Hate and ignorance is all around us and we must careful not to let it in our homes and our hearts!

[halva]

I agree with him. What is wrong with his opinion!

Yes, so do I.

I always agree with anyone I am told to be afraid of.

Anyone monitoring Raynolds' e-mails will be able to confirm that he is also telling Crichton to be afraid of US!!!

That's what Raynolds does.


.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes in quotes:

"This is what I would describe as a useful answer. Thank you Jim."
=====
You are welcome. Pleased you are beginning to see some of the US politics that control what is going on.



"Prior to his engagement with global warming, Teller had always got funding for his projects by drumming up threats or discovering 'needs'."
=====
You should keep in mind some other factors for Teller, California labs, and Reagan. Star Wars was only possible because Ronnie Reagan bought into Tellers pipe dreams. Reagan was the keeper of the Holocaust archives during his war career in Calif. And as Gov. of Calif listened to all things Jewish at length.

So, when Reagan got the presidency, Teller had the green light for new funding schemes for national lab big sciences projects. Reagan used the Star Wars to scare the Russians, which is why these pipe dreams were tolerated more than anything else. The Russians really did not want a brand new cold war with more money to squander on war defenses. The Russians were into the lets wage peace on the US campaigns.

Star Wars defensive stances were just a big fat bluff conjured up by Reagan and Teller to bluff the Russians into ending the cold war. It was mostly a lie that was used for fuel research into national lab big science programs.

Lots of Tellers ideas were pure pipe dreams because he never bothered telling Congress that Russian missles don't follow predictible reentry paths and you can't shoot one down with a directed energy weapon unless you can predict its position in time. Plus, the Russian would use hundreds of missiles in a real attack and the Star Wars methods of Teller were just too expensive to imagine---literally thousands of satellites to make it effective.

They had to have a lot of close spaced satellites because even the optics criteria for X-rays limited the focus tighness of the energy onto rockets downrange to around a 1,000 miles.

You can see some of the alternative to Star Wars missle defenses in the Iraq War with the Patriot missle batteries, which can't even seem to hit reliably very slow SCUDS missles traveling predictable flight paths in the atmosphere.

All the Star Wars tests on real fast systems just don't fare well. They are back to the only thing that comes close to working now---rockets to chase rockets.


"Why in this particular case did he downplay the threat and express scepticism about the need?"
========
Teller was trapped in many ways. He could not admit that his Star Wars directed energy methods would not work else he would loose funding and likely get charged with lying to Congress to get funds to play research games. It was mostly all bluff anyways, for the defensive shield anyways. Teller was the father of the national lab systems and would tell almost anything to get them a new injection of money to play big scence games. He kept hoping for some giant break throughs, but none really appeared. The US has been working on the hot fusion methods for 40 years now and still can't really make the case for a successful run of fusion based energy generation systems.



"Was this a conscious political strategy, or an unexamined reflex?"
=======

Well, the HF issue was a hot potato for DOE and Teller really could not say much about it without getting Oak Ridge and the production of nuclear weapons into hot waters. So, he kept low profile and let Oak Ridge run most of the public deception business.

Since we found the problems here----the refinery reseach came to Oak Ridge and the Aluminum catalytic methods for hydrogen conservation that makes for JP-8 with like 20% enhanced hydrogen content over previous jet fuels. Plus the research on how to get the sulfur out of jet fuels and the mechanisms there.

All the nano materials sciences landed in Oak Ridge, and so on.

Oak Ridge ran the cover ups on the fluorides and fossil fuels issues and Teller just did a lot of keeping his mouth shut to accomodate most of what was happening.

Teller would occasionally say something like it would be better to go after fossil fuels emissions directly in place of playing shield games. He knew what was going on, but could not say much without getting all those companies that helped him with the Manhattan Project put out of business, plus the DOE itself.

But the real big reason is the GOP is intent on allowing the run up of the acid emissions to effectively kill off the Baby Boom generation and get to capture the SS funds set aside there. Population reduction is the big scheme of things. And why you and others should have concerns on chemtrails, global warming, etc.

IMHO,
is

[gaiacomm]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


After graduating from the Harvard Medical School, Michael Crichton embarked on a career as a writer and filmmaker. Called "the father of the techno-thriller," his novels include The Andromeda Strain, Congo, Jurassic Park , Timeline, Prey and State of Fear. He has also written four books of non-fiction, including Five Patients, Travels, and Jasper Johns.

He has sold over 100 million books and his books have been translated into thirty languages and twelve have been made into films. He is also the creator of the television series ER. He is the only person to have had, at the same time, the number one book, the number one movie, and the number one TV show in the United States.

Always interested in computers, Crichton ran a software company, FilmTrack, which developed computer programs for motion picture production in the 1980s; for this pioneering work he won an Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences Technical Achievement Award in 1995. His film Westworld was first feature film to employ computer-generated special effects.

Crichton has won an Emmy, a Peabody, and a Writer's Guild of America award for ER. In 2003, a newly-discovered armored dinosaur was named for him: Crichtonsaurus bohlini. Crichton was named one of the "Fifty Most Beautiful People" by People magazine in 1992, but, he observes, never again. He is divorced and lives in Los Angeles.

CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

Awards: Recipient of Mystery Writers of America's Edgar Allan Poe Award, 1968 ("A Case of Need", written under pseudonym Jeffery Hudson); and 1980 ("The Great Train Robbery"). Association of American Medical Writers Award, 1970 ("Five Patients"); Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Technical Achievement Award, 1995 ("for pioneering computerized motion picture budgeting and scheduling") George Foster Peabody Award, 1995 (for "ER"), Writer's Guild of America Award, Best Long Form Television Script of 1995 (for "ER"); Emmy, Best Dramatic Series, 1996 (for "ER"). New ankylosaurus species Crichtonsaurus bohlini, 2000. Recipient of Mystery Writers of America's Edgar Allan Poe Award, 1968 ("A Case of Need", written under pseudonym Jeffery Hudson); and 1980 ("The Great Train Robbery"). Association of American Medical Writers Award, 1970 ("Five Patients"); Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Technical Achievement Award, 1995 ("for pioneering computerized motion picture budgeting and scheduling") George Foster Peabody Award, 1995 (for "ER"), Writer's Guild of America Award, Best Long Form Television Script of 1995 (for "ER"); Emmy, Best Dramatic Series, 1996 (for "ER").

Associations: Member of Author's Guild, Writers Guild of America, (West), Directors Guild of America, P.E.N. America Center, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Phi Beta Kappa. Board of Directors, International Design Conference at Aspen, 1985-91; Board of Trustees, Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, La Jolla, 1986- 91. Board of Overseers, Harvard University, 1990-96; Author's Guild Council, 1995-

References: Contemporary Authors, 1971-; Who's Who in America, 1974-; Current Biography, April 1976; Film Encyclopedia, 1979-; International Motion Picture Almanac, 1996; International Television & Video Almanac, 1996.

Novels
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, Knopf, 1969
THE TERMINAL MAN, Knopf, 1972
THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, Knopf, 1975
EATERS OF THE DEAD, Knopf, 1976
CONGO, Knopf, 1980
SPHERE, Knopf, 1987
JURASSIC PARK, Knopf, 1990
RISING SUN, Knopf, 1992
DISCLOSURE, Knopf, 1994
THE LOST WORLD, Knopf, 1995
AIRFRAME, Knopf, 1996
TIMELINE, Knopf, 1999
PREY, Harper Collins, 2002
STATE OF FEAR, Harper Collins, 2004

Non-Fiction
FIVE PATIENTS: The Hospital Explained, Knopf, 1970
JASPER JOHNS, Abrams, 1977
ELECTRONIC LIFE, Knopf, 1983
TRAVELS, Knopf, 1988
JASPER JOHNS (revised edition), Abrams, 1994

Published Screenplays
WESTWORLD, Bantam Books, 1975
TWISTER (with Anne-Marie Martin), Ballantine Books, 1996

Films
PURSUIT, ABC Movie of the Week, 1972. (Director)
WESTWORLD, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1973. (Writer/Director)
COMA, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1978. (Writer/Director)
THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, United Artists, 1979. (Writer/Director)
LOOKER, The Ladd Company, 1981. (Writer/Director)
RUNAWAY, Tri-Star Pictures, 1984. (Writer/Director)
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, Columbia Pictures, 1989. (Director)
JURASSIC PARK, Universal, 1993 (Co-writer)
RISING SUN, Twentieth Century Fox, 1993 (Co-writer)
DISCLOSURE, Warner Brothers, 1994 (Co-producer)
TWISTER, Warner Brothers/Universal, 1996 (Co-writer, Co-producer)
SPHERE, Warner Brothers, 1998 (Co-producer)
13th WARRIOR, Touchstone, 1999 (Co-producer)

Other Films From Crichton's Books
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, Universal, 1971
THE CAREY TREATMENT, MGM, 1972
DEALING: OR THE BERKLEY TO BOST0N FORTY-BRICK LOST BAG BLUES, Warner Bros, 1972
THE TERMINAL MAN, Warner Bros, 1974
CONGO, Paramount, 1995
LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, Universal, 1997
TIMELINE, Paramount, 2003

Television
ER, NBC, 1994 Creator, (co-exec. producer)

Computer Games AMAZON, Tellarium, 1982
TIMELINE, Eidos, 2000

[gaiacomm]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


I'm sure you've been asked this question a million times, but how and why, having gotten your degree as a medical doctor, did you end up writing and directing films? Well, it does seem strange, but I think it's what I always wanted to do. The only other doctor I know of who's done the same thing, Jonathon Miller, has said something which I think if true -- namely, that being a doctor is good preparation for this, because it teaches you to deal with the kind of life that you will inevitably have. It teaches you to work well when you haven't had enough sleep. It teaches you to work well when you're on your feet a lot. It teaches you to work well with technical problems and it teaches you to make decisions and then live by them. I think it also has advantages in working with actors, because one of the things a doctor has to learn is to be able to meet a patient whom he has never seen before and rapidly assess him in terms of what kind of person he is, and not merely whether he's perforated his ulcer. You've got to be able to analyze just what kind of person you're dealing with. Are you dealing with someone who will take medicines if you prescribe them -- or is he the kind of person who says he will, but won't? Those decisions get to be very important and training to be a doctor builds up that capability for assessing people rapidily which is necessary when it come to working with actors. I'm not quite sure just how the transition from medicine to movies came about, except, as I've said, that I think I've always wanted to make movies. When I got into medicine, I was disappointed in a lot of ways, so it was a pull from one direction and a push from the other.

[gaiacomm]

Lets go to the movies: http://wtc7.net/

[whitemajikman]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


Excellent Post Jay.....and Crichton gets to the root of the problem quite brilliantly and with unbiased honesty......

TOO BAD IT WENT OVER WAYNES HEAD.........

Wayne ,Crichton was talking about how people like you are a danger ,to society.

Because you try and influence policy making, By peddling your Bad science ,and your cries of consensus........

Which Clearly is Scientifically Flawwed........

But the Kicker here is that you already knew this in the beginning ,when you first started this thread.

There By Elevating you to............

DECEIVER

And As Mr. Crichton has stated ,just as many of us on this board have stated repeatedly.........


You are not only a danger to yourself, But you also endanger the realms of public opinion whom you wish to dupe into believing your agenda.......

Just as Phelps tries to subvert the minds of the reader in believing his self-made hoaxes.....

Thats probably why you consider yourselves Allies........

Because you are both Criminally inclined to spread your Propaganda at any cost,even though you both know it is all based upon fantasy, and not hard verifiable science ........

You Both are Guilty as SIN........

The only Serious Question that truly remains on this thread is......


Are WAYNE HALL and JIM PHELPS of sound MIND and DELIBERATELY TRYING to DECEIVE PEOPLE.

or are they in need of MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS and HEAVY DOSES of anti-Psychotic Medication Prescribed to them by those same PROFESSIONALS.........

for the reader's who are NEW to this thread ,all you have to do is read it in it's entirety to realize just how Warped and conniving WAYNE and JIM really are.........in their pursuit to subvert your minds.......to further their Evil Agenda's.........


WMM

[whitemajikman]

Lets go to the movies: http://wtc7.net/

This questioning of what happened that day is akin to what Mr. Crichton was saying.......

when conspiracy theory, politically motivated science and anti-government elements are combined what you get is Paranoia with no Sound Scientific Basis............

In other words BUNK.

Politically Motivated BUNK but BUNK all the same.

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Excellent Post Jay.....and Crichton gets to the root of the problem quite brilliantly and with unbiased honesty......

TOO BAD IT WENT OVER WAYNES HEAD.........

Wayne ,Crichton was talking about how people like you are a danger ,to society.

Because you try and influence policy making, By peddling your Bad science ,and your cries of consensus........

Which Clearly is Scientifically Flawwed........

But the Kicker here is that you already knew this in the beginning ,when you first started this thread.

There By Elevating you to............

DECEIVER

And As Mr. Crichton has stated ,just as many of us on this board have stated repeatedly.........


You are not only a danger to yourself, But you also endanger the realms of public opinion whom you wish to dupe into believing your agenda.......

Just as Phelps tries to subvert the minds of the reader in believing his self-made hoaxes.....

Thats probably why you consider yourselves Allies........

Because you are both Criminally inclined to spread your Propaganda at any cost,even though you both know it is all based upon fantasy, and not hard verifiable science ........

You Both are Guilty as SIN........

The only Serious Question that truly remains on this thread is......


Are WAYNE HALL and JIM PHELPS of sound MIND and DELIBERATELY TRYING to DECEIVE PEOPLE.

or are they in need of MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS and HEAVY DOSES of anti-Psychotic Medication Prescribed to them by those same PROFESSIONALS.........

for the reader's who are NEW to this thread ,all you have to do is read it in it's entirety to realize just how Warped and conniving WAYNE and JIM really are.........in their pursuit to subvert your minds.......to further their Evil Agenda's.........


WMM


No matter what is said and debated there is some truth to Chemtrails and their causes. Maybe not aircraft related but there is evidence of sorts. Chemtrails are not just in the air but all around us in the ground and the sea. We all contribute to global warming and other environmental concerns every time we purchase and deposit waste materials of all kinds into the earth's biosphere. If we stop the purchase of our goods we of course cannot survive but we can change the goods to become environmentally conducive. The choice is ours as consumers to force the hands that feed us!

Wayne is not entirely wrong.

[whitemajikman]

That must be wishful thinking on your part. I accept your challenge, though, Yaakass!



Of course I do. I thought the part about the location of your cerebral cortex was quite humorous. In fact, I would wager that when you have your next colonoscopy, the doctor will ask you to open wide and say, “Ahhhhh.” (there I go again)


Let me interject for a moment......

If you get Yaak banned ,you will be opening up yourself to some form of Reprisal......

And it won't be pretty......

Up to this Point Shadow we have allowed you to play your little games because it breaks some of the monotony around here when we are bombarded with Waynes Useless Propaganda.......

Just some friendly advice...... :D

WMM

[halva]

Teller would occasionally say something like it would be better to go after fossil fuels emissions directly in place of playing shield games. He knew what was going on, but could not say much without getting all those companies that helped him with the Manhattan Project put out of business, plus the DOE itself.


But if you read this text, attributed to Teller, you see that he does more than just keep his mouth shut. He even goes into what is represented as the economics of it. He is not leaving the 'disinformation', if that's what it is, to others. He is playing it himself for all he is worth. And all this is for a threat whose reality he does not altogether acknowledge!!

EDWARD TELLER
Sunscreen for Planet Earth

GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS. HEREWITH A SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. (IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THAT IS.)

Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it's resolved scientifically. As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I'm entertained by the high political theater that the nation's politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation--America--can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist--and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.

This is especially dramatic given that contemporary technology offers considerably more-realistic options for addressing any global warming effect than politicians and environmental activists are considering. Some of these may be far less burdensome than even a system of market-allocated emissions permits. One particularly attractive approach involves diminishing slightly--by about 1 percent--the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface in order to counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases.

This is not a new concept and certainly not a complex one. Nature does this routinely: In 1991, the large Philippine volcano Mount Pinatubo threw myriad fine particles into the upper atmosphere, where they scattered small fractions of the sun's light and heat back into space. We already know that the eruption of Mexico's El Chichon a decade earlier induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction of the global warming expected by 2100 (assuming no politically imposed limits on emissions).

In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson, in his characteristically prescient manner, proposed the deliberate, large-scale introduction of such fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming, which he thought even then would eventually become a human concern. Some of my colleagues and I have recently surveyed the current technological prospects for such an introduction. We estimated the costs involved and presented our results last August at the Twenty-second International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies. The most expensive such "geoengineering" option appears to be the one long ago proposed by Mr. Dyson, which may cost as much as $1 billion a year. More technologically advanced options along the same lines might cost $100 million.

That's between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion a year it is estimated would be required to price-ration fossil fuel usage back down to 1990 levels in the United States alone. As the National Academy of Sciences commented a few years ago in a landmark report, "Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented." Indeed, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades. But for some reason, this option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.

Yet if the politics of global warming require that "something must be done" while we still don't know whether anything really needs to be done--let alone what exactly--let us play to our uniquely American strengths in innovation and technology to offset any global warming by the least costly means possible. While scientists continue research into any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways to offset any possible ill effects.

Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?

[gaiacomm]

This questioning of what happened that day is akin to what Mr. Crichton was saying.......

when conspiracy theory, politically motivated science and anti-government elements are combined what you get is Paranoia with no Sound Scientific Basis............

In other words BUNK.

Politically Motivated BUNK but BUNK all the same.

WMM

That may be true. I do find that when dumpster diving for info you do find some small diamonds!

[whitemajikman]

No matter what is said and debated there is some truth to Chemtrails and their causes. Maybe not aircraft related but there is evidence of sorts. Chemtrails are not just in the air but all around us in the ground and the sea. We all contribute to global warming and other environmental concerns every time we purchase and deposit waste materials of all kinds into the earth's biosphere. If we stop the purchase of our goods we of course cannot survive but we can change the goods to become environmentally conducive. The choice is ours as consumers to force the hands that feed us!

Wayne is not entirely wrong.

"We all contribute to global warming and other environmental concerns every time we purchase and deposit waste materials of all kinds into the earth's biosphere. "

May I remind you that there is no Evidence that Proves that MAN contributes to GLOBAL WARMING......

Pollution is another matter all together..........

Read Crichton's conclusions one more time.........

I am sorry I have to bring this to your attention,but you are Falling for Politically motivated bad Science....and conspiracy theory....Who both share one thing in common .......Politically motivated Deception.

WMM

[gaiacomm]

"We all contribute to global warming and other environmental concerns every time we purchase and deposit waste materials of all kinds into the earth's biosphere. "

May I remind you that there is no Evidence that Proves that MAN contributes to GLOBAL WARMING......

Pollution is another matter all together..........

Read Crichton's conclusions one more time.........

I am sorry I have to bring this to your attention,but you are Falling for Politically motivated bad Science....and conspiracy theory....Who both share one thing in common .......Politically motivated Deception.

WMM


That's fine. Keep in mind that collectivley waste's of all kinds emit various types of gases, some conducive and harmless, some complex and combined to form other gases that are not conducive. When collected and spread it does have some measurable effect on the overall biosphere. Global warming is a contribution from all sides including man and his disregard for waste, the evolution of the planet in time and a myraid of other sources that really play a role in the overall outcome.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010505X.shtml
Climate Change Will Push Wildlife Northward and
Upward
By Joel Gay
The Anchorage Daily News

Monday 03 January 2005

A new national report paints a bleak
picture for the wilds of North America if global
warming continues, with waterfowl struggling to
find wetlands, game animals losing their
protective cover and plants possibly unable to
pollinate.

