It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[Boomer Chick]

Nobody here denies Woodpecker.

I kept one of my science research pages and was just perusing it. I've found quite a few experiments tied to HAARP and other phased array systems around the world. This might interest you: (no dates available however)

S19-P05 HF DOPPLER RADAR STUDY OF CHEMICAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE IONOSPHERE

O. TYRNOV, L. Kostrov, S. Martynenko, V. Pushin, and V. Rozumenko Department of Space Radio Physics, V. Karazin Kharkiv National University E-mail: Oleg.F.Tyrnov@univer.kharkov.ua A set of chemical release experiments and associated ground diagnostics have resulted in fair agreement between the data and the models. The chemical releases performed at an altitude of approximately 150 km were observed on frequencies of about 3.7 MHz at distances of 30 to 80 km at the ground using a portable HF Doppler radar. Its specifications are as follows. Operational frequency band of 3 - 30 MHz at 0.01 Hz intervals, pulse length of 500 ms, pulse repetition rate of 100 - 200 per second, receiver dynamic range of 80 dB, system bandwidth of 10 Hz, master oscillator of 10 - 9 stability, instrument error of 0.01 Hz at the maximum Doppler frequency shift of ,5 Hz. During the releases of gas clouds of barium, caesium, and lithium, three types of echoes were observed: from the clouds, from the F region, and from the clouds rebound through the F region. For masses of released chemicals of a few tens of kilograms, the echoes were observed during up to 405 min, and the Doppler shifts of the signals reflected from the clouds attained a maximum value of .5 to .0 Hz. When in Doppler modeling allowance is made for cloud drift and relaxation, the agreement between the data and the calculations is reasonable, and the analysis of signal mode structure provides further improvements. For masses of released chemicals of less than 1 kg, the drift observations have showed electric field intensities of 2 - 10 mV/m, and electron density changes by a factor of several times the ambient values. [/b]
***

Who knows where on the above experiment?

S19-P06 ARTIFICIAL IONIZED REGION IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND ITS APPLICATIONS

N. BORISOV (1) and A. Gurevich (2) (1) Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Waves Propagation (2) Lebedev Physical Institute

E-mail: borisov@td.lpi.ac.ru It is suggested to create Artificial Ionized Region (AIR) in the atmosphere at the heights of several of tens km in crossed beams of microwaves. To maintain ionization in AIR for a long time breakdown pulses should be sent periodically. Optimal conditions to achieve maximum ionization in AIR are discussed theoretically. It is shown that plasma concentration in AIR can exceed maximum concentration in the ionosphere by orders of magnitude. Several important applications of AIR creation are discussed. First, AIR can serve as an artificial "mirror" for radio and telecommunication in HF, VHF and UHF ranges. Second, each breakdown pulse is accompanied by stimulated optical emission from AIR. It means that powerful N

2

laser is formed in the atmosphere with the help of AIR. Third,

AIR can be used for the investigation of complicated chemical processes with minor atmospheric constituents and for direct local action on ozone layer. The main theoretical results are confirmed in the laboratory experiments with strong microwaves.

***

Considering Ozone:

S19-P10 MODELLING OF OZONE PRODUCTION BY POWERFUL ELECTRON BEAM INJECTION AT STRATOSPHERE

V. N. Oraevsky, Y. Ruzhin, and N. BORISOV IZMIRAN, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142092 RUSSIA E-mail: ruzhin@izmiran.rssi.ru The balloon active experiment with electron beam injection in stratosphere is discussed. The results of modelling of injected beam behaviour and active action of it on ozone density evolution are presented. The main parameters of beam injection is varied to estimate more effective conditions for ozone regeneration and degradation processes. It is shown that the balloon payload for powerful electron pulse injection at stratosphere is prospective instrument for solving of modern ozone regeneration problems.

***

S19-P11 GENERATION OF ALFV

' EN WAVE BY ORBITAL CRRES INJECTION OF

BARIUM CLOUD IN MAGNETOSPHERE

V. Oraevsky, Y. Ruzhin, V. Badin, and M. DEMINOV IZMIRAN, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142092 RUSSIA E-mail: ruzhin@izmiran.rssi.ru The results of analyses of Alfv'en wave generation by magnitosphere [/b]Barium cloud injection during CRRES mission are presented.[/b] The experimental data obtained by means of simultaneous optical and radiophysical observations from Cuba during winter and summer 1991 campaigns. We examine the possible substorm triggering from data of HF radiotelescope measurements during substorm simulation G-8 experiment (geostationary injection). The significance of Alfv'enic wave generation during artificial injection is discussed in context of current ideas based on artificial cloud - magnetosphere plasma interaction. It is shown that efficiency of Alfv'en wave generation reach the MAX at time when the radius of expanding barium cloud is more than Larmor radius of background plasma ions but less than barium ions one. A variety of geophysical conditions is encountered.