In Alaska and northern Canada, where
temperatures have risen faster than in most
places, the effects could be heightened, according
to the report distilled from hundreds of
scientific papers by The Wildlife Society, an
association of nearly 9,000 wildlife managers,
research scientists, biologists and educators,
based in Washington, D.C.

"Global warming presents a profound
threat to wildlife as we know it in this country,"
said Douglas Inkley, who chaired the committee
that wrote the report.

Among the eight co-authors were
representatives from the Institute of Arctic
Biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the
Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass.,
Stanford University's Institute for International
Studies, Ducks Unlimited's Institute for Wetland
and Waterfowl Research in Canada and the National
Wildlife Federation.

The earth's climate is constantly
changing, the authors point out. But hundreds of
studies in the last 20 years show that human
activity has contributed to global warming during
the last century.

The effect of rising temperatures has
fallen unequally across North America. Nights have
warmed more than days, while land surfaces have
heated up more than ocean surfaces. Winters have
warmed more than summers, the report notes, and
temperatures and precipitation in northern
latitudes have grown more than in the tropics.

There are too many variables to predict
exactly what may happen in the next 100 years, the
report says, but models by the leading climate
research centers in the United Kingdom, Germany
and the United States suggest warming will
increase from two to 10 times more in the 21st
century than it did in the 20th.

In the broadest terms, researchers
believe North American animals and plants will
move higher in elevation and farther north as
temperatures rise. Some species may benefit from
warmer air and water, but the report suggests that
others may have a hard time keeping up with the
changes.

Animals may find their migratory paths
blocked by cities, transportation corridors or
farmland. Predators and their prey may not move at
the same time, upsetting natural balances. Plants
could suffer if the birds and insects that
pollinate them head to cooler climes.

Entire forests will migrate over time,
the report says. Sugar maples could abandon the
northeastern United States, perhaps replaced by
the pine and hardwood forests of the southeast.
Deer, bears and other animals that inhabit them
would move on also.

The changing forest ecosystem could make
the forests more susceptible to disease. Rapid
warming is thought to have played a role in the
spruce bark beetle epidemic that ravaged
Southcentral Alaska in the 1990s.

The report notes that the growing season
in parts of Alaska lengthened by 20 percent during
the last century. In the future, that could mean
more wildfires, which can disrupt caribou
migration, moose survival and fur-bearer
populations for years.

On Alaska's coast, biologists and
longtime residents already have seen the effects
of thinner sea ice, which is crucial to the
survival of walrus, polar bears and some seabird
species. For animals already living at the
northern edge of North America, there may be no
colder places to go.

Bird hunters could see dramatic declines
in waterfowl, the report suggests. Wetlands in the
Midwest and central Canada are expected to dry up,
causing some duck species to decline by as much as
69 percent over the next 75 years. Nesting habitat
could be lost as wetlands become more suitable for
row crops.

The question before policy-makers and
wildlife managers, the report says, is how to
soften the impacts of global climate change. The
authors suggest that managers adopt a more
cautious approach to their work.

Old weather patterns may no longer hold,
and extreme events such as 100-year floods could
become more common, affecting fish runs and
waterfowl habitat. Hunting seasons may have to be
revised to account for later rutting periods or
declining populations.

The report also suggests that managers
maintain healthy populations, which can better
withstand a changing climate, and to consider
moving affected wildlife populations to guard
against extinctions.

The report doesn't call for curbing
emissions of greenhouse gases but notes that
efforts to improve wildland habitat by planting
trees or restoring grasslands and wetlands "has
significant potential to offset impacts from
global climate change."

Others see the new report as a call to
action. After laying out "the full dimensions of
global warming's forecast for wildlife," National
Wildlife Federation president Larry Schweiger
said, "now it is incumbent upon us to change that
forecast."

For a copy of the report, see
www.nwf.org/news.

[gaiacomm]

Now ask yourself, what can you do to REALLY HELP?

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva writes:

"But if you read this text, attributed to Teller, you see that he does more than just keep his mouth shut. He even goes into what is represented as the economics of it. He is not leaving the 'disinformation', if that's what it is, to others. He is playing it himself for all he is worth. And all this is for a threat whose reality he does not altogether acknowledge!!"

=========

Teller was warning of the problems connected to global warming and even offering a compesation technique.

The problem is we had a cheeper and more easily realizable similar technique in Oak Ridge that used the jet plane plumes as the global shield. You can see the net results in the skies above most areas.

The follow on for the Jet acid rain making also means more profits for the GOP oriented pharmacy and medical interests, with lowering of age span for the baby boomers. So the GOP can exploit the Social Security Funds in the US for their wars and other games.

The Oak Ridge plan wants reduction in global population, which can be achieved by allowing these acid rainout effects to damage the immune resistance of humans. Some countries can be damaged more than others---depending on if they are allowed to know the titanium techniques and the replenishment needed for the trace metals in agricutural use soils.

IMHO,
is

[whitemajikman]

(South Australia, which is dependent for its water supply on one river, is greatly threatened by the prospect of drought. W.H.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1276790.htm

Rann calls for urgent climate change meeting

The South Australian Government is calling on Prime Minister John Howard to convene a special meeting of government heads to urgently address the issue of climate change.

Premier Mike Rann wants a special Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting to be held in the next three months.

Mr Rann says the COAG meeting must be convened to set concrete targets and clear timelines on reducing greenhouse emmissions, which are affecting the world's climate.

"We need to see the same kind of resolve that the world is giving to terrorism to be applied to climate change because quite frankly in the long-term the issues confronting us concerning climate change will be worse than terrorism," he said.

Mr Rann says Australia's record on fighting climate change is deplorable and the first step forward would be to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol.

"I just think that it's shameful that we're one of the few countries in the world that is refusing to sign the Kyoto agreeement," he said.

"I mean Russia decided to sign just a few months ago.

"Country after country around the world have embraced Kyoto as a way of dealing with climate change."


WAYNE THIS IS BLATENT PROPAGANDA...........

While AUSTRALIA is indeed the worlds second most driest place........

It also sits on one of the largest underground freshwater supplies in the world.......

Now here is the Kicker ........

Because Of Radical Environmentalism it isn't being utilized to it's full potenetial.

This is just one more example of how Radical environmentalism Who WAYNE HALL who is an Australian but now resides in Greece represents .........

Australia is definitly suffering from Drought..........But it is one brought about by Environmentalist's and the politicians who succumb to their deceptions and make bad policy decisions.......

This Drought has nothing to do with Global warming and everything to do with Radical Environmentalist Agenda's..........

They have effected Australia's Political,Economic,and social policies.........

WAYNE have you ever heard of the Great Australian Artesian Basin.........?

And Would there be a Drought If Australia Spent Half of the money they do on Environmentalist Backed proposals ......on Desalination........?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

That's fine. Keep in mind that collectivley waste's of all kinds emit various types of gases, some conducive and harmless, some complex and combined to form other gases that are not conducive. When collected and spread it does have some measurable effect on the overall biosphere. Global warming is a contribution from all sides including man and his disregard for waste, the evolution of the planet in time and a myraid of other sources that really play a role in the overall outcome.


Gaia Provide some scientific factual Information that clearly shows a relationship between what you claim and the biosphere..........

Now remember it must clearly show a relationship which utilizes all aspects of what you are claiming........

otherwise it is purely speculation .

And a belief not a fact.........


WMM

[gaiacomm]

Gaia Provide some scientific factual Information that clearly shows a relationship between what you claim and the biosphere..........

Now remember it must clearly show a relationship which utilizes all aspects of what you are claiming........

otherwise it is purely speculation .

And a belief not a fact.........


WMM

I don't have direct access to my claims other than my own scientific hunches!

[jayreynolds]

Yes, so do I.
I always agree with anyone I am told to be afraid of.
Anyone monitoring Raynolds' e-mails will be able to confirm that he is also telling Crichton to be afraid of US!!!
That's what Raynolds does..

hey, Wayne, thought you didn't read my posts!
No, I've no reason to write Dr. Crichton, he seems sufficiently immunized by science
against such hoaxes already. I'm content to wait and watch until you people decide to become 'activists', come outside your cloisters and begin another gambit.

Lest we forget, the last lame attempt you made - misquoting by friend Ross Gelbspan
turned out to be an out-and-out lie. You were forced to retract it and suffered an irrepairable loss among the very people you hoped to influence, for Gelbspan has been spreading the word about your deceit.

[whitemajikman]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010505X.shtml
Climate Change Will Push Wildlife Northward and
Upward
By Joel Gay
The Anchorage Daily News

Monday 03 January 2005

A new national report paints a bleak
picture for the wilds of North America if global
warming continues, with waterfowl struggling to
find wetlands, game animals losing their
protective cover and plants possibly unable to
pollinate.

In Alaska and northern Canada, where
temperatures have risen faster than in most
places, the effects could be heightened, according
to the report distilled from hundreds of
scientific papers by The Wildlife Society, an
association of nearly 9,000 wildlife managers,
research scientists, biologists and educators,
based in Washington, D.C.

"Global warming presents a profound
threat to wildlife as we know it in this country,"
said Douglas Inkley, who chaired the committee
that wrote the report.

Among the eight co-authors were
representatives from the Institute of Arctic
Biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the
Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass.,
Stanford University's Institute for International
Studies, Ducks Unlimited's Institute for Wetland
and Waterfowl Research in Canada and the National
Wildlife Federation.

The earth's climate is constantly
changing, the authors point out. But hundreds of
studies in the last 20 years show that human
activity has contributed to global warming during
the last century.

The effect of rising temperatures has
fallen unequally across North America. Nights have
warmed more than days, while land surfaces have
heated up more than ocean surfaces. Winters have
warmed more than summers, the report notes, and
temperatures and precipitation in northern
latitudes have grown more than in the tropics.

There are too many variables to predict
exactly what may happen in the next 100 years, the
report says, but models by the leading climate
research centers in the United Kingdom, Germany
and the United States suggest warming will
increase from two to 10 times more in the 21st
century than it did in the 20th.

In the broadest terms, researchers
believe North American animals and plants will
move higher in elevation and farther north as
temperatures rise. Some species may benefit from
warmer air and water, but the report suggests that
others may have a hard time keeping up with the
changes.

Animals may find their migratory paths
blocked by cities, transportation corridors or
farmland. Predators and their prey may not move at
the same time, upsetting natural balances. Plants
could suffer if the birds and insects that
pollinate them head to cooler climes.

Entire forests will migrate over time,
the report says. Sugar maples could abandon the
northeastern United States, perhaps replaced by
the pine and hardwood forests of the southeast.
Deer, bears and other animals that inhabit them
would move on also.

The changing forest ecosystem could make
the forests more susceptible to disease. Rapid
warming is thought to have played a role in the
spruce bark beetle epidemic that ravaged
Southcentral Alaska in the 1990s.

The report notes that the growing season
in parts of Alaska lengthened by 20 percent during
the last century. In the future, that could mean
more wildfires, which can disrupt caribou
migration, moose survival and fur-bearer
populations for years.

On Alaska's coast, biologists and
longtime residents already have seen the effects
of thinner sea ice, which is crucial to the
survival of walrus, polar bears and some seabird
species. For animals already living at the
northern edge of North America, there may be no
colder places to go.

Bird hunters could see dramatic declines
in waterfowl, the report suggests. Wetlands in the
Midwest and central Canada are expected to dry up,
causing some duck species to decline by as much as
69 percent over the next 75 years. Nesting habitat
could be lost as wetlands become more suitable for
row crops.

The question before policy-makers and
wildlife managers, the report says, is how to
soften the impacts of global climate change. The
authors suggest that managers adopt a more
cautious approach to their work.

Old weather patterns may no longer hold,
and extreme events such as 100-year floods could
become more common, affecting fish runs and
waterfowl habitat. Hunting seasons may have to be
revised to account for later rutting periods or
declining populations.

The report also suggests that managers
maintain healthy populations, which can better
withstand a changing climate, and to consider
moving affected wildlife populations to guard
against extinctions.

The report doesn't call for curbing
emissions of greenhouse gases but notes that
efforts to improve wildland habitat by planting
trees or restoring grasslands and wetlands "has
significant potential to offset impacts from
global climate change."

Others see the new report as a call to
action. After laying out "the full dimensions of
global warming's forecast for wildlife," National
Wildlife Federation president Larry Schweiger
said, "now it is incumbent upon us to change that
forecast."

For a copy of the report, see
www.nwf.org/news.


PROPAGANDA..............

WHY YOU ASK.........? The Quote below shows why.......?


"But hundreds of
studies in the last 20 years show that human
activity has contributed to global warming during
the last century."


Which is a crock of shit because there is no consensus,and because most of the studies that they mention were flawed using bad science,and were tampered with ,many have been debunked over the last 20 years to be flawwed.......


This Propaganda is an attempt by Environmentalist's to scare the North American Public into putting political pressure on government so as to effect future policymaking decisions......

Based Not on Science or facts but baseless propaganda designed to influence the reader into believing that a threat to humanity exist's ...........Which gives the false impression that there is a solution if only we can talk the government into signing KYOTO.......

obviously Deborah Stark a.k.a (Insurrection Chemistry) has no morals or values when it comes to promoting a hoax on her fellow human beings.....

She has stuped to trying to scare the general public into believing her hoax by using scaremongering tactics.......

Anything to FORWARD YOUR AGENDA DEBORAH.........aint that right.......?

Even if it means it is at the expense of REALITY and the TRUTH.


WMM

[Insurrectionchemistry]

1792 - Strange Secrets Of The White House
http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/v10/rnd1001.shtml

[gaiacomm]

Well now what?

[whitemajikman]

I don't have direct access to my claims other than my own scientific hunches!


Thank you for your honesty.....

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Thank you for your honesty.....

WMM


Your welcome. Sometimes intuition can help. So just in case I make a strong effort to avoid polluting the earth. Its impossible to stop completly because of our products we use and have become dependent on. But I try!

[stuart_allsop]

BE VERY AFRAID OF THIS MAN

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.htmlWow! Great find, Jay! Excellent!

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Viability of Teller's Star Wars today----useless

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.html

Rude Awakening To Bush's
Missile Defense Dreams
By Scott Ritter
Christian Science Monitor
1-6-5

DELMAR, NY - On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament.

From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities.

Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts.

The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program.

The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched.

After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000.

When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere.

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.

The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.

-- Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and Iraq (1991-1998). He is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.'

[stuart_allsop]

No matter what is said and debated there is some truth to Chemtrails and their causes. Maybe not aircraft related but there is evidence of sorts. Chemtrails are not just in the air but all around us in the ground and the sea. No, that is called "pollution", not "chemtrails". You are doing exactly what Crichton warned about: trying to change the definition go fit yor agenda, instead of changing youar agenda to fit the facts.


We all contribute to global warmingNo we dont'. As Crichton pointed out, there is no such things as man-made global warming, so how could ew possibly be contributing to it?


If we stop the purchase of our goods we of course cannot survive but we can change the goods to become environmentally conducive. The choice is ours as consumers to force the hands that feed us! Wayne is not entirely wrong.Well, I guess that just shows that you did not read Crichton's article, after all! Either that, or you didn't understand it. You are spouting EXACTLY what he derides so effectively: unverified junk science.

[gaiacomm]

No, that is called "pollution", not "chemtrails". You are doing exactly what Crichton warned about: trying to change the definition go fit yor agenda, instead of changing youar agenda to fit the facts.

No we dont'. As Crichton pointed out, there is no such things as man-made global warming, so how could ew possibly be contributing to it?

Well, I guess that just shows that you did not read Crichton's article, after all! Either that, or you didn't understand it. You are spouting EXACTLY what he derides so effectively: unverified junk science.


I did read it and I understood it. I just voiced my opinion based on my understanding.

Which side of the egg do you crack?

[stuart_allsop]

That's fine. Keep in mind that collectivley waste's of all kinds emit various types of gases, some conducive and harmless, some complex and combined to form other gases that are not conducive. When collected and spread it does have some measurable effect on the overall biosphere. Global warming is a contribution from all sides including man and his disregard for waste, the evolution of the planet in time and a myraid of other sources that really play a role in the overall outcome.Nope. Once again, you missed the entire point of Crichton's speech. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Man has conributed to global warming, period. None. No study has EVER shown this to be true conclusively.

If you do not agree, show us one conclusive study that clearly demonstrated a direct causality link between MAn and global warming. Thre isn't one single study you can point to that does that. Sure, there are myriad OPINIONS all over, but no STUDIES.

[gaiacomm]

Nope. Once again, you missed the entire point of Crichton's speech. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Man has conributed to global warming, period. None. No study has EVER shown this to be true conclusively.

If you do not agree, show us one conclusive study that clearly demonstrated a direct causality link between MAn and global warming. Thre isn't one single study you can point to that does that. Sure, there are myriad OPINIONS all over, but no STUDIES.


Did you ever think that maybe he could be wrong? There is some truth to what he writes but he does not answer the questions and give solutions that we all can use.

[gaiacomm]

Nope. Once again, you missed the entire point of Crichton's speech. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Man has conributed to global warming, period. None. No study has EVER shown this to be true conclusively.

If you do not agree, show us one conclusive study that clearly demonstrated a direct causality link between MAn and global warming. Thre isn't one single study you can point to that does that. Sure, there are myriad OPINIONS all over, but no STUDIES.


There is no public study that shows global warming is caused by humans but I am sure there exists a study that is not public! And I am sure that you or anyone else will gain access to that report unless you are part of the committee.

[stuart_allsop]

I don't have direct access to my claims other than my own scientific hunches!Well DUH!!!! If it is a HUNCH then it most certainly is NOT SCIENTIFIC, now is it? Go read the article again, so you can learn about how science works. Science wroks DESPITE what you believe, not BECAUSE of it. Hunches are subjective. Science is purely objective.

How can you say that you totally agree with what Crichton said, then turn around and spout "I don't have direct access to my claims other than my own scientific hunches". How silly can you get!

[gaiacomm]

Well DUH!!!! If it is a HUNCH then it most certainly is NOT SCIENTIFIC, now is it? Go read the article again, so you can learn about how science works. Science wroks DESPITE what you believe, not BECAUSE of it. Hunches are subjective. Science is purely objective.

How can you say that you totally agree with what Crichton said, then turn around and spout "I don't have direct access to my claims other than my own scientific hunches". How silly can you get!


Ok, I see I must explain: I agree with what he said but I do not agree with his results. There are some questionable facts that can be misguided and missunderstood thus leading to debate and sides pitching there truths.

[stuart_allsop]

Did you ever think that maybe he could be wrong? There is some truth to what he writes but he does not answer the questions and give solutions that we all can use.Well, that proves beyond any doubt that you did NOT read it! Becuase nowhere in there does he state that global warming is NOT man made. What he says is that the "science" behind it is suspect, becuase it is politically motivated. How could he possibly be WRONG about that? And yes he DOES answer the questiosn, and he DOES give solutions.

You lied.

You didn't read it.

Go read it.

Then come back, and we can talk about it. But please stop trying to bluff your way through. It is SO obvious!

[whitemajikman]

Viability of Teller's Star Wars today----useless

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.html

Rude Awakening To Bush's
Missile Defense Dreams
By Scott Ritter
Christian Science Monitor
1-6-5

DELMAR, NY - On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament.

From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities.

Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts.

The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program.

The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched.

After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000.

When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere.

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.

The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.

-- Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and Iraq (1991-1998). He is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.'

Scott Ritter......?

You really do need meds JIMMY.....

And here is why.........