Page with lists of mainly Russian and Northern country's experiments as well as space station experiments and a few rocket and shuttle experiments. The "heating" ones located where there are known HAARP like arrays are of particular interest:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:o2_xpUv_E_gJ:gedas.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/sramp/abstract/s19abs.ps+HF+DOPPLER+RADAR+STUDY+OF+CHEMICAL+MODIF ICATIONS+OF+THE&hl=en

For the record.

[halva]

Insurrectionchemistry's one-week suspension must be getting close to finishing.

Any bets as to whether he will reapply to come back here?

[jayreynolds]

I thought he was being treated at a sanitarium.

[halva]

Wherever he was posting here from I guess he could do it again if he wanted to.

[halva]

Latest from FTW on Peak Oil

With the presentation of Representative Roscoe Bartlett to the House of Representatives on March 14th, 2005, Peak Oil has finally been recognized by the US Congress. Dr. Bartlett's presentation should hopefully serve as a wake up call to those congresspeople who have no previous awareness of this issue. While he emphasized the necessity of conservation and a program to develop alternatives, Dr. Bartlett's presentation made no bones about how serious the problem is. He spoke about the effect of Peak Oil on the economy and about the associated agricultural problems. And he made it quite plain that we have no substitutes adequate to replace fossil fuels. In his presentation, Dr. Bartlett gave substance to fears for the end of modern civilization. Finally, he stressed the implications of Jevon's Paradox, which states that often when one works to solve a problem, the solution really makes the situation worse. This happens because of limited perception: the potential solution has unforeseen ramifications outside of the problem as it has been framed. Jevon's Paradox leaves us in a situation described in game theory, where if one person or country tries to do the right thing, then the other players can take advantage of that player's conservation for their own aggrandizement. The effort has to be multilateral, and the US - especially under George W. Bush - has shown that it is not interested in multilateral action or conservation, but has every intention to grab whatever it can.

Considering the nature of our political apparatus, the fact that this presentation was even made before Congress suggests that Peak Oil is upon us. Due to the limited scope of political perception, our elected officials are not apt to address a subject unless it is having an immediate effect upon them and their constituency. Dr. Bartlett hinted in his presentation that there is little time in which to seek an answer to this problem, but he did not say that there are many powerful forces which will be opposed to the solution. - DAP]

[halva]

Published on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 by US Congressional Record

Peak Oil Presentation in the US Congress

By Roscoe Bartlett, Chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee

http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=4733

Original article:
http://thomas.loc.gov

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

OIL DEMANDS -- (House of Representatives - March 14, 2005) [Page: H1409]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in this first chart we have some headlines from The Washington Post just a month or so ago. These are headlines from just one day in The Washington Post. The Dow drops 174 points driven, the article says, by economic damage from rising oil prices, the plunging dollar, and growing worries about consumer spending. It goes on to say that a recent oil price rise of 20 percent is continuing to crunch the profits of struggling airlines and is believed to be a factor in disappointing retail sales.

Another headline: ''Dollar Slides Against the Euro and the Yen.'' And another headline: ''Consumer Confidence Slips in February.''

Now, should we have had any indication that these were going to be the kinds of headlines that we have been reading in our paper recently? We need to go back a few years, as indicated on this next chart. Let us go back to the 1940s and the 1950s when a scientist by the name of M. King Hubbert, a geologist, was working for the Shell Oil Company. He was watching the discovery and the exploitation and final exhaustion of individual oil fields. He noticed that every oil field followed a very typical pattern. It was a little slow getting the oil out at first, and then it came very quickly and reached a maximum, and then it tailed off as it became more difficult to get the oil out of the ground.

This followed a bell curve. Here is one of those bell curves. Now, bell curves are very familiar in science, and in life, for that matter. If we look at people and how tall they are, we will have a few people down around 4 1/2 or 5 feet and some up to 7 1/2 feet; but the big mass fall in the middle, clustered around 5 1/2 to 6 feet.