[whitemajikman]

Helping Scott Ritter to Fisk Himself (Part 1)
09/14/2002

I've been tempted to mention, in imitation of the haven't-seen-a-shred-of-evidence people, that I haven't seen a shred of evidence that Saddam is not doing everything that every commentator has accused him of. I know that it is even more difficult to prove a negative about a secretive dictatorship than it is to prove a positive about it, but the entire response to what evidence we pro-attack-Iraq folks have produced has been either to deny that a particular nugget exists or to dismiss it outright.

But then I recalled Scott Ritter. Actually, Ritter has made it nigh impossible for me to forget him lately. In fact, his unbelievable quest for fame is one of many qualities about his latest appearances that is on the list of things that Mama always told me indicated somebody who wasn't... well... saying the most honest of things. There's the nearly messianic vision of himself and the constant references to his credentials and the utter dismissal of other "experts" and the references to "documented proof" that he never has on hand and the unnatural constraints against discussing major relevant topics and the bickering over minutia... oh, and the fact that he just plain lies.

So, to debunk the one shred of evidence of the would-be debunkers and to play a small role in getting this creepy fellow off my TV screen as expeditiously as possible, I'll be presenting a thorough, multipart Fisking (i.e., a complete disproving, in blogosphere parlance) of Mr. Ritter's 9/12 interview with Fox News's David Asman. The debunking and "descreening" of a kook like Ritter might not seem to be worth so much of my time, but such a document ought to exist somewhere on the Web because the guy is doing his best, with the help of the cable news networks (and the Iraqi government), to spread his nonsense. I also think the project offers justification to collect a number of links to the evidence available to date, showing the necessity of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime.

(The transcript of the interview can be found here, but I recommend the streaming video here because the transcript is pretty poor and Ritter's presentation is sort of a continuous self-Fisking.)

Take careful note of this comment early in the interview: "I don't disagree with anything I've ever said. Why in God's name would I disagree with something I've said?" Beyond its defensiveness, this comment is important toward leaving Ritter with no option but to depart from the public light with his head bowed because it leaves him with no wiggle out of what's to follow. Let's jump right in:


Forget those people [who think I'm an apologist for Saddam]. Let's deal with the facts. First of all, it's a matter of perception. When I resigned, I didn't resign as someone beating the drum of war. I'm not out there promoting war.


Here, Ritter dismisses his critics without comment, insists on looking at "the facts," and then proceeds to tell Mr. Asman that the "facts" are all about perception. Yeah, I can see how "perception" would make Ritter's current claims seem different from what he wrote in The New Republic in December 1998: "Military strikes carried out for the purpose of enabling a vigorous UNSCOM to carry out its mandate are wholly justifiable." Perhaps that was an instance of the Tambourines of War. As for the sentence about what he's doing now, well, I'll save comment for a more extreme sample later.

Now check out this exchange:


ASMAN: So you think Saddam Hussein still has these chemical weapons capabilities?

RITTER: No, I said Saddam Hussein has the potential of having chemical weapons capability. We haven't completely confirmed the final disposition of these capabilities and they must be of concern. But to say that Saddam Hussein retains chemical weapons — there's a big difference between weapons and capability. [Umm, Mr. Asman said "capability."]

...

ASMAN: So he might still have all of those barrels of evil stuff, the biochemical weapons?

RITTER: It's not a matter of "still have," he might have been able to make those weapons in the intervening time. ... first of all, I never said he has them and I'm not saying chances are he has them, I'm saying there's a possibility he could reconstitute this capability and that's why we have to have inspectors in place.


First, Asman quoted Scott to himself at the beginning of the interview as saying, on Good Morning America in 1998, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Second, here's The Washington Post's October 1998 description of a 1997 meeting between Ritter and Lt. Gen. Rashid, Iraqi oil minister:


Rashid demanded to know what Ritter thought he was hiding. Ritter replied in detail: VX nerve toxins in salt form for long-term storage; a mobile biological weapons production facility, including fermenters and a drying and grinding apparatus; dried anthrax; five to seven operational ballistic missiles and up to 25 in disassembled form; and possibly a nuclear weapon "minus the core of HEU," or highly enriched uranium that would make it a bomb.


Are these biological agents a "capability" or a "potential for capability," and isn't a "ballistic missile" a weapon? Or did Ritter's team succeed in its final year — the most obstructed — in negating such a long list of particulars more effectively than it had before?

But Ritter moves on to a different, interesting topic with the statement "Don't disgrace the death of those 3,000 people [killed on 9/11/01] by bringing Iraq into the equation." Wow! Quite a bold, emotion grabbing, statement. Unfortunately, I'll have to leave it until tomorrow. Be sure to tune in for worse absurdity, more frightening "intelligence," and Ritter's attempt at a Big Lie.

continued........

[whitemajikman]

Helping Scott Ritter to Fisk Himself, Part 2: Saddam & bin Laden
09/14/2002





At this point, I'd like to turn the reins over to David Asman (after all, it was his interview) [with some interjections from me]:


ASMAN: We know there are people out there willing to do the dirty deed, and we also know Saddam Hussein has had contacts with these people in the past.

RITTER: No, you don't know that.

ASMAN: We know from Czech intelligence. Czech intelligence says that an Iraqi met with Mohammed Atta twice.

RITTER: What does the CIA and FBI say? [Keep this rejoinder in mind for later use.]

ASMAN: The FBI and CIA say the situation is not clear but Czech intelligence says it is. And why is it that the only person, the only Arab leader that Usama bin Laden likes and approves of and speaks highly of is Saddam Hussein, why?

RITTER: That's an absurdity, David. Usama bin Laden in 1991 was offering his services to the Saudi government confront Saddam Hussein. Usama bin Laden has issued fatwas against Saddam Hussein. [A: "absurdity"]

ASMAN: We talked to representatives of Al Qaeda here in 1998 shortly after the bombings of those embassies in Africa. The only Arab leader — I spoke to them personally — the only Arab leader they were willing to praise, not to condemn, was Saddam Hussein. Why?

RITTER: Well, I'm just telling you that the fact of the matter is the Iraqi government — and I'm not an apologist for the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein is the most brutal dictator I can think of today and from my lips to God's ear, I wish he was dead — but the fact of the matter is Iraq is a secular dictatorship that has struggled against Islamic fundamentalists for 30 years.

ASMAN: Exactly. So why is it that Usama bin Laden supports this secular individual?

RITTER: Well, first of all, I don't think that case has been made. [B: "I don't think"]

ASMAN: It's been made not only by Usama bin Laden himself but by representatives of Al Qaeda to me personally on air. We've got the tape. I can show it to you.

RITTER: I'm not disputing that.

ASMAN: You were disputing it.

RITTER: I'm not disputing that people have sat before you and said these things. I'm disputing that Al Qaeda is somehow in allegiance with Saddam Hussein. [So he's not disputing the proof, just the reality that it is proof of.]

ASMAN: Why shouldn't they be? They both want the destruction of the United States. You don't think they do? You don't think Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein want the destruction of the United States?

RITTER: Let's keep Usama bin Laden out of this equation because I'm not linking them. [C: "let's keep Usama... out of this"]


Well, in that case, call off the war... Scott Ritter isn't "linking them." Sounds a bit as if Ritter, like many of the anti-attack-Iraq folks, chooses to simply leave out big chunks of the counterargument that he can't deal with. I've heard this assertion that al Qaeda and Hussein don't mix ideologically before, so, let's take a look at it.

At the very least, one can say that bin Laden has changed his position on Hussein. According to MSNBC, "He considered Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein an ally until Hussein threatened to invade Saudi Arabia." Subsequently, Saudi Arabia kicked him out, and he moved to the Sudan, which, according, happily, to "Fisking's" namesake, Robert Fisk, "is [was?] despised by Saudi Arabia for its support of Saddam Hussein."

Once Saudi Arabia sided with the U.S. against Iraq, bin Laden seems to have had a change of heart. As Eurasianet puts it, "while he did not approve of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of neighboring Arab Muslim Kuwait, bin Laden — along with millions of other Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere — sided with Saddam as soon as it became clear that the United States would oppose him with force," which coincided with bin Laden's big hang-up: U.S. troops accepted on Saudi land.

And let's not forget Saddam's conversion. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote of Saddam's conversion to radical Islam in his famous New Yorker article:


"It was gradual, starting the moment he decided on the invasion of Kuwait," in June of 1990, according to Amatzia Baram, an Iraq expert at the University of Haifa. "His calculation was that he needed people in Iraq and the Arab world — as well as God — to be on his side when he invaded. After he invaded, the Islamic rhetorical style became overwhelming" — so overwhelming, Baram continued, that a radical group in Jordan began calling Saddam "the New Caliph Marching from the East." This conversion, cynical though it may be, has opened doors to Saddam in the fundamentalist world. He is now a prime supporter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and of Hamas, paying families of suicide bombers ten thousand dollars in exchange for their sons' martyrdom. This is part of Saddam's attempt to harness the power of Islamic extremism and direct it against his enemies.


So, having seen that there's no reason ideology ought to have been a barrier to al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, what evidence is there, beyond the Czech intelligence and Mr. Asman's interview with al Qaeda officials that suggests that Ritter is absurd for unilaterally declaring that he's "not linking them"?

First, Laurie Mylroie, in her ongoing investigation of Saddam's links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing, cites collusion with bin Laden on some of the attacks for which the latter is given credit. An interesting note that will come up again with reference to Ritter's resignation from UNSCOM is this, taken from an April 2001 review of her book in the Washington Times: "Miss Mylroie argues that Bill Clinton[, his administration, and the intelligence agencies controlled by it] purposely ignored these leads because he didn't want to deal with Baghdad."

Second, Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992, told PBS's Frontline that he was sure that Saddam was behind September 11. He elaborated thus:


When we were in Iraq, Saddam said all the time, even during the Gulf War, "We will take our revenge at the proper time." He kept telling the people, "Get ready for our revenge."

We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes, to put explosives. How could anybody not think this is not done by Saddam? Even the grouping, those groups were divided into five to six people in the group. How about the training on planes? Some of these groups were taken and trained to drive airplanes at the School of Aviation, northern of Baghdad ... .Everything coincides with what's happening.


Third, Goldberg also found Iraqi Kurds making the link to al Qaeda via a sort of terrorist "division":


The stories, which I later checked with experts on the region, seemed at least worth the attention of America and other countries in the West.

The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought.


And fourth, just for flavor, remember ABC News's interview with Saddam's supposed mistress, Parisoula Lampsos:


As U.S. officials look for current links between Saddam and al Qaeda, Lampsos said she was told the Iraqi leader has met and given money in the past to Osama bin Laden, according to one of several written excerpts from the Primetime Thursday broadcast.

Lampsos saw bin Laden at Saddam's palace in the 1980s, she said, and claimed Saddam's son Oday told her his father met with bin Laden again in the mid-1990s and gave him money.


* Coming tomorrow: Ritter shifts his position about the U.N. and who was spying on whom and why and lies about why he left Iraq and UNSCOM — all while calling his boss a liar and another disagreeing expert a "fraud."

continued.......

[whitemajikman]

Helping Scott Ritter to Fisk Himself, Part 3: Saddam's "Capabilities"
09/15/2002





RITTER: [Suspicion's] enough for us to be extremely concerned about, but when you want to take action, there has to be justification found in an international law. Let's remember there's two documents every American...


I wish David Asman hadn't spoken over Mr. Ritter here because I'd love to know what "two documents every American" might know that would have anything to do with a nonexistent "international law." I find myself struggling to even follow Ritter's thought processes, especially considering that President Bush had just spoken to the U.N. to suggest that they act. In fact, this is what Mr. Asman speaks over Ritter to bring up. Ritter, however, tries to find some way to spin Bush as "dictating" rather than "working with the United Nations."

He then mentions "the United States' obligations under the U.N. Charter, which is to go to the Security Council and seek Security Council action." Apart from the fact that this is inherent in the President's suggestion to the U.N., Ritter's own comments on PBS Newshour in 1998 are a direct rebuttal to his current position:


ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, as you know, this change has been described by some people as tactical, that the secretary of state and others wanted to wait until they had support in the Security Council to move forward with these more confrontational investigations. What's your response to that?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: This is lunacy. The bottom line is we haven't had-the United States hasn't had this kind of Security Council support for many years now, and Security Council support is eroding, eroding in large part because of a lack of American leadership. I don't know what they're waiting for. The Security Council is on a gradual, even a steep slide downhill in terms of its ability to support, or willingness to support the special commission. And there's no indication that anything the United States has been doing would turn the Security Council around. So I don't know-it sounds an awful lot like an excuse. It seems like it's a strategic pause, because it's been taking place for many years now.


In other words, in 1998, Ritter was for the United States pressuring the Security Council to take the necessary action. Ritter's points here also support Laurie Mylroie's suggestion that a large part of the problem was the Clinton administration's disinclination to take serious action. Earlier in this 1998 interview, Ritter stated, "You had [Security Council Resolution 1154] on the one hand, but on the other hand, [the Clinton] administration's saying, wait a minute, we can't go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let's understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council."

Turning back to the 2002 interview with Fox News, after some quibbling about whether dictator Saddam Hussein "signed" or merely signed off on the resolutions that kept him in power, Ritter responds to Mr. Asman's statement that Iraq accepted "documents saying they would allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access — and they didn't" by claiming:


RITTER: First of all, it's not that black and white. We achieved a 90-95 percent level of disarmament in Iraq. We could not have done that without unfettered access.

I got into the sites I needed to get to. Was it easy? Was it pretty? No. Did I achieve a certain level of disarmament? Yes. Did other inspectors achieve a certain level of disarmament? Yes. We fundamentally disarmed Iraq and that's the point that has to be made. We succeeded in eliminating the threat posed to the world by Iraq...


That's the funny thing about "fetters" — they make action not "easy" or "pretty." On top of this inherent contradiction, there's his PBS statement, just quoted, that "Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council." Also in the PBS interview, Ritter made the following comments:


Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.


Hiding "components" from hardly constitutes giving "unfettered access" to. Moreover, in 1998, Mr. Ritter was apparently far less confident about the degree of disarmament. And remember all the bickering about "capability" versus "weapons"? Well, in this quotation, Ritter argues that part of the deception was in concealing capabilities in such a way as to later facilitate reconstituting weaponry.

The Fox interview goes on:


RITTER: Again, let's put this in the proper perspective. Biological weapons — everybody's concerned about that. Anthrax — we suffered a horrific anthrax attack here in the United States. Iraq produced liquid bulk anthrax, that's all they ever produced, not the dry powder that we saw here in the United States.

ASMAN: How are you sure about that? You're saying inspectors weren't sure of what happened. How do you know it did?

RITTER: Because this is the finding of the United Nations.

ASMAN: But, Scott, you just said that we're not sure.

RITTER: I'm going to deal with the facts that we know of. I'm not going to get into the hypothetical. What we know is that Iraq only produced liquid bulk anthrax. There is no evidence... [That's not what he told the Iraqi oil minister in 1997! He seemed to at least have some evidence.]

ASMAN: I gotta stop you Scott. You just said we don't know that, we don't know that they didn't produce powdered form of anthrax. How do you know? How?

RITTER: No, we do know that they didn't produce powdered form of anthrax. [How does he know what he didn't know?] Because we inspected the facility, we did the testing on the facility.

ASMAN: It could not have been a facility you didn't know about?

RITTER: Well, now you're going off the map.

ASMAN: The guy's got trillions of dollars' worth of oil. Couldn't he have within his...

RITTER: Has billions of dollars' worth of oil.

ASMAN: Well, the reserves are trillions of dollars, if you add it up at 25 dollars a barrel. The point is he's got enough cash to do all sorts of things that we don't know about, correct?

RITTER: No. Again, we deal in the world of reality. Weapons of mass destruction aren't pulled out of a black hat like a white rabbit at a magic show. They're produced in factories. There's science and technology involved. They're not produced in a hole in the ground or in a basement. It's an industrial facility, we investigated the industrial facility, anthrax, liquid bulk deteriorates after three years under ideal storage conditions. The last time he produced it, in 1991 — we were there from '91 to '98 and never detected any evidence of production. So for Iraq to have anthrax today they would have had to rebuild these factories since the last time inspectors were there.

ASMAN: 1998. You yourself said it would take six months to rebuild those facilities. So they could have built that. They could have built that four, six times over.

RITTER: They could have.


Well, Mr. Asman is certainly a professional, and he's caught Ritter overextending himself here (and, by definition, acting as an apologist specifically for Saddam). If Mr. Asman had had certain documents on hand, he would have caught Ritter doing more than that. As described in a Washington Post article from 1998, in 1997, Ritter had concerns about not only "dried anthrax" but also "a mobile biological weapons production facility, including fermenters and a drying and grinding apparatus."

The bottom line is that we would need inspectors in there, we must use force to achieve that, if necessary, and to ensure that Saddam allows them to do their jobs, and what we did know of Iraq's capabilities, weapons... whatever... in 1998 is absolutely irrelevant. About the only thing that we do know on this count is that Saddam Hussein will never capitulate, and anything that appears to compromise is a ruse.

* NEXT: Ritter slanders his boss and accuses him and the U.S. of espionage.

continued.........

[whitemajikman]

Helping Scott Ritter to Fisk Himself, Part 4: Ritter's "Big Lie"
09/16/2002





With the following statement to Fox News, Ritter ushers in the Big Lie that he's been pedaling to anybody who'll listen:


RITTER: Yes. Now let's get to the bottom line here. The last time we allowed inspectors into Iraq unconditionally, with unfettered access, what happened? The United States took these inspectors and used them to spy on Saddam Hussein. ... Richard Butler facilitated American espionage in Iraq. Richard Butler facilitated American manipulation of the inspection process.


The proof? Apparently, four memoranda that Ritter claims to have sent to Butler in the waning days of his employment. He claims that he can "document everything" that he says, but I've yet to see him do so. Furthermore, he uses the opportunity to request another appearance on the Fox News "stage" (a curious choice of word, I'd say).

But let's look at this new scenario that Ritter is putting forth. Butler, knowingly or not, began using the weapons inspections to "insert intelligence capabilities into Iraq... focused on the security of Saddam Hussein and military targets." Then, as CNN summarized the point of Ritter's movie, "In Shifting Sands ... the Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq" (funded, largely, by Iraqi-American Shakir Alhafaji), after a press preview, "The United States urged United Nations weapons inspectors in 1998 to deliberately provoke a confrontation with Baghdad to provide political cover for a U.S. bombing campaign." Next, as Ritter now tells Fox News, "Two days later the United States bombed Iraq using an inspection that was manipulated by the United States as justification for triggering, and using intelligence gathered by the inspectors to bomb Saddam Hussein's targets that weren't weapons-of-mass-destruction-related." After that, well, I guess the U.S. apparently just went back to its sanctions and no-fly zones, making the whole exercise pointless.

This entirely contradicts what news sources (only outside of Iraq, presumably) reported in 1998 as well as what Ritter himself claimed in testimony before the United States Congress. To summarize: After a number of years of weapons inspections, the initiative had degenerated into a charade, consolidated, by the Washington Post, in the following scene:


Chief inspector Scott Ritter arrived that day on the first search for clues to Iraq's illegal arsenal since a crisis over access to "sensitive" and "presidential" sites had nearly led to war. He and his team drove to a field headquarters of the feared Special Security Organization, or SSO, a complex forbidden to them in the past.

The building went dark in an unexplained power failure, the kind that often marked the arrival of U.N. inspectors. Ritter and his inspection team moved by flashlight from room to room. In each one they found empty shelves, a bare desk and a man with a mustache. One after one, when asked, the men said they worked as marriage registrars.


In response, Ritter formulated the "Shaking the Tree" plan. Because Iraq, a dictatorship, mind you, was using various components of its government, including its intelligence agencies, to hide weapons, "inspectors deliberately triggered Iraq's defenses against a surprise search and used a new synthesis of intelligence techniques to look and listen as the Baghdad government moved contraband from the site."