Looking at a yield of corn, a few farmers may get 50 bushels per acre, some may get 300, but the big mass today it is somewhere around 200 bushels per acre for corn.

Hubbert noticed when the bell curve reached its peak, about half of the oil had been exhausted from the field. Being a scientist, he theorized if you added up a lot of little bell curves, you would get one big bell curve, and if he could know the amount of reserves of oil in the United States, and he was doing this in the 1940s and early 1950s, and could project how much more might be found, he could then predict when the United States would peak in its oil production.

Doing this analysis, he concluded that we would peak in our oil production in 1970. This curve is what is known as Hubbert's Curve. The peak of the curve is what is known as Hubbert's Peak. Sometimes this is called the ``great rollover'' because when you get to the top, you roll over and start down the other side. It is frequently called ``peak oil.'' So peak oil for the United States occurred in 1970, and it is true that every year since then we have pumped less oil and found less oil. The big blue squares here are the actual and Members see they deviated a little from the theoretical as M. King Hubbert predicted, but not all that much.

At the bottom, see the difference the big field in Alaska made, and see what that made in the down slope, that never increased production in our country. It just meant that we were not going down quite as fast. You can see that here on the curve. Notice that the Alaska oil production was not the typical bell curve. It should have been, but a couple of things meant it could not be. One was it could not flow at all until we had a 4-foot pipeline. So the fields were developed and they were waiting; then we got the pipeline on board, and it was filled with oil and oil started to flow, and Members see the rapid increase here. It could not flow any faster than through that 4-foot pipe, and so it levels off at the top. We have pumped probably three-fourths of the oil in Prudhoe Bay.

Many people would like to open up ANWR. ANWR has considerably less oil than Prudhoe Bay, so the contribution will be significantly less. I want to note on this chart we also have the red curve, which is the theoretical curve for the former Soviet Union. It is a nice bell curve, peaking a little higher, they have more reserves than we do, and later because we entered the industrial age with vigor before the Soviet Union was quite there. Notice what happened when they came apart; notice how precipitously it fell here. After they got things organized, the fall stopped and now they are producing more oil. As a matter of fact, we might see a little upsurge in this; but the general trend is still going to be down.

On the next chart, and we have here the same Hubbert Curve, but the abscissa is a little too long and the ordinate a little too compressed, so it is not the sharp peak that we saw before. That is the curve we saw before. It shows the Texas component, and it shows the rest of the United States; and it also shows some natural gas liquids. We learned how to extract those a little later. So if you were plotting that as a bell curve, it would peak about here. It is little and then it is much, and then it tails off.

This is the contribution of Alaska, and you can see this not going to be our salvation to pump ANWR because ANWR contains probably not even half as much as Prudhoe Bay. And notice the small contribution that Alaska made. And that is not a bell curve for the reason I mentioned before because we had to develop the fields and they waited for the pipeline, and then it would surge through the pipeline when it was developed. So you do not see the tail getting greater and tailing off.

This is gulf oil. Remember the hullabaloo about the big finds of gulf oil that were going to solve our problem? That is what it did. There never was a moment in time between the big Alaska oil find and all of the pumping discovery and pumping in the gulf, there never was a moment in time when it decreased the fall in our country. The peak occurred, as you see here, about 1970.

Now, the next chart shows what is happening worldwide.


[

[halva]

Time: 20:00]


The red curve here shows the actual discovery of oil. Notice that that peaked. There was a big find here that distorted the curve a little but if you rounded that off, you would have the typical bell curve. It started somewhere back here off the chart, then it peaks, and then it is downhill and it tails off. These are the discoveries. The last find there is simply an extrapolation. We have no idea where it is going.

We are, by the way, very good at finding oil now. We use 3D seismic detection techniques. The world has drilled, I think, about 5 million oil wells and I think we have drilled about 3 million of them in this country, so we have a pretty good idea of where oil is.