At first, the U.S. acted as the intelligence collector for the plan. At this point, in one of those intricate tales of overlapping espionage, UNSCOM and U.S. intelligence had argued over various instances of questionable cooperation (Ritter even "feuded" with his "counterpart" in the CIA), and tree shaking gave U.S. intelligence information that it then failed to share with UNSCOM, saying there was nothing useful to the disarmament process. Thereafter, the United Kingdom and Israel picked up the intelligence burden, and then, toward the end of the whole inspections episode, it shifted back to the U.S.

This scenario does provide a vague basis for Ritter's current claims, but previous information, much of it provided by Ritter himself, suggests that events did not occur as he now claims. Intelligence information was gathered, yes, but it was as part of a plan devised by Ritter, and it found its way to, as Ritter told PBS, "any number of governments."

Furthermore, Ritter continues to claim (as he told CNN last year and Fox News recently) that "the United States bombed Iraq using an inspection that was manipulated by the United States as justification for triggering, and using intelligence gathered by the inspectors to bomb Saddam Hussein's targets that weren't weapons-of-mass-destruction-related." This contradicts what he told anybody who would listen (from media outlets to Congress) in 1998; The Washington Post summarizes: a U.S. "interagency review decided that Washington could no longer support the threat of war to compel UNSCOM's access to the inner sanctums of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's secret services." These varying scenarios dramatically shift the direction of the motivation for and, conversely, resistance to intelligence gathering.

This is Ritter's "Big Lie," and it is not much different than any of the conspiracy theories that the Middle East Media Research Institute translates into English from the Arab press. Ritter makes a mistake that relates to something that the Arab press apparently does not understand: with a free media — especially with the Internet — the average citizen has access to the type of information that would be classified, or otherwise forbidden, in other countries.

To support his new claim, Ritter finds it necessary to prevaricate, using any rhetorical trick that fits, to cite documents that he has yet to produce (as far as I can tell), and to dismiss other experts (such as Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, whom Ritter calls a "fraud").

Why he feels the need to blare and attempt to support such a claim is an interesting question that, pending further information, I'll leave to conspiracy theorists. I will say that I'm amused by Ritter's tremendous ego, according to which he alone, "waging peace," "can defuse a war-like situation that is going to put hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk." My curiosity is also piqued by his tendency, in recent interviews (particularly the Fox News one in question), to remove Saddam, personally, a step or two from the conflict.




YOU SEE JIMBO,YOUR SOURCES ARE KIND OF LIKE YOU.............DECEPTIVE AND FULL OF MALICE.


WMM

[gaiacomm]

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." ( I SEE........)

[gaiacomm]

Well, that proves beyond any doubt that you did NOT read it! Becuase nowhere in there does he state that global warming is NOT man made. What he says is that the "science" behind it is suspect, becuase it is politically motivated. How could he possibly be WRONG about that? And yes he DOES answer the questiosn, and he DOES give solutions.

You lied.

You didn't read it.

Go read it.

Then come back, and we can talk about it. But please stop trying to bluff your way through. It is SO obvious!

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." ( I SEE........)

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Gaia lists:

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
=======

You do have to keep in mind that we are correcting to the global warming factors at the mid-lattitudes using the jet trails to induce the Mie Scattering effects. Still there are higher energy and frequency of storms showing up statistically.

While we are applying no corrections toward the polar heat absorption rates due to sequestation of the IR absobers there. Higher rates of ice melt and glacial recession are obvious there. Thus, unless one includes the active factors into equations, there are errors to be had.

IMHO,
is

[whitemajikman]

Gaia lists:

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
=======

You do have to keep in mind that we are correcting to the global warming factors at the mid-lattitudes using the jet trails to induce the Mie Scattering effects. Still there are higher energy and frequency of storms showing up statistically.

While we are applying no corrections toward the polar heat absorption rates due to sequestation of the IR absobers there. Higher rates of ice melt and glacial recession are obvious there. Thus, unless one includes the active factors into equations, there are errors to be had.

IMHO,
is

JIM cite your sources or shut up.......

Talking like an expert means very little without PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS.

But Actually all one has to do is to google the above quoted paragraphs..........To SEE HOW JIM is trying to propagate his "I AM AN INSIDER" Hoax.........

WMM

[gaiacomm]

JIM cite your sources or shut up.......

Talking like an expert means very little without PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS.

But Actually all one has to do is to google the above quoted paragraphs..........To SEE HOW JIM is trying to propagate his "I AM AN INSIDER" Hoax.........

WMM

My part came from Michael Crichton's speech that JR posted.

[stuart_allsop]

There is no public study that shows global warming is caused by humans but I am sure there exists a study that is not public! And I am sure that you or anyone else will gain access to that report unless you are part of the committee.Well, that's conspiracy theory for you! "Just because I can't FIND any evidence to support my agenda, does not mean that there ISN'T any! In fact, it is PROOF that there realy IS evidence, just that it is being hidden". Yeah right. For sure. Yup. Umm hmm. No doubt.

So tell me, Gaia, why would this secret "committee" be hiding the evidence that they need so desperately to prove their point? I mean, thinsg are starting to fall apart pretty badly for the eco-kooks who are trying to shore up the crumbling anthropological global warming arguement, so how come they haven't released this secret study, when they need it so badly? Politicians want it, since the "Global Warming" bandwagone gives them power. Dishonest scientists want it, since it gives them research dollars. The media wants it, since it sells circulation and ratings. The public wants it, becuase it is something else to go "Ooooh!: and "Ahhhh!" about. Conspiracy kooks want it, because it gives them their does of ego boost that they need so badly. EVERYBODY wants it. So how come nobody is showing it?

Let me suggest a reason: becuase it doesn't exist, that's why!

If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, you'd know that no such study could possible exist!

[stuart_allsop]

Ok, I see I must explain: I agree with what he said but I do not agree with his results. There are some questionable facts that can be misguided and missunderstood thus leading to debate and sides pitching there truths.Give it up, Gaia. You never even read the speach, did you? You are trying to bluff your way through, but each time you try to fix your most recent blunder, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper. You really should just go and read the article. The give away was when you said "I do not agree with his results". There aer no results. He did not present any results, nor even suggest that any might be forthcoming. He merely commented on people like you, who try to bluff their way through pseudo-sciecnce with techno-babble in order to present a personal agenda to society for some type of gain, but disguises as "science" in order to fool the gullible. If you had reall read the article, you would have NOT said that you agree with him, becuase he clearly despises people like you.

[gaiacomm]

Well, that's conspiracy theory for you! "Just because I can't FIND any evidence to support my agenda, does not mean that there ISN'T any! In fact, it is PROOF that there realy IS evidence, just that it is being hidden". Yeah right. For sure. Yup. Umm hmm. No doubt. (OK)

So tell me, Gaia, why would this secret "committee" be hiding the evidence that they need so desperately to prove their point? (BECAUSE FOR ONE IT WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN) I mean, thinsg are starting to fall apart pretty badly for the eco-kooks who are trying to shore up the crumbling anthropological global warming arguement, so how come they haven't released this secret study, when they need it so badly? ( BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY INVESTED AND DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH TO LOSE) Politicians want it, since the "Global Warming" bandwagone gives them power.( THAT IS THE CON) Dishonest scientists want it, since it gives them research dollars.(YES) The media wants it, since it sells circulation and ratings.(YES) The public wants it, becuase it is something else to go "Ooooh!: and "Ahhhh!" about.(YES) Conspiracy kooks want it, because it gives them their does of ego boost that they need so badly. (YES) EVERYBODY wants it. So how come nobody is showing it?( BECAUSE THEY CAN'T)

Let me suggest a reason: becuase it doesn't exist, that's why!(WRONG)

If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, you'd know that no such study could possible exist!( THAT IS YOUR OPINION AND I HAVE MINE)



Ok, now what?

[gaiacomm]

Give it up, Gaia. You never even read the speach, did you? You are trying to bluff your way through, but each time you try to fix your most recent blunder, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper. You really should just go and read the article. The give away was when you said "I do not agree with his results". There aer no results. He did not present any results, nor even suggest that any might be forthcoming. He merely commented on people like you, who try to bluff their way through pseudo-sciecnce with techno-babble in order to present a personal agenda to society for some type of gain, but disguises as "science" in order to fool the gullible. If you had reall read the article, you would have NOT said that you agree with him, becuase he clearly despises people like you.


Oh I read it and here is an excerpt:
But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." ( I SEE........)


Read the last line!!!!!!

[gaiacomm]

I feel you need to read the article again and draw your own opinions. Just because I voice mine does not make it right or wrong!

[stuart_allsop]

So tell me, Gaia, why would this secret "committee" be hiding the evidence that they need so desperately to prove their point? (BECAUSE FOR ONE IT WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN)Oh give me a break! Was that the best you could come up with? It doesn't even make sense! Have you not noticed how the eco-kooks are doing their best to scaremonger the world into agreeing with their hoax, by inventing really frightening secnarios about the ocean wiping out all coastal cities, even hundreds of miles inland? About melting polar ice caps, huge global storms, doomed agricultural crops, deserts advancing over forests, the extinction of mankind, and all the rest of it? With all of these incredibly horrific (and totally wrong) predictions, how can you possibly say that the release of a report that vaguely provides some link between man and global warming? There just isn't anything that could be more frightening the the ridiculous pictures of global destuction already painted by the kooks. How much more frightening than "We are all going to die in agony" can you get? Sheesh! I thought you could be alitle more inventive than THAT, lance, after the wonderful scam job you did for Gaia-con International!

I mean, things are starting to fall apart pretty badly for the eco-kooks who are trying to shore up the crumbling anthropological global warming arguement, so how come they haven't released this secret study, when they need it so badly?[/i ( BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY INVESTED AND DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH TO LOSE)Boy, you really ARE scraping the bopttom of tha barrel, aren't you! What kind of lame excuse is that? We are talking about the eco-kooks, remember? They have already stashed away MOUNTAINS of your tax money, and now they want more. How can you say that they enough money?

[i] Politicians want it, since the "Global Warming" bandwagon gives them power.( THAT IS THE CON)No Gaia is the con!

Dishonest scientists want it, since it gives them research dollars.(YES) The media wants it, since it sells circulation and ratings.(YES) The public wants it, becuase it is something else to go "Ooooh!: and "Ahhhh!" about.(YES) Conspiracy kooks want it, because it gives them their does of ego boost that they need so badly. (YES) EVERYBODY wants it. So how come nobody is showing it? ( BECAUSE THEY CAN'T)Right! Becuase it doesn't exist!

Nice try, but you are way off form tonight, Lance. You need to get a stronger version of your favorite puff, because the one you are using right now just isn't sending you into those wild orbits of esoteric lunacy that we are so used to seeing.

[halva]

Viability of Teller's Star Wars today----useless

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.html

Rude Awakening To Bush's
Missile Defense Dreams
By Scott Ritter
Christian Science Monitor
1-6-5

DELMAR, NY - On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament.

From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities.

Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts.

The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program.

The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched.

After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000.

When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere.

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.

The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.

-- Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and Iraq (1991-1998). He is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.'

In 1991 Yeltsin was interested in abolishing ALL of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, not just the weapons based in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, in return for economic assistance.
Teller and company didn't press for Yeltsin's policy to be supported by the U.S. Neither did the anti-nuclear movements

Margaret Thatcher made some noises that 'something should be done' about Russian nuclear weapons. But she didn't get any support either, even from her own party.

And nowadays Putin has found out that, like British Tories and American Republicans, he can win elections by striking a tough pose with his nuclear 'weapons'.

[stuart_allsop]

The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." ( I SEE........)


Read the last line!!!!!!Yup. And I noticed that you entirely missed the point, of how the true scientific wording of the draft report was carefully obliterated and replaced with typical worthless lying eco-polit-speak language, in order to further the agenda of the eco-kooks. It went right over your head, didn't it?

Let me put it in simple tersm for you: The original report was eritten by scientists, who quite correctly warned that their were huge uncertainties in ther work that made it highly controversial, and that there were, in fact, no studies at all that could lead to the conclusion that global warming was man-made. But that wording was carefully erased by the eco-kooks, who don't give a damn about science and honest yand ethics and all of that. They chanegd the wording to say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the scientisits had said.

[halva]

Gaia lists:

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
=======

You do have to keep in mind that we are correcting to the global warming factors at the mid-lattitudes using the jet trails to induce the Mie Scattering effects. Still there are higher energy and frequency of storms showing up statistically.

While we are applying no corrections toward the polar heat absorption rates due to sequestation of the IR absobers there. Higher rates of ice melt and glacial recession are obvious there. Thus, unless one includes the active factors into equations, there are errors to be had.

IMHO,
is

Jim indicates here that mitigation policies are reducing the effects of global warming.

But since officially this mitigation is not occurring, the 'success' of mitigation only serves to strengthen the voice of the anthropogenic climate change debunkers.

The assertion that mitigation is not occurring strengthens the credibility of those who say there was no problem in the first place.

[Yaak]

Jim indicates here that mitigation policies are reducing the effects of global warming.

But since officially this mitigation is not occurring, the 'success' of mitigation only serves to strengthen the voice of the anthropogenic climate change debunkers.

The assertion that mitigation is not occurring strengthens the credibility of those who say there was no problem in the first place.
Come on, Wayne, enough of the double-talk.
There are no mitigation policies.
There is no anthropogenic global warming.
Jim is a severely confused person.
Stop egging him on and let the poor man be.

[halva]

Truly I think it is time for a reintroduction of the concept of 'exterminism', coined in the early 80s by the late Edward Thompson, one of the leaders of the European non-aligned nuclear disarmament movement.

Thompson's 'exterminism' was the exterminism of the Cold War nuclear arms race, which - in however mediated a form - could be seen as being driven by capitalist vs communist economic class antagonism, but all that is needed for an exterminist dynamic to be established is a conflict: it can be generated around religion, as many seek to do now with Muslims vs Christians or Muslims vs Jews or Christians vs Jews. it can be generated around tthe United Nations. A perfect exterminist dynamic can be established around support or opposition for the objecives of the United Nations.

The possibilities are endless.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214516



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214279



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213983

The Shadow threatened: "Do not be surprised if you suddenly lose your access."




I repeat:

"The Shadow has been reduced to making baseless, idiotic threats.
That must be wishful thinking on your part. I accept your challenge, though, Yaakass!

You have no idea just how amusing you are, Shadow.:D "
Of course I do. I thought the part about the location of your cerebral cortex was quite humorous. In fact, I would wager that when you have your next colonoscopy, the doctor will ask you to open wide and say, “Ahhhhh.”(there I go again)

Let me interject for a moment......

If you get Yaak banned ,you will be opening up yourself to some form of Reprisal......

And it won't be pretty......

Up to this Point Shadow we have allowed you to play your little games because it breaks some of the monotony around here when we are bombarded with Waynes Useless Propaganda.......

Just some friendly advice......:D

WMM
__________________
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely............
Allow me to interject your interjection, boy. You have no power whatsoever over what I say or do here – not by any stretch of your feeble imagination. You are a nobody.

Rest assured that I do not make threats. However, I do keep my promises. Since I have filed a well-documented formal complaint against Mr. Snell, I suppose we all will now just have to wait and see whether or not ImageShack enforces its Terms and Agreements.

I strongly advise you to dispense with your childish threats unless you are prepared to carry them out. From my vantage point, you appear rather impotent.

Take some friendly advice and quit acting like a thug. The perceived power that you possess obviously corrupts.

[halva]

Unfortunately, Shadow, I am no more persuaded of the likelihood that Arianna will kick Yaak or the others off this thread than I am that the FBI will punish Raynolds for accusing Jim Phelps of shining lasers at aircraft.

[halva]

Catching the Wind
The World’s Fastest-Growing Renewable Energy Source is Coming of Age
by Jim Motavalli

At the base of the Sagamore Bridge, the gateway to Cape Cod, is a nostalgia-inducing fake windmill that looks like it belongs with tulips and wooden shoes in an image of Holland’s colorful past. In fact, it’s advertising for a Christmas tree store, but its mere presence is an irony as the Cape is convulsed in an epic battle over some very real wind turbines. Cape Wind plans to build the first offshore wind park in the U.S. in Nantucket Sound, just five miles off the coast of some of the most exclusive real estate in America. If the project is built, it will at least temporarily set a record as the largest wind farm in the world, its 130 turbines producing 420 megawatts of electricity. If it is defeated by a well-funded opposition group with some highly placed political allies, it will be a resounding defeat for wind power in the U.S., but possibly just a minor setback for a worldwide renewable energy movement that is filling its sails with the inexhaustible power of the wind.

The Growing Power of Wind

Even as the world experiences ever-more-severe storms and sets new temperature records that are being linked to global warming, we’re also setting new records for installed wind energy. The two phenomena might appear to be unrelated, but actually they’re closely tied together. Wind energy is zero-emissions energy, a renewable resource that is one of our last, best hopes for staving off devastating climate change. Wind energy has grown 28 percent annually over the last five years, and the so-called “installed capacity” (the generating power of working wind turbines) doubles every three years: It is the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Some 6,000 megawatts of wind capacity—enough to power 1.5 million homes—are added annually.

The old-fashioned windmills that once pumped water for local farmers have been replaced with high-technology, high-efficiency industrial-grade turbines. The General Electric turbines scheduled to be installed by Cape Wind (resulting from GE’s purchase of Enron’s wind assets at fire-sale prices) offer a whopping 3.6 megawatts each, are 40 stories tall on thin towers, and boast three prop-like blades the length of two jumbo jets.

As Business 2.0 reports, “Since 1985, the electric generating capacity of a typical windmill has gone from about 100 kilowatts of constant power to 1.5 megawatts, with a corresponding reduction in cost from 12 cents per kilowatt-hour to less than five cents.” Because of federal tax credits (recently renewed until the end of 2005), the real cost of wind power is getting close to such perennials as nuclear, coal and natural gas, which explains the interest of big profit-oriented companies like GE. In 2001, 6,500 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity were installed worldwide, and by 2003 the world had 39,000 megawatts of installed wind power.

Fascinating History

Wind technology has increased steadily since the first windmills for pumping water and grinding grain were developed in ancient Persia around 500 to 900 A.D. (see companion story). More than six million small windmills were installed in the U.S. between 1850 and 1970. They were small units producing the equivalent of one horsepower or less and their primary duties were supplying water for animals and human needs. Rural electrification in the 1930s made most of them obsolete, but many remained in place to serve as evocative backgrounds in Hollywood westerns.

Poul La Cour, a Danish inventor, built a practical four-blade windmill in 1891, and by 1917 windmills producing 25 kilowatts were in common use in Denmark (still a wind energy pioneer today). The first utility-scale wind generator was the 100-kilowatt Balaclava windmill, built on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1931. Experimentation on large wind machines continued in the U.S., France, Germany, Great Britain and Denmark.

The U.S. government developed a newfound interest in wind power after the oil embargoes of the 1970s left the country feeling vulnerable about energy supplies. The U.S. Federal Wind Energy Program was created at that time, and California became a showplace for large-scale wind farms. Some 17,000 machines of 20 to 350 kilowatts (producing 1,700 megawatts in total) were installed between 1981 and 1990. A 15 percent federal energy credit helped, as did a 50 percent California energy credit (both were gone by the mid-1980s).

Unfortunately, many of the California windmills suffered from insufficient development time and operating difficulties, including the well-known Transpower wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains. Compounding the difficulties, the tax credits were issued on the basis of “installed generator capacity” rather than the actual output of the wind turbines.