A couple of Congresses ago, I was privileged to chair the Energy Subcommittee on Science. One of the first things I wanted to do was to determine the dimensions of the problem. We held a couple of hearings and had the world experts in. Surprisingly from the most pessimistic to the most optimistic, there was not much deviation in what the estimate is as to what the known reserves are out there. It is about 1,000 gigabarrels. That sounds like an awful lot of oil. But when you divide into that the amount of oil which we use,


[Page: H1410]
about 20 million barrels a day, and the amount of oil the rest of the world uses, about 60 million barrels a day, as a matter of fact, the total now is a bit over the 80 million that those two add up to. About 83 1/2 , I think. If you divide that into the 1,000 gigabarrels, you come out at about 40 years of oil remaining in the world. That is pretty good. Because up until the Carter years, during the Carter years, in every decade we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. Let me repeat that, because that is startling. In every decade, we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. The reason for that, of course, was that we were on the upward side of this bell curve. The bell curve for usage, only part of it is shown on this chart. That is the green one down here, the bell curve for usage. Notice that we are out here now about 2005. Where is it going? The Energy Information Agency says that we are going to keep on using more oil. This green line just going up and up and up is a projection of the Energy Information Agency. But that cannot be true. That cannot be true for a couple of reasons. We peaked in our discovery of oil way back here in the late sixties, about 1970. In our country it peaked much earlier than that, by the way. But the world is following several years behind us. And the area under this red curve must be the same as the area under the green curve. You cannot pump any more oil than you have found, quite obviously. If you have not found it, you cannot pump it. If you were to extend this on out where they have extended their green line, even if it turned down right there at the end of that green line, the area under the green curve is going to be very much larger than the area under the red curve. That just cannot be. We will see in some subsequent charts that we probably have reached peak oil.

Let me mention that M. King Hubbert looked at the world situation. He was joined by another scientist, Colin Campbell, who is still alive, an American citizen who lives in Scotland. Using M. King Hubbert's predictive techniques, oil was predicted to reach a maximum in about 1995, without perturbations. But there were some perturbations. One of the perturbations was 1973, the Arab oil embargo. Other perturbations were the oil price shocks and a worldwide recession that reduced the demand for oil. And so the peak that might have occurred in 1995 will occur later. How much later? That is what we are looking at this evening. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that if not now, then very quickly we should see world production of oil peak.

What are the consequences? What are the consequences of this depletion? The remaining oil is harder to get. It requires greater energy investment, resulting in a lower return on energy invested. That is the energy-profit ratio, which is decreasing. When we started out, you put in one unit of energy and you could get 30 out. Then that fell off, and then we found a few more fields and we got really good at extracting oil with better techniques. It looked for a little while like it was going up, but look what happened. It falls off to where it would have come anyhow if this curve had simply gone down. This is an inevitable consequence of pumping a field.

Lower profits are not the only concern. When more energy is required to extract it than is contained in the recovered oil, that is, when this ratio is less than 1, notice, we are over there at about 1984, we have got to get now another 20 years, I am not quite sure where we are now when you plot that day. We are getting very close to the unit it takes as much energy to get the oil out as you get out of the oil. It may still seem profitable from a monetary perspective, but when you are using more energy to get oil out of the ground than you are getting out of the oil, then clearly you need to leave it there when we reach that point. I mentioned the bump there was caused by a few more discoveries and particularly by increased efficiency in pumping the oil.

What is the current U.S. status? We have only 2 percent, between 2 and 3 percent, not really known for certain, but approximately 2 percent of the known reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. By the way, we have about 8 percent of the world production. What that means is if we have only 2 percent of the reserves and 8 percent of the production, that means we are real good at pumping oil, does it not? That means we are pumping our reserves at roughly four times faster than the rest of the world. That means that this 2 percent will not stay 2 percent by and by because we are so good at pumping oil, we are going to be down to 1 percent of the known reserves in the world and we will still be using about 25 percent of the world's oil. We are now importing about two-thirds of that. At the Arab oil embargo we imported about one-third of that. So we are now importing, relatively, two times more oil, actual quantity much more than that, but relatively about two times more oil.

Chart 6 shows us that more drilling just will not

solve the problem. This is a very interesting chart. This shows the difference between the amount of oil that you are finding and the amount of oil that you are pumping. Notice from 1960 on until about 1980, declining for sure, but every year except for one we found more oil than we pumped. The yellow line up here is drilling. You remember the Reagan administration and all the emphasis on drilling because we knew that we were approaching this flipover point where we were going to be pumping more oil than we found and so there was a rationale that if you just give them a profit motive and you have the right incentives, tax and regulatory incentives and so forth, they will go out and they will dig more wells and they will find more oil. Sure as heck they went out and dug more wells. But did they find any more oil? As a matter of fact, in 1982, more oil was used in looking for oil than the oil they found in 1982. Pretty consistently for every year after 1982, we have used more oil than we found. Today worldwide we are pumping at least six barrels of oil for every barrel that we find.