After many rushed American designs failed to deliver on their promises, the much healthier Danish wind business had captured 50 percent of the U.S. market by 1986. U.S. companies, including U.S. Windpower, Zond Systems (since acquired by Enron, then by General Electric, a powerhouse today), Southwest Wind Power and Bergey Windpower, gradually began a comeback in the 1990s.

[halva]

A Bright Future…With Clouds

The U.S. (6,374 megawatts at the end of 2003) and Europe dominate the development and installation of wind power. Large-scale wind farms, both on- and off-shore, can now be found from Denmark to New Zealand. Europe has more than 28,000 installed megawatts of wind power (70 percent of world capacity). World wind leaders include Germany, the U.S., Spain, Denmark and India, each with more than 2,000 megawatts. Germany is in the lead, with 14,609 megawatts installed by the end of 2003. The wind energy industry in Germany employs 35,000 people and supplies 3.5 percent of the nation’s electricity. Denmark has the world’s highest proportion of electricity generated by wind, more than 20 percent. The Danish Wind Energy Association would like to see that ratcheted up to 35 percent wind power by 2015.

In the U.S. (which gets less than one percent of its energy from wind) the industry rebounded somewhat in the late 1990s. There are now clusters of wind turbines in Texas and Colorado, as well as newly updated sites in California. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), there are now wind energy products in almost every state west of the Mississippi, and in many Northeastern states. California leads with more than 2,042 megawatts of installed wind energy, followed by Texas, which experienced 500 percent wind growth in 2001 and now has 1,293 megawatts. AWEA explains that one megawatt of wind capacity is enough to supply 240 to 300 average American homes, and California’s wind power alone can save the energy equivalent of 4.8 million barrels of oil per year.

AWEA says the U.S. wind industry will install up to 3,000 megawatts of new capacity by 2009. If that proves true, the U.S. will have nearly 10,000 megawatts of wind power, enough to power three million homes. The economics of wind are looking increasingly good. The cost of generating a kilowatt-hour of electricity from wind power has dropped from $1 in 1978 to five cents in 1998, and is expected to drop even further, to 2.5 cents. Wind turbines themselves have dropped in installed cost to $800 per kilowatt. Although, according to the Financial Times, wind power is still twice as expensive as generation from a modern oil-fired plant, federal subsidies and tax benefits available in many countries level the playing field.

One of the biggest hindrances to even greater wind installation in the U.S. is the on-again, off-again nature of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC). Introduced as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, PTC granted 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (since adjusted for inflation) for the first 10 years of operation to wind plants brought on line before the end of June 1999. A succession of short-term renewals and expirations of PTC led to three boom-and-bust cycles (the most recent a boom in 2003 and a bust in 2004) in wind power installation. Its current extension to the end of 2005 may see some wind projects struggling to meet the PTC requirements before the credit expires once again.

The U.S. could go further, and states with big wind resources would reap major rewards. If Congress were to establish a 20 percent national renewable energy standard by 2020 (requiring utilities to sell a fifth of their energy from sustainable sources), the Union of Concerned Scientists reports, wind-rich North Dakota could gain $1.4 billion in new investment from wind and other renewables. North Dakota consumers would save $363 million in lower electricity bills annually if the standard were combined with improvements in energy efficiency. The environment would also benefit with a 28 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the plains states. A watered-down version of this “renewables portfolio standard” (RPS) was included in the 2002 and 2003 versions of the failed federal energy bill, but failed to make the final cut.

Just such an RPS, on the state level, was enacted when George W. Bush was governor of Texas, and led that state to its pre-eminent status as the number two wind generator in the U.S. Governor George Pataki recently issued an executive order establishing such an RPS for New York State: 20 percent renewables by 2010. New York currently gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, principally hydro power. The 2004 elections may have been terrible news for the environment, but one bright spot was the passage of a Colorado RPS that will require the state to buy 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Seventeen states have now enacted RPS rules.

AWEA thinks that, with a favorable political climate, the U.S. could have 100,000 megawatts of installed wind power by 2013, with a full potential of 600,000 megawatts. The group points out that wind power could offset a projected three to four billion cubic feet per day natural gas supply shortage in the U.S.

Even in the absence of a lucrative production tax credit, wind projects are moving forward. Current projects include construction of the world’s third-largest wind farm, with 136 turbines and 204 megawatts capacity, in New Mexico as part of the utility-run New Mexico Wind Energy Center. FPL Energy is also installing 162 megawatts of 1.8-megawatt Danish-made Vestas turbines in Solano County, California for the High Winds project. New England can boast of Green Mountain Power’s project in Searsburg, Vermont, which was completed in 1997 and features 11 turbines generating six megawatts.

Other projects are underway in Oklahoma and South Dakota, on the Rosebud Sioux reservation. Tex Hall of the National Congress of American Indians observes that “tribes here [in the Great Plains] have many thousands of megawatts of potential wind power blowing across our reservation lands….Tribes need access to the federal grid to bring our value-added electricity to market throughout our region and beyond.”

Offshore Wind and Local Opposition

Many of the largest wind farms today are being built offshore, with varying amounts of controversy. Despite its proximity to Jones Beach, one of the largest summer recreational destinations in the New York area (with six million annual visitors), the proposed Long Island Offshore Wind Initiative (with between 25 and 50 turbines, producing up to four megawatts each) has not generated significant opposition, although it could develop as plans move forward. The Long Island wind farm “will be pollution-free, boundless and blow a gust of clean air into the future of energy production,” says Ashok Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

With peak energy demand on Long Island soaring (up 10 percent just between 2001 and 2002), there is clearly a need for new and cleaner sources of electricity. On the western end of the South Shore, the utility-owned wind farm would be two to five miles offshore and provide electricity for 30,000 homes when completed in 2007. Long Island’s suffering air would benefit from the annual reduction of 834 tons of sulfur dioxide, 332 tons of nitrogen oxide and 227,000 tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide. Taken as a whole, Long Island has incredible potential wind resources along its south shore extending past Montauk Point. According to one study, a string of wind farms in that region could produce 5,200 megawatts of power, or enough to meet 77 percent of Long Island’s ever-expanding needs.

Germany is a world leader in offshore wind, and recently finalized an agreement to build a 350-megawatt project (with 70 five-megawatt turbines) off the island of Rόgen. Britain’s Crown Estate, which owns the UK’s territorial seabed, has granted approval for 13 offshore wind farms, and British utility Powergen has plans to develop a giant 500-megawatt offshore farm in the Thames estuary near London. The Irish government has approved a 520-megawatt wind farm offshore southeast of Dublin. China is building a 400-megawatt facility 60 miles from Beijing, and says confidently it will be generating 12 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.

None of these projects have met with the kind of opposition that stalks the Cape Wind project, a planned $700 million development that would cover 26 square miles off Cape Cod. That wind farm, with General Electric turbines up to 40 stories tall, would surpass Denmark’s Horns Reef as the world’s largest.

The proposal has split the environmental community, drawing opposition from such powerful environmental allies as Robert Kennedy, Jr. “I’m a strong advocate of wind farms on the oceans and high seas,” says Kennedy. “But there are appropriate places for everything. We wouldn’t put one of these in Yosemite, and I think environmentalists are falling into a trap if they think the only wilderness areas worth preserving are in the Rocky Mountains or American West. The most important are the ones close to our cities, where the public has access to them. And Nantucket Sound is a wilderness, which people need to experience. I always get nervous when people talk about privatizing the commons. In this case, the benefits of the power extracted from Nantucket Sound are far outweighed by the other values that our communities derive from it.”

Writer Bill McKibben, however, argues in Orion that the criticisms amount to “small truths.” The bigger point is that Nantucket’s air contains 370 parts of carbon dioxide, up from 275 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. “And if we keep burning coal and gas and oil, the scientific consensus is that by the latter part of the century the planet’s temperature will have risen five degrees Fahrenheit to a level higher than we’ve seen for 50 million years.” The choice, he writes, “is not between windmills and untouched nature, it’s between windmills and the destruction of the planet’s biology on a scale we can barely begin to imagine.”

[halva]

The World’s Fastest-Growing Renewable Energy Source is Coming of Age
by Jim Motavalli

Seething Passions

The Cape seemed deceptively tranquil on a recent visit. Seething passions were just below the surface. The latest attempt to scuttle the project had just been made public: an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act introduced by Senator John Warner (R-VA), which would have required Congressional approval for any offshore wind project in the U.S. If it had been adopted (it was, instead, withdrawn the next day), it would have forced Cape Wind back to the beginning of what had already been a three-year regulatory process.

The permitting process has been a long, hard slog for Cape Wind Associates, which has spent an estimated $15 million trying to get its offshore farm built. With Warner’s amendment lifted (reportedly because of the objections of House Republicans), the next step was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a staggering 3,800 pages released November 9. The EIS had been expected in September, but it sat for several months, some say for political reasons, on the desk of one Raymond DuBois, an undersecretary of defense in the Pentagon for military installations and environmental programs.

As had been expected, the draft EIS is largely favorable to Cape Wind. “This report is a big step towards greater energy independence,” said a jubilant Jim Gordon, Cape Wind’s president. But opponents, led by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, were subdued. “This is a flawed report, written and paid for largely by Cape Wind,” said Alliance Assistant Director Audra Parker.

For the record, Warner’s family has property whose view would be affected by the Cape Wind Project. So does Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), whose famous “compound” is in Hyannis, near Ground Zero. Everybody on the Cape has an opinion about the project, though it’s not generally expressed with the usual bumper stickers and lawn signs. Instead, there are intense activist groups on both sides of the fence, and public opinion polls that indicate a population that is dramatically split on the project.

The tide has been turning somewhat against the project after a concerted media campaign by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The Alliance has some environmental trappings, but its founder, Doug Yearley, is chairperson emeritus of mining giant Phelps Dodge Corporation and a board member of Marathon Oil (a winner of the Toxic Action Center’s “Dirty Dozen Award”). To be fair, he’s also a member of the World Wildlife Fund’s National Council. The Alliance raised $1.8 million in 2003 through donations from such high-profile Cape residents as Paul Fireman of Reebok, but it spent even more, $2.4 million, on what the Boston Herald called “a small army of hired lawyers, lobbyists and publicists.”

Even with the draft EIS released, there will still be a long slog. There will be public hearings, the issuance of a final EIS (expected in mid 2005), more comments, then a permitting decision by the Army Corps. The state has a role also in the form of the Office of Coastal Zone Management. Even if a permit is issued (it can be approved with conditions or denied outright), there’s a good chance the Alliance would then file a lawsuit.

There are articulate voices on both sides. “This project in this place is inappropriate for any number of reasons,” says the passionately persuasive Audra Parker. “We’re supportive of renewable energy, but this is risky technology—the first offshore wind project in the U.S.—and do we really want to turn our priceless Nantucket Sound into a scientific experiment?”

The Alliance raises the specter of Cape Wind as a stalking horse for at least three more large-scale wind farms in Nantucket Sound. It says the five million people who visit the Cape and the islands (Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard) every year will be “confronted by 130 huge towers in the Sound,” each 100 feet higher than the famous Bourne and Sagamore bridges. In fliers, the group warns about “a risky new technology and a developer who has never built a wind plant.”

Supporters say that Cape Wind can replace 113 million gallons of oil per year, that it will reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions by one million tons per year (the equivalent of taking 162,000 cars off the road) and reduce New England’s wholesale electric prices by $25 million per year. They also say its construction will create 1,000 new jobs.

Bill Eddy, a local Episcopal priest, has been a vocal supporter and founder of the 3,500-member Clean Power Now, which supports the project as strongly as the Alliance opposes it. “The wind farm could contribute 75 percent of our electrical needs and have a noticeable and positive impact on our electricity costs for the life of the project,” says the gray-haired Eddy in a booming, pulpit-friendly voice. He also thinks the wind project will improve Cape Cod’s surprisingly bad air quality (it’s 50 percent worse than Boston’s, Eddy says).

Eddy built his own first wind generator in 1976, to celebrate the national Bicentennial. A wind farm on Nantucket Sound, he says, “represents a compelling vision for our future.” He quotes King Solomon from the Bible’s Book of Proverbs, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Eddy feels betrayed by America’s national leaders, who talk about the need for energy independence, but then refuse to take a stand in supporting key projects. “Sometimes I think they’d rather see Arlington National Cemetery expanded with a thousand new markers for young men who died fighting to protect our oil supply than to have to endure the sight of wind turbines producing clean energy off Cape Cod,” he says.

When E visited, the unassuming Mark Rodgers, a spokesperson for Cape Wind, was combative about the well-organized opposition. “The Alliance approach has created a lot of unnecessary fears,” he says. “They’ve dramatically outspent us with incessant fear-mongering.” The Alliance’s spending has produced results, Rodgers admits. In 2002, 55 percent of Cape residents supported the project, but after two years of Alliance undermining the situation has reversed, and a Cape Cod Times poll shows 55 percent oppose the wind farm. (Rodgers points out, however, that the Times has vehemently opposed Cape Wind, and that its reporting on the poll failed to disclose the 20 percent who simply refused to answer the newspaper’s question.)

Rodgers says that alarmist wind opponents can point to grandiose proposals by the New York-based Winergy to construct as many as 2,000 turbines off the coasts of New England, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, ruining the view for millions. “They’ve gone up and down the coast and announced plans for wind farms everywhere,” Rodgers says. “It’s easy to send out press releases, but much harder to actually do the hard work of licensing wind farms. Their approach has created a lot of unnecessary concern.” Dennis Quaranta, whose experience comes from developing a fish farm in Long Island Sound’s Gardner Bay, says that Winergy doesn’t plan to operate wind farms, but will bring in management teams after it obtains the necessary permits. But it’s unclear if any of the company’s projects have moved very far.

Rodgers believes the release of the Cape Wind EIS will pave the way for the wind farm to begin construction in 2007. “The document, put together by the Army Corps with input from other agencies, shows that there are compelling public interest benefits from this clean energy project,” he says. But a lot of wind will be blown before then. Both supporters and opponents of Cape Wind make comparisons to the Horns Reef wind farm off Denmark’s west coast. There are indeed many similarities. The projects are of comparable size (though Cape Wind will be larger), and both are in parts of the country heavily used by recreational visitors. But two years after Denmark’s turbines started generating power, the controversy has died down. Despite the Alliance’s determined efforts to make Horns Reef appear to be a disaster, it has been woven into the fabric of a nation firmly committed to wind power.

[halva]

Denmark: Running With the Wind

On a fast train ride across Denmark from east to west, passengers get used to the sight of rows of tall white Vestas wind turbines turning slowly in the ever-present breeze. The Danes pioneered wind energy development dating back to the pioneer and inventor Poul la Cour in the 1890s. A Danish engineer, Johannes Juul, was the first to connect a wind turbine with an AC generator to the electrical grid. Denmark-based companies also helped spark the modern wind movement in the 1970s. In 2003, Danish manufacturers had nearly 40 percent of the world turbine market, which grows at the astounding rate of 20 percent per year. Ninety percent of the turbines manufactured in the country go for export. Wind is the third-largest contributor to the Danish economy, after pharmaceuticals and Lego blocks, and provides 20,000 jobs in all of its dimensions. Denmark itself has 3,100 megawatts of installed wind power, but that figure will undoubtedly be outmoded by the time this article goes to press.

Denmark is a small country, with just 5.4 million people, but it is a mighty force in the wind industry. Just one industrial giant, Vestas (which recently merged with its largest competitor, NEG Micron) has 35 percent of the international market and employs 8,500 people. Its turbines are being installed all over Europe (including largest customer Germany, as well as Spain, Great Britain, Portugal and Greece), Canada, Australia and many other countries. When tax incentives are in place, the U.S. is also a large-scale Vestas customer.

Blavand is a beachside resort town at Denmark’s western tip, a summer mecca for hordes of German tourists who rent the colorful thatched-roof summer houses that line the dunes. On a blustery but sunny afternoon in October, they thronged the town’s main shopping street and made pilgrimages to the top of its 100-year-old lighthouse.

The 120-foot lighthouse, with its 170 worn wooden steps, is a great vantage point for birders who come to see grebes, gannets, skuas and the occasional shearwater or storm petrel on their migratory route through Scandinavia. But it’s also the best place to see one of the world’s largest offshore wind farms, Horns Reef.

Unfortunately, on cloudy days there’s not much to see: The wind farm includes 80 two-megawatt turbines, located 8.5 to 12 miles out in the North Sea, and from a beach littered with German World War II military bunkers it’s an indistinct cluster of what appear to be toothpicks sticking out of the water. As Bill Eddy (who accompanied a Cape Cod delegation to Blavand) has observed, it “occupies only a small portion of the horizon, perhaps 20 degrees….Horns Reef is smaller than I thought.”

Jan Toftdal of the Danish Tourist Board, who escorts visiting journalists around his picturesque region, admits that the wind farm was controversial when first proposed. The project went forward without much local input, he says, and there was some concern it would wreck the tourist-dependent economy.

“But now people are very accepting,” says Toftdal, who has visited Cape Cod as a guest of Cape Wind supporters. “We have not seen one single tourist saying anything negative about it. There was recently a survey of people on the beach, and the most common response was ‘What wind farm?’ They just don’t even see it.”

The Cape-based Alliance has tried to spin this in another direction, touting the views of “economic expert” Chresten Andersen, who told Massachusetts audiences that it is “widely known” in Denmark that wind farms are undesirable neighbors. But that would appear to be contradicted by the facts on the ground in Blavand, where the tourist economy is booming and housing prices are rising.

In her office in downtown Copenhagen, decorated by a scale model of a Vestas turbine, Hanne Jersild of the Danish Wind Energy Association shakes her head when asked about declining property values. “There is simply no analysis to show an impact,” she says. “When Horns Reef was built two years ago, there was talk about it, but the opposition has melted away.” Now, she says, Horns Reef will be considerably expanded with another 200 megawatts of wind power within two years. Thanks in part to a “depowering” scheme that makes it advantageous to replace older, less-productive turbines with more efficient models, Denmark is likely to increase its wind capacity so that it can meet 25 percent of the country’s energy needs by 2008. The Wind Energy Association’s goal is 35 percent of national needs by 2015.

In place of fear, there is now mostly optimism about this expanding industry, particularly in an environmentally conscious country where 20 percent of all travel is by bicycle. “The development of the wind industry here has been very rapid in the last 15 years,” says Jersild. “China is a big potential market for us, and we have large markets already in Germany, Spain and Great Britain.” Denmark is becoming something of a specialist in offshore wind development. “The marine environment is challenging, because of greater construction costs for the foundations, and wear and tear on the equipment, but offshore wind turbines are more productive,” Jersild says. Thanks to more persistent wind, “an offshore turbine typically produces some 30 to 40 percent more energy per kilowatt than an onshore turbine.”

Peter Helmer Steen is associate director of Energistyrelsen, the Danish energy ministry, and he says the government has encouraged investment in wind research since the 1970s. The idea from the beginning, he says, was that local ownership of wind turbines should be encouraged, “so that you don’t have windmills in Jutland owned by investors in Copenhagen. We recognized that people who are part-owners would be more willing to accept the noise and changes to the landscape.” More than 100,000 Danish families are members of wind energy cooperatives, which have installed 86 percent of the country’s turbines.

Denmark is an energy exporter, with the capacity to produce 170 percent of its domestic needs. It sells North Sea oil on the world market, surplus electricity to the Scandinavian countries (as much as 50 percent of production, says Steen) and natural gas to Sweden. Many of Denmark’s existing power plants are coal-fired (with coal imported principally from South Africa), but the approximately 35 percent of the grid dependent on coal is offset by 27 percent from renewables (largely wind power, but also including biomass and electricity from organic waste).

In addition to wind power, there are plants creating electricity from biomass and straw, and an efficient cogeneration system that distributes waste heat from power generation and incinerators to warm more than 300,000 homes in Copenhagen alone. Denmark hopes to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint 21 percent, in part through a carbon dioxide emissions trading system that begins this year. “Perhaps Denmark could be a model for the rest of the world in meeting the Kyoto climate goals,” says Steen.

Can Denmark really meet 35 percent of its energy needs with wind by 2015? “It depends on how rapidly we develop commercial offshore wind farms,” says Steen. “We want to see more competition for the contract to deliver large-scale, 250-megawatt wind farms. Production costs are decreasing rapidly [a 75 percent reduction between 1973 and 2003], so it may be feasible.”

For his part, Vestas CEO Svend Sigaard says that for the last dozen years wind power has been surpassing the annual 20 percent growth rate internationally, achieving nearly 35 percent growth. He admits the U.S. market has been “quite low” because of the absence of tax credits, and that most current North American Vestas projects are in Canada. “The U.S. market over the last six years has been very on and off,” Sigaard says, “and it’s difficult to plan for the fluctuations in the regulations. But 2005 will be a better year for us in the U.S.”

Vestas has had some setbacks at Horns Reef, due to manufacturing errors in transformers and other equipment (not built by Vestas) that have needed on-land repairs. “We’ve learned quite a lot from the experience,” says Sigaard, who is cautiously optimistic about the 35-percent-by-2015 figure. “It’s certainly possible, considering the ongoing replacement of our smaller turbines and the 1,000 megawatts in offshore projects that are under development,” he says.

Not all of Denmark’s offshore wind farms (it has eight) are in remote locations. The Middelgrunden project, capable of producing 100,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year, is located just outside Copenhagen harbor, and consists of 20 two-megawatt turbines arrayed in a two-mile arc. Far from a visual blight, it’s actually hard to see at all unless you find a rare high vantage point in this low-rise city. But when you finally do get a look at it, the white towers topped by gently spinning propeller-like blades present a visual picture of environmental progress.

[halva]

Objecting to Wind

Like public transit, which is plagued by self-appointed “experts” who try and stop every proposed project, wind power has opponents like Glenn Schleede, a former senior vice president of the National Coal Association. His mantra: Wind power equals huge machines producing very little electricity. Wind advocates, he says, greatly underestimate “the true cost of wind energy, as well as the adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts.”

But the American Wind Energy Association answers him point by point. “The cost of electricity from new wind plants is competitive with the cost of new conventional power plants, when the federal wind energy production tax credit is taken into account,” the association says. “It is true that few wind plants would be built without this incentive. But it is also true that the traditional energy industries [including nuclear and coal] are generously subsidized in a variety of ways.”

Do wind farms affect property values? Not according to a 2003 study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP). The group gathered a large database and examined more than 25,000 property transactions. “If there were any systematic harm to property values from wind power projects, it would have shown up in the data,” says REPP Research Director George Sterzinger. In the majority of transactions, property values actually rose in the period studied.

The libertarian Cato Institute complains that wind power is “not cheap and not green.” It charges that renewable energy is, on average, twice as expensive as “the most economical fossil-fuel alternative,” meaning dirty coal. But such estimates fail to take into account the cost of health effects caused by polluted air and global warming.

Another charge is that wind power is intermittent, and therefore not as dependable as fossil-fuel energy. In California, says Cato, wind power operated at only 23 percent of its average capacity factor. Cato compares that to nuclear power, with a 75 percent average capacity factor. But to make wind energy appear inefficient it’s necessary, again, to ignore the external costs of nuclear power production—including storing nuclear waste and protecting nuclear plants from 9/11-style attacks. Pacific Gas and Electric forecast in the early 1990s that wind could ultimately become the least-expensive electricity generation source. The cost of wind energy is also dropping faster than the cost of conventional generation, AWEA says, about 15 percent with each doubling of installed capacity worldwide.

Wind opponents, when they’re not creating facsimiles of how bad offshore wind projects will look, point to the fact that birds collide with wind turbines. This is indeed tragic, but cell towers and other obstacles are a large part of the problem. A Western EcoSystems Technology report points out that as many as a billion birds are killed by collisions with manmade structures annually in the U.S. alone.

Although as many as 40,000 birds die annually after hitting windmills, and that’s a significant number, some 60 to 80 million die from colliding with vehicles, and as many as 980 million from hitting buildings and windows. Communications towers take out four to 50 million birds a year, and power lines kill many thousands more. The Exxon Valdez oil spill killed an estimated 375,000 to 500,000 birds. Further, newer, slow-moving turbines “are designed to provide little perching and no nesting structure,” the report says, reducing bird proximity.

The Center for Biological Diversity says that wind turbines at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in California, which is located on a major bird migratory route with high raptor density, “kill more birds of prey than any other wind facility in North America.” Estimates range from 800 to 1,300 raptor deaths annually. But even the litigation-prone Center isn’t proposing to shut Altamount down. Instead, it proposes that “turbine owners take reasonable measures to reduce bird kills and adequately compensate for impacts to imperiled bird populations.”

Altamont was installed in the early 1980s, and wind developers have since become considerably more bird-friendly, designing less-lethal turbines using repellant devices and colors, and placing them away from migratory routes.

Also of concern is the issue of bat collisions with wind turbines, a phenomenon that has not received sufficient study. A 2003 report based on observations at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area in Minnesota (354 turbines operated by Xcel Energy) concluded that 849 bats were killed in 2001 and 364 in 2002, for an average of 2.16 per turbine per year.

[halva]

Wind-Generated Hydrogen?

Can zero-emission wind power be used to produce hydrogen for fuel cells as part of a completely clean energy loop? There’s some evidence that it can.

According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the Bush administration’s plans to use nuclear power to generate hydrogen are off base, and wind power presents a better option. “Electricity from wind is currently four cents per kilowatt-hour,” the group says. “This is a verifiable, experienced cost. Wind energy and photovoltaic systems coupled to electrolyzers used for hydrogen separation are perhaps the most versatile of the approaches and are likely to be the major hydrogen producers of the future.” Princeton researcher Joan Ogden, a booster of solar and wind-based hydrogen, adds that nuclear hydrogen is dependent on “difficult technology that is much further from commercialization than many other hydrogen-production options.”

There are, however, certainly realistic obstacles to overcome before wind-based hydrogen can become a reality. A report by Science for Democratic Action concluded that “there are no real cost advantages to integrating fuel cells into the electricity system on a large scale.” Bill Leighty, director of the Leighty Foundation in Juneau, Alaska, has some sobering second thoughts on the idea of transmitting large amounts of wind-generated electricity via a hydrogen pipeline from North Dakota, for example, to Chicago, a possibility examined in a study underwritten by his foundation.

“Hydrogen transmission does not appear to offer an economically attractive alternative to gigawatt-scale transmission of Great Plains wind energy via high-voltage [electric lines] because of the extra costs of conversion from electric to hydrogen energy at the Great Plains source,” said a key sentence in Leighty’s paper. “Capital, operations and maintenance, and energy conversion loss costs are significant, though energy storage as compressed hydrogen gas in the pipeline is a valuable benefit.”

Leighty says wind-generated hydrogen is dependent on what the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter describes as “the emergence of a large market for pure hydrogen…for [fuel-cell-based] transportation and for distributed generation.”

But what if that market does develop? Claus Moller of the Danish Wind Energy Association says that the concept of hydrogen from wind is being actively pursued in Denmark, with small-scale demonstration projects and long-term feasibility studies underway in research institutes. If economics of scale come into play to dramatically reduce the cost of wind-powered hydrogen electrolyzers, reports a paper by Harry Braun of the Hydrogen Political Action Committee posted on EV World, then electricity could be generated at a cost of one cent per kilowatt-hour, resulting in liquid hydrogen produced for the same cost as gasoline at $1.95 a gallon.

Braun calls for 12 million wind systems to be mass-produced and installed within 24 months and coupled to an interstate hydrogen pipeline. “It is possible for the U.S. to be energy independent, with a pollution-free and inexhaustible energy resource within five to 10 years,” he says.

The Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown offers a plausible scenario for wind-based hydrogen. “Surplus wind power can be stored as hydrogen and used in fuel cells or gas turbines to generate electricity, leveling supply when winds are variable,” says Brown. “Wind, once seen as a cornerstone of the new energy economy, may turn out to be its foundation. The wind meteorologist who analyzes wind regimes and identifies the best sites for wind farms will play a role in the new energy economy comparable to that of the petroleum geologist in the old energy economy.

“With the advancing technologies for harnessing wind and powering motor vehicles with hydrogen, we can now see a future where farmers and ranchers can supply not only much of the country’s electricity, but much of the hydrogen to fuel its fleet of automobiles as well. For the first time, the United States has the technology and resources to divorce itself from Middle Eastern oil.”

An Unlimited Future

As the fastest-growing source of energy in the world, with the fewest long-term drawbacks, wind power would seem to have an unlimited future. Lester Brown describes wind power as “the missing link in the Bush energy plan.” Bush has called for the addition of 393,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity by 2020, and he’s proposed financial aid to businesses that construct new nuclear power plants, as well as streamlined plant licensing. But no nuclear plant has been ordered in 30 years, and mammoth financial incentives may not be enough to offset the huge waste and liability questions.

But Bush’s generating goals could be reached with wind power alone. Just three Great Plains states—North Dakota, Kansas and Texas—have enough wind potential to meet America’s entire energy needs. Farmers and ranchers support wind projects because of the financial boon that comes with leasing their land. Wind projects completed just in 2003 will generate $5 million annually in payments.

Wind energy designers are starting to think big. A project called Rolling Thunder, in South Dakota near the Iowa border, would generate 3,000 megawatts when it comes online in 2006, making it five times larger than any previous wind farm and one of the largest energy developments in the world today. At the same time, the federal Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) says it will buy 830 megawatts of wind power from seven plants—five to be built in Washington and two in Oregon. Already the nation’s biggest supplier of hydroelectric power, BPA will be the largest wind energy supplier.

The pieces are in place for a massive expansion of wind resources worldwide at a time when concern about oil supply and location is proving to be massively troubling. All the signs are positive, but will wind power achieve its true potential? The answer, of course, is blowing in the wind.

JIM MOTAVALLI is editor of E.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva states:

"Jim indicates here that mitigation policies are reducing the effects of global warming. "
=========
Yes, It is a very simple equation. The ocean's surface plankton are the largest of the CO-2 converters and when one keeps the acid rain off the oceans more, this works better. And when the atmosphere is wetting down more due to higher air temps, then more water is suspended which can be catalytically encouraged to make lots of white reflective clouds using jet planes to return IR heat back into space.

The question over does a mitigation exist is just as simple as looking at the literally thousands of photos of jets making lots of clouds all around the globe daily. Lots of flights means lots of thin lines that turn into huge amounts of IR reflective cloud cover, leading to acid rains over landmasses.




"But since officially this mitigation is not occurring, the 'success' of mitigation only serves to strengthen the voice of the anthropogenic climate change debunkers."
======
The better question on the debunkers motives appears to be one of attempting to have the Christian dominate populus of the US not to begin to connect the dots on the strange weather, increased illness, and so on be associated with Revelations. And especially not the Jewish terminal event. (Jewish terminal event=Jesus revelation prophecy)

[The "Jewish terminal event" becomes real with the Russian and Chinese communist states, who are aware of the problems of the Jewish religion in attempting to control and take over other countries like the US, as they notice their economies and states being harmed by these scamming and attempts damaging world peace and they are not afraid of a nuclear shoot out on the 33rd parallel near the Mediterranean. These other states well see that the Jews and Isreal had a plan to have the Christians kill the Arabs, as Israel considers both their enemies, and make a killing in profits over the sham.]

Because, then the run away profits games of the GOP will suddenly be noted and lots of questions begin.

Questions about matters like Israel and the Jewish religion being shown to be a rather bogus set of concepts.

What hinges on this is a major paradigm shift in the awareness of religion and sciences.




"The assertion that mitigation is not occurring strengthens the credibility of those who say there was no problem in the first place. "
=========

And where are these voices coming from here:

1 Mason-Jew is a very noisy one----motive appears to avoid public awareness on the Jew terminal events of Revelations.

2 Oil industry type with knowledge of organic gardening is another----where we know that acid rain effects upset the metals in the food chain and increase the levels of the poison fluoride.

3. Several other Mason types---motives connected to New World Ownership. These have the misleading concepts for God.


The futile attempts of varied interests to dismiss that there are measurable global warming factors, especially over the poles due to concentration mechanisms there, and the very obvious jet trails all show up their motivations for dismissive propaganda. Try they will to dismiss what is simple and obvious to even simple farmers and the common man, the facts are that it is real, it is about liability for energy industries, and GOP oriented profit systems, and the JTE.


IMHO,
is

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215117

Unfortunately, Shadow, I am no more persuaded of the likelihood that Arianna will kick Yaak or the others off this thread than I am that the FBI will punish Raynolds for accusing Jim Phelps of shining lasers at aircraft.
Unfortunately, Halva, I have not once mentioned Arianna. ImageShack (http://www.imageshack.us/) is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display. Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited. At http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213966, I attempted to warn Yaakass that his infractions had not gone unnoticed. Instead of being grateful, he chose to accuse me of issuing threats. Oh, well...

As for the willful filing of false criminal complaints against another person, it is a punishable offense. Victims routinely succeed in collecting monetary damages from their accusers in civil court. Depending on the nature and severity of said allegations, criminal charges may also be filed by the injured party. Life is rough.

[halva]

Shadow I am not the one(s) you have to persuade, am I.

[halva]

The point I am trying to make is that the legality does not exist that could protect us from these creeps. We have to create it.

This conviction underlies everything I say and do here.

[halva]

If I'm wrong, show me that I'm wrong.

[The Shadow]

Never mind. I was not in disagreement with your assessment, as stated.

[stuart_allsop]

[FONT=Arial]
Unfortunately, Halva, I have not once mentioned Arianna. ImageShack (http://www.imageshack.us/) is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display. Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited. At http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213966, I attempted to warn Yaakass that his infractions had not gone unnoticed. Instead of being grateful, he chose to accuse me of issuing threats. Oh, well...How pathetically petty can you get!

Oh, and please do post a copy of the complaint you claim to have filed, plus a copy of the reply you got... if any.

[jayreynolds]

How pathetically petty can you get!
Oh, and please do post a copy of the complaint you claim to have filed, plus a copy of the reply you got... if any.
Diane Harvey didn't file anything.
Diane Harvey won't post anything.
This is what little girls do- "I'll tell the teacher!" "My daddy will sue you."
Petty and childish, yes.
Heard that sort of stuff when I was a child at school, coming from the rich kids.
But what more can an anonymous, discredited nutcase spoiled- brat
do? Shows you exactly how impotent such people are.

[halva]

To Shadow:
It seems we have a kind of balancing act to maintain here. I would really like this thread just to be a climate change notice board but obviously you and other non-debunkers have got different ideas about what we're doing here.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215178



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215129

Unfortunately, Halva, I have not once mentioned Arianna. ImageShack (http://www.imageshack.us/) is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display. Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited. At http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213966, I attempted to warn Yaakass that his infractions had not gone unnoticed. Instead of being grateful, he chose to accuse me of issuing threats. Oh, well...

As for the willful filing of false criminal complaints against another person, it is a punishable offense. Victims routinely succeed in collecting monetary damages from their accusers in civil court. Depending on the nature and severity of said allegations, criminal charges may also be filed by the injured party. Life is rough.
How pathetically petty can you get!
You tell me. I have simply been following your lead, as you seem to have very few difficulties in that department. In fact, everything I know regarding treachery I have learned from you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Snell, and a little bit from whitemajikmushroom. What a crybaby you are, Mr. “Christian!”




Oh, and please do post a copy of the complaint you claim to have filed, plus a copy of the reply you got... if any.
Nice try, Mr. Allslop. As I do not intend to reveal my entire hand, I will compromise by revealing a copy of the interim reply. We all will have to wait for the actual outcome, if any. Even I am not holding my breath. If that is not good enough for you, I will not lose any sleep.

X-Apparently-To: (email address withheld) via (IP address withheld); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:08:53 -0800
Authentication-Results: mta123.mail.sc5.yahoo.com from=imageshack.us; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
X-Originating-IP: [69.93.137.202]
Return-Path: <macbeth@imageshack.us>
Received: from 69.93.137.202 (EHLO imageshack.us) (69.93.137.202) by mta123.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:08:53 -0800
Received: from nobody by imageshack.us with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CmWQ9-0006cq-Gy for (email address withheld); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:07:17 -0800
To: (email address withheld)
Subject: Request - TOS Violations by Ed Snell
From: "ImageShack Support" <macbeth@imageshack.us>
Message-Id: <E1CmWQ9-0006cq-Gy@imageshack.us>
Content-Length: 1051

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request - TOS Violations by Ed Snell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, (name withheld), for submitting Request to ImageShack.

Your email will be answered in the order that it was received.

While you wait, please visit our Forums at
http://reg.imageshack.us/forums/
to see if your question is answered there.

You can also rate our Image Hosting service here:
http://img1.imageshack.us/rateimage.php

as well as see what others think of ImageShack here:
http://www.free-webhosts.com/image-hosting/ImageShack/

[gaiacomm]

So tell me, Gaia, why would this secret "committee" be hiding the evidence that they need so desperately to prove their point? (BECAUSE FOR ONE IT WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN)Oh give me a break! Was that the best you could come up with? It doesn't even make sense! Have you not noticed how the eco-kooks are doing their best to scaremonger the world into agreeing with their hoax, by inventing really frightening secnarios about the ocean wiping out all coastal cities, even hundreds of miles inland? About melting polar ice caps, huge global storms, doomed agricultural crops, deserts advancing over forests, the extinction of mankind, and all the rest of it? With all of these incredibly horrific (and totally wrong) predictions, how can you possibly say that the release of a report that vaguely provides some link between man and global warming? There just isn't anything that could be more frightening the the ridiculous pictures of global destuction already painted by the kooks. How much more frightening than "We are all going to die in agony" can you get? Sheesh! I thought you could be alitle more inventive than THAT, lance, after the wonderful scam job you did for Gaia-con International!

I mean, things are starting to fall apart pretty badly for the eco-kooks who are trying to shore up the crumbling anthropological global warming arguement, so how come they haven't released this secret study, when they need it so badly?[/i ( BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY INVESTED AND DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH TO LOSE)Boy, you really ARE scraping the bopttom of tha barrel, aren't you! What kind of lame excuse is that? We are talking about the eco-kooks, remember? They have already stashed away MOUNTAINS of your tax money, and now they want more. How can you say that they enough money?

[i] Politicians want it, since the "Global Warming" bandwagon gives them power.( THAT IS THE CON)No Gaia is the con!

Dishonest scientists want it, since it gives them research dollars.(YES) The media wants it, since it sells circulation and ratings.(YES) The public wants it, becuase it is something else to go "Ooooh!: and "Ahhhh!" about.(YES) Conspiracy kooks want it, because it gives them their does of ego boost that they need so badly. (YES) EVERYBODY wants it. So how come nobody is showing it? ( BECAUSE THEY CAN'T)Right! Becuase it doesn't exist!

Nice try, but you are way off form tonight, Lance. You need to get a stronger version of your favorite puff, because the one you are using right now just isn't sending you into those wild orbits of esoteric lunacy that we are so used to seeing.

I gave you my honest opinion. As for Gaiacomm International that is left to be seen!

Why not tell me what you thought of the great speech of a Hollywood writer former MD so we can tear it apart>?

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215215



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215178

How pathetically petty can you get!

Oh, and please do post a copy of the complaint you claim to have filed, plus a copy of the reply you got... if any.
Diane Harvey didn't file anything.
Diane Harvey won't post anything.
Finally, we have been blessed with a bit of truth from Jayhole! You are absolutely correct! Diane Harvey did not file or post anything! But I did! It is obvious to everyone that it is driving you absolutely insane (not that you are not already) because you have failed to determine my true identity. You can thank yourself and your penchant for stalking and harassing your prey that I choose to remain anonymous. It is really for your own safety.



This is what little girls do- "I'll tell the teacher!" "My daddy will sue you."
Petty and childish, yes.
Heard that sort of stuff when I was a child at school, coming from the rich kids.
But what more can an anonymous, discredited nutcase spoiled- brat
do? Shows you exactly how impotent such people are.
You should know and I seriously doubt that you simply “heard that sort of stuff.” While you may not be anonymous, this little rant perfectly describes your MO. With that and your overall evil nature in mind, perhaps if you had any brains, you would be using a pseudonym.

The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the heart, mind, body, and soul of Jay Reynolds...

[Insurrectionchemistry]

A hearty round of Applause seems in order.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

The legend of Toto---the watchdog.

We have all seen the movie called "The Wizard of Oz" and many of intellect seen the imagery of the Yellow Brick Road to that of seeking wealth and power.

The Yellow Brick Road lead to the Great Wizzard of Oz, who was nothing more than a little man with a control room behind a little curtain that a little dog named Toto exposed. The little man contrived a great tale of fear woe and money for the control and exploitation of others.


In the end, the only realities were the girl awakened from her dream and what was real was her dogs simple powers, a tonado in Kansas, and an awakening that showed the pitfalls of those attempting to follow only yellow brick pathways.


We have a remake of the age old story here with several new wizzard half-wit little men, and we have the awakening of the masses to the games that have been waged against them in the name of wealth and power.

We even have a nice high walled mid-evil appearing castle here in the US where all great wizzards tend to stay. A nice prison in Kansas for those that attempt treason and religion hate crimes against the US citizens.

All it takes is one Toto.

How embarrasing these three/four nasty wizzards can't hide from one little shitsu.

So, we're off to jail the wizzards, the wonderful wizzards of Oz. If ever a wiz, a wiz there was.....

IMHO,
is

[gaiacomm]

Hello! Is there anybody out there?

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Hello! Is there anybody out there?
===

Just a munchkin or so, and some wizzards. What about you?

[stuart_allsop]

A hearty round of Applause seems in order.Why, thank you! That is so very kind of you! I appreciate your gesture... :)

[gaiacomm]

Hello! Is there anybody out there?
===

Just a munchkin or so, and some wizzards. What about you?

Still here...

[halva]

We have all seen the movie called "The Wizard of Oz" and many of intellect seen the imagery of the Yellow Brick Road to that of seeking wealth and power.


This American children's story is very apposite to our times.

But while we are waiting for Toto, or Godot, or whatever, there is a simple solution already available and that is the ignore-list button.

How can I persuade, e.g. Shadow, to opt for it as an alternative to tedious petitioning?

[gaiacomm]

Why, thank you! That is so very kind of you! I appreciate your gesture... :)


I see you have been busy:

There is a rather unpleasant person posting on one of the longest running threads ever on Arianna (" It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature", currently running 491 pages), This individual goes by the handle "The Shadow", and seems to be making it a habit to openly threaten other posters, and to indulge in totally uncalled for personal attacks and foul language, clearly violating Arianna's Terms of Service. Here is a recent sample posted by The Shadow, in reply to another poster who commented on Shadow's threatening behavior with an amusing animated gif: "As far as I am concerned, you can stick that corkscrew up your ass and give it a few twists, but be careful to avoid scraping your cerebral cortex."

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...st.php?p=213966

What can be done about this person?


Here are some more samples of the extremely offensive and threatening posts made by this individual:

"Not that I would suggest such a thing, but the only sure cure for the disease that is Jay Reynolds is a bullet to the head..." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...7691#post177691

"The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. However, the acute malevolence that is buried in the dark recesses of Mr. Reynolds? twisted mind is painfully obvious" http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...8442#post178442

"whitemajikmarker, you have some nerve posing as anything besides the blithering idiot that you obviously are." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...2665#post182665

"With those glowing red eyes, Mr. Reynolds, you would certainly drop dead or turn to stone in the presence God. Then again, I doubt that you will ever have the opportunity to find out." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...5692#post185692

"The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the heart of Jay Reynolds. For one thing, if you are a Christian, then so is Osama Bin Laden." ... "the malevolence that visibly exudes from every fiber of your being is reason enough for any rational person to dismiss as ?Vioxx? anything you may have to offer." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...4318#post194318

In one place, the Shadow even went so far as to accuse a poster of having murdered someone: "Perhaps it would ease your soul to get off your chest the burden of your involvement in the death of William Cooper. You stuck to him like glue, did you not, Mr. Reynolds? Through thick and thin, you surely did your best to try showing him the way out... ALL the way out..." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...4318#post194318 and also " I am certain that Mr. Cooper must have trusted you with his life. For that error in judgment, he evidently paid the ultimate price. ... Beware, Mr. Reynolds. The wages of crime bear bitter fruit. You will know this firsthand as you one day draw your last breath." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...5581#post205581

To be honest, in reviewing all the posts made by this individual, I have just noticed this person has not contributed anything at all to the actual discussion (global warming) on the thread, and instead seems to be using it exclusively as a forum to attack others, especially this "Mr. Reynolds", in the most vile and offensive manner.

We really do not need this type of poster messing with our fascinating and occasionally heated discussion. It serves no purpose other than to interrupt, confuse, and cast unwelcome darks shadows on the thread.

What can be done to remove this person?

[jayreynolds]

In fact, everything I know regarding treachery I have learned from you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Snell, and a little bit from whitemajikmushroom.

I think Lisa Giuliani would beg to differ with you, Diane "The Beloved" Harvey!
You are a well known agent of treachery all by yourself, sweetie!

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UIQ94mQBKTQJ:www.freeworldalliance. org/newsflash/2002/02newsflash1419.htm+%22diane+harvey%22+bitch&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[whitemajikman]

Allow me to interject your interjection, boy. You have no power whatsoever over what I say or do here – not by any stretch of your feeble imagination. You are a nobody.

Rest assured that I do not make threats. However, I do keep my promises. Since I have filed a well-documented formal complaint against Mr. Snell, I suppose we all will now just have to wait and see whether or not ImageShack enforces its Terms and Agreements.

I strongly advise you to dispense with your childish threats unless you are prepared to carry them out. From my vantage point, you appear rather impotent.

Take some friendly advice and quit acting like a thug. The perceived power that you possess obviously corrupts.

You are absolutely right I am a Nobody.......and thats just how I like it.........In fact I have worked hard at being a Nobody,...........Anonymity is Bliss...........

Advise all you like Shadow..........

But what truly is Impotent is your Rebuttal......

and may I point out .......

You have some Nerve talking about Corruption, Corruption is Wayne Hall,Jim Phelps,Gaiacomm,Deborah Stark,and of course your little net persona.....THE SHADOW........

Trying desperately to propagate a Hoax.......

We can talk about the Politics of this Group of corrupted individuals.......

From The Nazi Green Party to Commie Liberals to the delusional and mentally unstable which Jim Best represents........

We have uncovered ....their Agenda.......Or more Accurately they have themselves let the proverbial cat out of the bag........

Which Is TO Promote Manmade Global Warming at any cost through the use of PROPAGANDA and Scare Tactics..........In the hopes of effecting Policymaking decisions by Subverting the Reader with Deception,and in many cases out and out lies.......

Most of if not all of these Individuals are also Chemtrail Cult Members whom failed miserably propagating that Hoax because of the fine work done by J.R. ,Stuart,Ed,Myself and many others........

So Shadow why should this time be any different.....?

Lets put this into perspective.......

You have chosen your Path......And we have Chosen ours..........

Your path is one of deception and scaremongering to realize your agenda......

Ours is to make sure the Truth is not lost and in the end Prevails........

Now please explain to me how the Pursuit of Truth is a corruption......?

Also explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion that you and your partners in thought crime here are not corrupted.......?

Me Thinks the Shadow needs to Ponder this a little while without pride and emotion getting involved.......

In other words ......

You and your partners in Thought Crime have lost this thread to the TRUTH..........

And each and everyday you continue on this thread, will be a another day of the BLINDING LIGHT OF TRUTH.......in your faces......

But Don't take my word for it......I am after all a Nobody........

All you have to do is stick around.........

And See for yourself HOW POTENT THE TRUTH REALLY IS..................

WMM

[whitemajikman]

The legend of Toto---the watchdog.

We have all seen the movie called "The Wizard of Oz" and many of intellect seen the imagery of the Yellow Brick Road to that of seeking wealth and power.

The Yellow Brick Road lead to the Great Wizzard of Oz, who was nothing more than a little man with a control room behind a little curtain that a little dog named Toto exposed. The little man contrived a great tale of fear woe and money for the control and exploitation of others.


In the end, the only realities were the girl awakened from her dream and what was real was her dogs simple powers, a tonado in Kansas, and an awakening that showed the pitfalls of those attempting to follow only yellow brick pathways.


We have a remake of the age old story here with several new wizzard half-wit little men, and we have the awakening of the masses to the games that have been waged against them in the name of wealth and power.

We even have a nice high walled mid-evil appearing castle here in the US where all great wizzards tend to stay. A nice prison in Kansas for those that attempt treason and religion hate crimes against the US citizens.

All it takes is one Toto.

How embarrasing these three/four nasty wizzards can't hide from one little shitsu.

So, we're off to jail the wizzards, the wonderful wizzards of Oz. If ever a wiz, a wiz there was.....

IMHO,
is


Good Luck on that Jimmy Boy.........

Your entire rant just proves how little you really do know about us...........

But give it a try......

Because if anything it should be quite the laugh......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

We have a remake of the age old story here with several new wizzard half-wit little men, and we have the awakening of the masses to the games that have been waged against them in the name of wealth and power.

Interesting, Jimbo, that you use Elitist/Communist terminology for The People.
To you they are just "masses". Cattle, sheep, meant for herding and slaughter.

Yet another reason why it is easy to see your megalomania.
Delusions of grandeur. A psychosis.

Jimbo, if you were for real, at least one organization would be behind you.
Since you're not, not one organization will call you it's own.
You do have Wayne Hall, if that's any consolation.
In his own mind, however, he has you only for his 'bitch', he own you, controls you, and uses you for- whatever.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Environmentalists tend to circle "beastly" things:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/c62_01.htm

IMHO,
is

[halva]

There is a rather unpleasant person posting on one of the longest running threads ever on Arianna (" It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature", currently running 491 pages), This individual goes by the handle "The Shadow".

What can be done to remove this person?

Nothing.

Any interesting dialogue that has gone on here (as far as I know) has not involved the debunkers at all. Surely the thing to point out to Shadow is that totally ignoring them upsets them and discourages them much more than abusing them or arguing with them. And we have the facility to do so very effectively. They are zeros. Treat them like zeros.

[whitemajikman]

Nothing.

Any interesting dialogue that has gone on here (as far as I know) has not involved the debunkers at all. Surely the thing to point out to Shadow is that totally ignoring them upsets them and discourages them much more than abusing them or arguing with them. And we have the facility to do so very effectively. They are zeros. Treat them like zeros.

You do not have the capacity to ignore.......

It's a pride Issue that you have exhibited.....repeatedly through-out this thread.......

And even if you did start up once again with your OSTRICH Impression......

May I remind you that all the post's that are posted here are visible to ALL.

Which basically makes you ignoring us ............A poorly thought out Gambit on your part.......

It will do little to rid yourselves of the TRUTH that we Represent.......

Except Maybe in your warped Communistic RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST.......Mind........

Wayne you should really ask Jimbo what his association to ELF is........?

And for you readers who don't know what ELF is......

Google EARTH LIBERATION FRONT............

To Find out what types of Individuals these poor excuses for human beings........have Stuped Too.......

Especially Wayne who needs to realize who his new best friend is associated with.......

And ask him why people resort to Eco-Terrorism..........?

Or ask Gaiacomm why he Promotes the GREEN NAZI PARTY..........?

OOPS I forgot Wayne wants to ignore and be an Ostrich.......

As long as he can control these individuals,and it serves his agenda..........

Wayne cares very little about morals and values.......and how he is in bed with these warped individuals........

Because in Waynes Mind.........He thinks he is in control.........

And his Agenda of deception is more important than recognizing who he has allied himself with........or what the consequences of this association will mean to his freedom in the future........

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Surely the thing to point out to Shadow is that totally ignoring them upsets them and discourages them much more than abusing them or arguing with them. And we have the facility to do so very effectively. They are zeros. Treat them like zeros.

Wayne, stop trying to kid people. Everybody knows you always read everything here, no mater how bad. You do a piss-poor job of trying to pretend you don't. Perhaps in some warped corner of your mind you might think that not admitting you are aware of what is really happening makes it NOT happen, but I most assuredly will tell you we post responses to all your people and that is a matter of record! The pages record everything we say and anyone who wishes to can see it, just like whitey says.

The fact of the matter is you look more foolish not responding than you would if you made a credible response. We walk all over you day after day, tearing you to pieces, whittling you down to size. It happens. The proof is written in these pages on a daily basis whether you choose to abdicate knowledge of it, or not. Either way, you are getting devoured.

The ostrich in the field is no less eaten if he refuses to acknowlege he has become food when all that's left is his head in the sand!

[Insurrectionchemistry]

I am not sure, but Jay Reynolds seems to be talking like a homosexual a lot here lately, so we must be in the middle of a bunch of queens here.

I think Halva is straight and is ignoring your come-ons. And the rest of straight guys too.

IMHO,
is

Go to the movies, you whack-O extremists, and butter your own:
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70002139&trkid=69621

[whitemajikman]

I am not sure, but Jay Reynolds seems to be talking like a homosexual a lot here lately, so we must be in the middle of a bunch of queens here.

I think Halva is straight and is ignoring your come-ons. And the rest of straight guys too.

IMHO,
is

Go to the movies, you whack-O extremists, and butter your own:
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70002139&trkid=69621

Now Jimmyboy decides to change his persona once more.........

And emulate his hero Fred Phelps.........another sick ,disgusting individual......

here is his website be forewarned though ...........it is graphic....and as anti-Christian as they come........


http://www.godhatesfags.com/ (http://)

WMM

[Bryce Rigthy]

Arianna Huffington has just written an article called 'The Pentagon Sounds the Alarm on Global Warming'. At the end of it she says: 'The Democratic nominee needs to remind the White House — and the American people: It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.'

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'.

To Americans like this, Arianna's remarks about fooling with Mother Nature may seem to be underrating their intelligence, or knowledge.

The geoengineering issue has now been addressed by the activists of ATTAC-Hellas in Greece, which is Arianna Huffington's native land also:

See
http://www.attac-hellas.org/seminars/geoengineering/programmeenglish.htm

Further information at:
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/Hall.htm

The genuinely grave situation of the planet should not become an excuse for manipulative danger-mongering and for acceptance of classification of climatic change as a 'national security' question, if this is going to mean a continuation of the dishonesty and lack of transparency with which the Pentagon has so far operated on this question, and characteristically operates on all questions.

It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'.

I would like to know more about this.

[whitemajikman]

I would like to know more about this.

Read the The Thread in it's entirety it will explain things,in great detail..........

WMM

[Bryce Rigthy]

Read the The Thread in it's entirety it will explain things,in great detail..........

WMM

That would take weeks! Cant anyone just boil it down to it's essence? I've seen shorter books!

[Yaak]

You tell me. I have simply been following your lead, as you seem to have very few difficulties in that department. In fact, everything I know regarding treachery I have learned from you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Snell, and a little bit from whitemajikmushroom. What a crybaby you are, Mr. “Christian!”



Nice try, Mr. Allslop. As I do not intend to reveal my entire hand, I will compromise by revealing a copy of the interim reply. We all will have to wait for the actual outcome, if any. Even I am not holding my breath. If that is not good enough for you, I will not lose any sleep.

X-Apparently-To: (email address withheld) via (IP address withheld); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:08:53 -0800
Authentication-Results: mta123.mail.sc5.yahoo.com from=imageshack.us; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
X-Originating-IP: [69.93.137.202]
Return-Path: <macbeth@imageshack.us>
Received: from 69.93.137.202 (EHLO imageshack.us) (69.93.137.202) by mta123.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:08:53 -0800
Received: from nobody by imageshack.us with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CmWQ9-0006cq-Gy for (email address withheld); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:07:17 -0800
To: (email address withheld)
Subject: Request - TOS Violations by Ed Snell
From: "ImageShack Support" <macbeth@imageshack.us>
Message-Id: <E1CmWQ9-0006cq-Gy@imageshack.us>
Content-Length: 1051

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request - TOS Violations by Ed Snell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, (name withheld), for submitting Request to ImageShack.

Your email will be answered in the order that it was received.

While you wait, please visit our Forums at
http://reg.imageshack.us/forums/
to see if your question is answered there.

You can also rate our Image Hosting service here:
http://img1.imageshack.us/rateimage.php

as well as see what others think of ImageShack here:
http://www.free-webhosts.com/image-hosting/ImageShack/ (http://www.free-webhosts.com/image-hosting/ImageShack/[/QUOTE)



Shadow:

“ImageShack is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display.”

I have several personal web sites. So what?

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

Shadow:

“Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited.”

You consider the following to be harassment, Shadow?

“You endured 25° F weather to take photographs?”





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

I think it’s time for a poll. Who is more insane: The Shadow or Jim Phelps? It will be a close one.

In alphabetical order, thank you Jay, Stuart and Whitemajikman for your support.

[Yaak]

I see you have been busy:

There is a rather unpleasant person posting on one of the longest running threads ever on Arianna (" It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature", currently running 491 pages), This individual goes by the handle "The Shadow", and seems to be making it a habit to openly threaten other posters, and to indulge in totally uncalled for personal attacks and foul language, clearly violating Arianna's Terms of Service. Here is a recent sample posted by The Shadow, in reply to another poster who commented on Shadow's threatening behavior with an amusing animated gif: "As far as I am concerned, you can stick that corkscrew up your ass and give it a few twists, but be careful to avoid scraping your cerebral cortex."

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...st.php?p=213966

What can be done about this person?


Here are some more samples of the extremely offensive and threatening posts made by this individual:

"Not that I would suggest such a thing, but the only sure cure for the disease that is Jay Reynolds is a bullet to the head..." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...7691#post177691

"The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. However, the acute malevolence that is buried in the dark recesses of Mr. Reynolds? twisted mind is painfully obvious" http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...8442#post178442

"whitemajikmarker, you have some nerve posing as anything besides the blithering idiot that you obviously are." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...2665#post182665

"With those glowing red eyes, Mr. Reynolds, you would certainly drop dead or turn to stone in the presence God. Then again, I doubt that you will ever have the opportunity to find out." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...5692#post185692

"The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the heart of Jay Reynolds. For one thing, if you are a Christian, then so is Osama Bin Laden." ... "the malevolence that visibly exudes from every fiber of your being is reason enough for any rational person to dismiss as ?Vioxx? anything you may have to offer." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...4318#post194318

In one place, the Shadow even went so far as to accuse a poster of having murdered someone: "Perhaps it would ease your soul to get off your chest the burden of your involvement in the death of William Cooper. You stuck to him like glue, did you not, Mr. Reynolds? Through thick and thin, you surely did your best to try showing him the way out... ALL the way out..." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...4318#post194318 and also " I am certain that Mr. Cooper must have trusted you with his life. For that error in judgment, he evidently paid the ultimate price. ... Beware, Mr. Reynolds. The wages of crime bear bitter fruit. You will know this firsthand as you one day draw your last breath." http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums...5581#post205581

To be honest, in reviewing all the posts made by this individual, I have just noticed this person has not contributed anything at all to the actual discussion (global warming) on the thread, and instead seems to be using it exclusively as a forum to attack others, especially this "Mr. Reynolds", in the most vile and offensive manner.

We really do not need this type of poster messing with our fascinating and occasionally heated discussion. It serves no purpose other than to interrupt, confuse, and cast unwelcome darks shadows on the thread.

What can be done to remove this person?

Thank you, gaiacomm for your insightful post.

Regarding The Shadow you said, “this person has not contributed anything at all to the actual discussion”
I noticed this, also.

You asked, “What can be done to remove this person?”
I see no need to remove anybody. The freedom of speech is a very precious freedom, and I would deny it to nobody.
The more that The Shadow is allowed to post, the clearer the image of the person casting The Shadow becomes. I find this process interesting and amusing, and degrading to that person.

[halva]

That would take weeks! Cant anyone just boil it down to it's essence? I've seen shorter books!

Try this for a start.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/r+z.html

But you are in the wrong place for discussing this issue. You will be driven crazy. The thread is infested with professional and/or amateur disinformationists and we have already surrendered to their pressures and stopped talking about chemtrails because 'we can't prove' anything.

'Chemtrails' activists (like Clifford Carnicom) who confine their efforts to trying to 'prove' things, relying on their 'right of free speech' and ignoring the element of politics, have been reduced to a very frustrated state of mind.

[Yaak]

That would take weeks! Cant anyone just boil it down to it's essence? I've seen shorter books!

Sure.

Left Wing politicians are trying to use the hoax of “man made global warming” to further their agenda of global socialism. Obviously, global warming exists, but it is mostly natural in origin.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Bryce Rigthy]

Try this for a start.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/r+z.html

But you are in the wrong place for discussing this issue. You will be driven crazy. The thread is infested with professional and/or amateur disinformationists and we have already surrendered to their pressures and stopped talking about chemtrails because 'we can't prove' anything.

'Chemtrails' activists (like Clifford Carnicom) who confine their efforts to trying to 'prove' things, ignoring the element of politics, have been reduced to a very frustrated state of mind.

Do you have any suggestions Jim Phelps?

Chem trails? What are these? I thought this thread was about geographic changes as a National Security issue. That's what the first post says, anyway.

[Yaak]

Try this for a start.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/r+z.html

But you are in the wrong place for discussing this issue. You will be driven crazy. The thread is infested with professional and/or amateur disinformationists and we have already surrendered to their pressures and stopped talking about chemtrails because 'we can't prove' anything.

'Chemtrails' activists (like Clifford Carnicom) who confine their efforts to trying to 'prove' things, ignoring the element of politics, have been reduced to a very frustrated state of mind.

Do you have any suggestions Jim Phelps?

Bryce, there are no such things as chemtrails. That is a kooks' hoax to sell books, videos and assorted crap. I do suggest that you read several of Jim Phelps', aka insurectionchemistry, posts and draw your own conclusion regarding his sanity. Look his web site over, particularly his bio.

[halva]

Chem trails? What are these? I thought this thread was about geographic changes as a National Security issue. That's what the first post says, anyway.

That was the subject of Arianna's article. My original posting was critical of the article from two viewpoints: firstly that Arianna was trying to get a free ride on the fear-mongering approach that the Pentagon was apparently using in relation to climate change as it does with everything else. Secondly that it she was leaving out of account (or was unaware) that 'fooling with Mother Nature' (geoengineering, chemtrails, etc.) is well and truly under way. That was when the first debunker intervention came to argue that 'you can't prove anything'.

What is it that you want to discuss, or that you want more information about?

Since making this posting nearly a year ago I have come to the conclusion that the mass politics issue is climate change and that chemtrails/geoengineering should be kept away from the pressures of mass politics except insofar as these pressures can be harnessed in the direction of action on climate change.

[Yaak]

That was the subject of Arianna's article. My original posting was critical of the article from two viewpoints: firstly that Arianna was trying to get a free ride on the fear-mongering approach that the Pentagon was apparently using in relation to climate change as it does with everything else. Secondly that it she was leaving out of account (or was unaware) that 'fooling with Mother Nature' (geoengineering, chemtrails, etc.) is well and truly under way. That was when the first debunker intervention came to argue that 'you can't prove anything'.

What is it that you want to discuss, or that you want more information about?

Since making this posting nearly a year ago I have come to the conclusion that the mass politics issue is climate change and that chemtrails/geoengineering should be kept away from the pressures of mass politics except insofar as these pressures can be harnessed in the direction of action on climate change.

Nothing of the such is underway! You are right: There is no proof. Not one shred of evidence. So why do you persist, Halva?

First Halva introduces the hoax of "man made global warming." Second, as if it will add credence to his first hoax, he introduces the hoax of "on going geo-engineering programs" to combat this first hoax. Simply put, one lie to cover another.

These hoaxes are supported on this thread by a barrage of cut-and-paste articles containing bad science, pseudo-science, social politics and out right lies, not to mention a healthy dose of science fiction Heinlein would be proud of.

On the other hand, Whitemajikman, has posted many articles by respected scientists that explain, in great detail, exactly what is occurring with Earth's weather and why.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215823

Shadow:

“ImageShack is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display.”

I have several personal web sites. So what?
Yaakass, you have an extreme attitude problem that has been visible on many boards long before I even started posting. In fact, it is one of the reasons I decided to get involved and start pitching back some of the bullshit from you and other self-proclaimed champions of justice. Please notice that I once again decreased your font size to more accurately reflect the relative importance of your content.

You are correct, though. So what if you have several personal web sites? I could not care less how much cyberspace you choose to hoard. How in hell did you manage to fabricate something offensive out of my description of the ImageShack(TM) services? Did I suggest that people who own web sites were prohibited from uploading there? ImageShack(TM)’s mission (http://www.imageshack.us/aboutus.php) “is to provide an excellent image hosting service to practically everyone. Sustained by our easy-to-use interface and powerful servers, ImageShack(TM) continues to be the original image hosting service of choice for the denizens of the Internet.” Now, why do you not send an email to them, and bitch at them for not extending to you a personal invitation?




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

Shadow:

“Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited.”

You consider the following to be harassment, Shadow?

“You endured 25° F weather to take photographs?”


I would ask you to not play stupid, but you really are as dumb as a pile of rocks, Yaakass. The next time, post your entire comments so as to not alter the context of your arguments. While your remarks at http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213729 were indeed intended to incite, the little graphic, by itself, was not particularly significant. As a matter of fact, it was not even part of the documentation that I delivered to ImageShack(TM). However, your conscience is certainly bothering you, as it should. Like your associates, you are devoid of personal honor. I will let you know as soon as I notice your uploads starting to disappear.

[gaiacomm]

Thank you, gaiacomm for your insightful post.

Regarding The Shadow you said, “this person has not contributed anything at all to the actual discussion”
I noticed this, also.

You asked, “What can be done to remove this person?”
I see no need to remove anybody. The freedom of speech is a very precious freedom, and I would deny it to nobody.
The more that The Shadow is allowed to post, the clearer the image of the person casting The Shadow becomes. I find this process interesting and amusing, and degrading to that person.


That is not my post. The Shadow takes the credit for that one!

[gaiacomm]

The Nazi party is quite interesting. Not to say that I am a member but I do like to understand!

Anyway, I think you all are giving the Shadow too much energy. I would focus back on JR and company at least he makes since!

[halva]

Gaiacomm your dilettantish approach does not help us maximise access to useful information on this thread.

Raynolds has less to offer than Shadow.

If he were a big-league professional disinformationist like his hero Patrick Minnis, who also takes climate change seriously, he would realise that he had accomplished the only thing he needs to accomplish when we said we would shut up about chemtrails on this thread.

But he is not a professional. Merely an internet crank.

Your encouraging him shows how empty are your own pretensions to being someone important.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Gaia writes:

"It serves no purpose other than to interrupt, confuse, and cast unwelcome darks shadows on the thread.

What can be done to remove this person?"

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

Gaia,

It would appear that you need to take your own advice, since you have stepped well over the blue line several times. You are in no good place to go after Shadow for such, especially siince you said you did the blue line crossing intentionally and did not care what people thought. So, lets start off with you.

I can agree shadow needs to stay under the blue line and not become incited into making overboard comments. He/she needs to learn how to play the game and not be lead by the insults of those intent on confusing the issues with CIA like disinformation methods.

Gaia, Your current trends are more along the lines of smuggling gasoline into a threater and leaking it under the seats and striking a match and screaming fire----then pointing to everyone except yourself.

I think we could do without that presence.

Would you please practice what you preached... You be the first to leave.

IMHO,
is

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva inquires:

"Do you have any suggestions Jim Phelps?"
===============

Sure. Greetings new person.

The US Govt does define the issues of climate change as a national security issue. And there are many methods being quietly applied to lessen the impacts of these man-made contributions that drive climate change.

We all know there is a rise in the heat trapping or heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere and these lead to a rise in problems. These gases tend to concentrate over the pole and make the heat retention problems greater there. We can't do much there, but cut the emissions directly. However, there are ways to compensate at the mid-lattitudes.

There are ways to compensate for these effects by using reflection methods in the atmosphere, as well as ways to keep the CO2 conversion optomized. These methods have become popularly nicknamed "chemtrails." Most people see part of the chemtrails methodologies as the lingering white clouds left behind jet planes that turn into massive cloud cover. This is part of the compensation methods, by just using jet planes to seed clouds and induce Mie Scatting for the IR heat.

And there are other methods of releasing titanium and barium compounds into the air, and these go after health and storm energy vectors respectively.

There is much interest in the industries that contributed to these damage factors not being exposed, and this the source of some of the almost CIA level of disinformation campaigns going on to keep the public from connecting the dots on what is becoming all the more obvious.

The dynamics of this list show up two principle factions: 1. That says global warming will melt the poles and nothing with stop it, so lets just accept that large parts of the globe will go underwater, and 2. That says lets attempt to mediate the progress of this damage more aggressively by measures like Koyoto agreements on emission cuts.

The ones that tend to push aggressively for the do nothing approach are by far the most radical presence here. There are about four of them that make a point out of traversing all the lists and generally attacking those that agree climate change is man-made factors and Koyoto can help. This faction also attacks chemtrail discussion because it leads to admissions that not only are the global warming effects man-made, but the Govt well knows it and has even come up with some methods to lessen the impact.

European sciences are of the concensus that global warming is man induced and push more for human interventions to limit the damage, while the US GOP controlled political control of science does not want any limits applied to emissions or associated admission of damage liabilty.

IMHO,
is

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215436



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215114

Allow me to interject your interjection, boy. You have no power whatsoever over what I say or do here – not by any stretch of your feeble imagination. You are a nobody.

Rest assured that I do not make threats. However, I do keep my promises. Since I have filed a well-documented formal complaint against Mr. Snell, I suppose we all will now just have to wait and see whether or not ImageShack enforces its Terms and Agreements.

I strongly advise you to dispense with your childish threats unless you are prepared to carry them out. From my vantage point, you appear rather impotent.

Take some friendly advice and quit acting like a thug. The perceived power that you possess obviously corrupts.

You are absolutely right I am a Nobody.......and thats just how I like it.........In fact I have worked hard at being a Nobody,...........Anonymity is Bliss...........

Advise all you like Shadow..........

But what truly is Impotent is your Rebuttal......

and may I point out .......

You have some Nerve talking about Corruption, Corruption is Wayne Hall,Jim Phelps,Gaiacomm,Deborah Stark,and of course your little net persona.....THE SHADOW........

Trying desperately to propagate a Hoax.......

We can talk about the Politics of this Group of corrupted individuals.......

From The Nazi Green Party to Commie Liberals to the delusional and mentally unstable which Jim Best represents........

We have uncovered ....their Agenda.......Or more Accurately they have themselves let the proverbial cat out of the bag........

Which Is TO Promote Manmade Global Warming at any cost through the use of PROPAGANDA and Scare Tactics..........In the hopes of effecting Policymaking decisions by Subverting the Reader with Deception,and in many cases out and out lies.......

Most of if not all of these Individuals are also Chemtrail Cult Members whom failed miserably propagating that Hoax because of the fine work done by J.R. ,Stuart,Ed,Myself and many others........

So Shadow why should this time be any different.....?

Lets put this into perspective.......

You have chosen your Path......And we have Chosen ours..........

Your path is one of deception and scaremongering to realize your agenda......

Ours is to make sure the Truth is not lost and in the end Prevails........

Now please explain to me how the Pursuit of Truth is a corruption......?

Also explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion that you and your partners in thought crime here are not corrupted.......?

Me Thinks the Shadow needs to Ponder this a little while without pride and emotion getting involved.......

In other words ......

You and your partners in Thought Crime have lost this thread to the TRUTH..........

And each and everyday you continue on this thread, will be a another day of the BLINDING LIGHT OF TRUTH.......in your faces......

But Don't take my word for it......I am after all a Nobody........

All you have to do is stick around.........

And See for yourself HOW POTENT THE TRUTH REALLY IS..................

WMM
__________________
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely............
Mr. Reynolds – What have you done to this boy? All he does is babble like a blithering idiot. Is this similar to the mind control that you used on William Cooper to make him snap on command?

Look, majikmushroom, you have a lot of nerve pretending to represent light and truth. By your own admission, you cheat and employ deception in order to achieve your stated goals. You even beam with pride over that fact. The path you have chosen has nothing to do with pure truth. If you honestly had a case, you would not need to resort to scheming and underhanded strategies. What you are defending is the truth as you have come to rationalize it. That type of mentality is common among sociopaths. Your pursuit of the truth is corrupted.

One thing is certain. You sure have had many of the great message board teachers. Save your indoctrination attempts for someone who is interested.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215429



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215221

In fact, everything I know regarding treachery I have learned from you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Snell, and a little bit from whitemajikmushroom.

I think Lisa Giuliani would beg to differ with you, Diane "The Beloved" Harvey!
You are a well known agent of treachery all by yourself, sweetie!

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UIQ94mQBKTQJ:www.freeworldalliance. org/newsflash/2002/02newsflash1419.htm+%22diane+harvey%22+bitch&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I know for a fact that Lisa Giuliani has never even heard of me. As for you, Jayhole, do not call me “sweetie” unless you are ready to start singing “The Crying Game.”

What is it with you and your double standards? Whenever you address chemtrail activists, you insist that they provide concrete evidence for everything. Regarding your claim that I am Diane Harvey, you have had ample opportunity to produce the same. It is time for you to come clean and admit to your hoax. That is right; I said HOAX!!!

It all started at another message board where you referred to me as a “thesaurus abuser” and that was all it took for you to declare me “Diane.” Is that not a bit lame? In your mind, I am “Diane” solely because you say that I am “Diane.” Actually, I think you know better, but you are too damned chickenshit to admit that you really booted this one. You know that when you are verified to be in error, everything else that you profess to be true will also come under scrutiny. As a debunker, you are an absolute disgrace!

I have a deal for you, Jayhole. If you can produce irrefutable evidence that I am this “Diane” person, I will quit posting entirely. I predict that you will not, however, because you cannot. On the other hand, the eyes of the world are upon you and you must do something – anything – to try to save face. So, you will just continue to play the game. Go right ahead. Everyone is laughing behind your back, anyway.

I can hardly wait to see what you dredge up.

[jayreynolds]

While your remarks at http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213729 were indeed intended to incite, the little graphic, by itself, was not particularly significant.

Damn right, Diane. yaak was right, and I was too. Even Lisa Giuliani has you pegged.
You are a petty, childish little priss that never got past high-school-girl mind games.
Your past, present, and future seem wrapped up with the same sort of wasteful garbage.
Yes, you can maybe find some friends among the chemmies, but what is that really worth?
Sooner or later, like Wayne says above, they are going to start wondering just what you're up to, and you'll be left in the cold.

BTW, I noticed you didn't post the content of your supposed complaint to imageshack. There wasn't any, and there won't be anything deleted, right?

Diane Harvey, you are as worthless as tits on a mule.

[jayreynolds]

You know that when you are verified to be in error, everything else that you profess to be true will also come under scrutiny.

Ok, go ahead and verify that I am in error. I can take it.

[stuart_allsop]

I think it?s time for a poll. Who is more insane: The Shadow or Jim Phelps? It will be a close one.

In alphabetical order, thank you Jay, Stuart and Whitemajikman for your support.

[/size]
Dammit, Yaak, you don't make it easy, do you?!

For sheer insanity, I reckon my vote would have to go to Jimmy. But for the title of all-time, absolute universal champion of the insultingly uncouth belligerently rabid usleless arrogant twit, well, Shadow just rules that class, all by herself, hands down winner.

[stuart_allsop]

bla bla bla...



Shadow, I'm curious: Have you made one single post on this entire thread that was actually on topic, dealing with nothing bu the issue of of the global warming hoax? I looked, but I couldn't see any post like that. All the ones I found seemed to be deliberate personal attacks on other posters.

So if you DID actually post something that was entirely on-topic, please could you show me where it was. I'd like to read it.

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215986

Damn right, Diane. yaak was right, and I was too. Even Lisa Giuliani has you pegged.
You are a petty, childish little priss that never got past high-school-girl mind games.
Your past, present, and future seem wrapped up with the same sort of wasteful garbage.
Yes, you can maybe find some friends among the chemmies, but what is that really worth?
Sooner or later, like Wayne says above, they are going to start wondering just what you're up to, and you'll be left in the cold.

BTW, I noticed you didn't post the content of your supposed complaint to imageshack. There wasn't any, and there won't be anything deleted, right?

Diane Harvey, you are as worthless as tits on a mule.
I supposed you merely “overlooked” the prior exchange, reprinted below. In the same way you assign identities to people, you also have a bad habit of issuing your truth by decree. Then again, what else can you do when you are shooting blanks?

If ImageShack fails to enforce their Terms and Agreements in a certain amount of time, then I may as well post the content of the complaint I submitted. Until then, dry up on the baiting, Jayhole. As I do not intend to reveal my entire hand, at the moment, I compromised by revealing a copy of the interim reply to Mr. Allslop. We all will have to wait for the actual outcome, if any. Even I am not holding my breath. If that is not good enough for you, either, I will still not lose any sleep. You can now return to your fantasyland, Jayhole.




http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215221



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215178



http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215129

Unfortunately, Halva, I have not once mentioned Arianna. ImageShack (http://www.imageshack.us/) is a commercial online repository (Do not even go there, Yaakass) designed to serve individuals who do not have personal web sites to which they would normally upload and store their own image files for public display. Naturally, ImageShack does have Terms and Agreements for the use of their services. In particular, a file whose intended use or purpose is to harass an individual or multiple persons is strictly prohibited. At http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213966, I attempted to warn Yaakass that his infractions had not gone unnoticed. Instead of being grateful, he chose to accuse me of issuing threats. Oh, well...

As for the willful filing of false criminal complaints against another person, it is a punishable offense. Victims routinely succeed in collecting monetary damages from their accusers in civil court. Depending on the nature and severity of said allegations, criminal charges may also be filed by the injured party. Life is rough.
How pathetically petty can you get!
You tell me. I have simply been following your lead, as you seem to have very few difficulties in that department. In fact, everything I know regarding treachery I have learned from you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Snell, and a little bit from whitemajikmushroom. What a crybaby you are, Mr. “Christian!”




Oh, and please do post a copy of the complaint you claim to have filed, plus a copy of the reply you got... if any.
Nice try, Mr. Allslop. As I do not intend to reveal my entire h