Chart 7 shows that worldwide discoveries are repeating the U.S. pattern. This is a rough bell curve. You find a big find of oil and it is going to make a spike. This is average for 5 years. If you look at it on a year for year, it is really up and down as you find big reservoirs of oil. But generally it starts low and it goes up and it comes down. It follows roughly a bell curve. I would not pay too much attention to the figures on the ordinate here, because the area under this curve must equal just a little bit over 2,000 gigabarrels of oil. If I visually sum the area under this curve, it is going to equal something more, not frightfully more but something more than 2,000 gigabarrels of oil which from other sources we know ought to be the total amount of oil under the sun. Notice that we are tailing off to something very low. It is unlikely that we are going to find big additional finds in the future. Again, we are very good at that. We have dug about 5 million wells worldwide. We have done a whole lot more than that explorations with detonations and seismic and 3D and computers and we are very good at looking at the kind of geology where you might find oil. There is just no real expectation that there are going to be big additional fields of oil found out there. This dropoff in discovery is really in spite of very improved technology for finding oil.

Chart 8. This is a very interesting chart. It has nothing to do with time, because on the abscissa here, we have the number of wells that are drilled, the cumulative oil caps, and on the ordinate, we have the amount of oil that was found. For any relatively big field, here we are talking about 50 gigabarrels. Remember, there are about 2,000 gigabarrels worldwide, so this is a meaningful part of the world reserves of oil. We see that that goes up and up and then it tails off. You cannot find what is not there. No matter how many more wells you drill, you are not going to find oil that is not there. The same pattern should be apparent on a world scale.

[halva]

Chart 9. This is a very interesting chart. It is a little too busy, but let me try to explain what is there. The oil companies for reasons of pricing and regulations and so forth have had the habit through the years of underreporting initially how much oil they found. Then later when it was appropriate to their license to produce more oil, they would report additional oil. They never found any additional oil, they simply reported oil they had found previously. By the way, you may


[Page: H1411]
have noted that three times in the last roughly 3 weeks, oil companies have admitted that their estimates of the reserves were exaggerated and have downscaled the reserves that they said were there. If you took the original reporting of the reserves, you might be able to construct a curve, a straight line curve which said we are just getting more and more. But if you backdated that to the actual discoveries, then you get this curve. This curve is asymtoting at a bit over 2,000 gigabarrels, which is about what the world's experts say had been there. We have now pumped about half of that. We have about 1,000 gigabarrels remaining.

What now? Where do we go now? One observer, Matt Savinar, who has thoroughly researched the options, and this is not the most optimistic assessment, by the way, but may be somewhat realistic, he starts out by saying, Dear Readers, civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. I hope not. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse Bible sect or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is a scientific conclusion of the best-paid, most widely respected geologists, physicists and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by the phenomenon known as global peak oil.

Why should they be terrified? Why should they be terrified just because we have reached the peak of oil production? Last year, China used about 30 percent more oil. India now is demanding more oil. As a matter of fact, China now is the second largest importer of oil in the world. They have passed Japan. When you look at how important oil is to our economy, you can understand the big concern if, in fact, we cannot produce oil any faster than we are producing it now and there are increasing demands, as there will be, for oil. In our country, for instance, we have a debt that we must service. It will be essentially impossible to service that debt if our economy does not continue to grow. So there are enormous potential consequences, which is why he says that these people are absolutely terrified by the phenomenon known as peak oil.

What can we do to avert the kind of a catastrophe that he hints at with those words? We must not squander an opportunity. One is always reminded of Malthus. I am sure you have heard of him. He was looking at the increase in world population and he looked at our ability to produce food and he says, gosh, those two curves are going to cross because the world population was increasing faster than our ability to produce food and we are going to have mass starvation. That did not happen. The reason that did not happen was because Malthus could not have anticipated the green revolution, which, by the way, was made possible almost entirely, well, the plant science had a lot to do with it but better plants and better genes without the fertilizer to make them grow is not going to do you much good, so the green revolution was very largely the result of our intensive use of oil. Most people do not know it, but all of our nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas. You may have observed that when you have a thunderstorm in the summertime, your lawn is greener than when you have watered it.


[Time: 20:15]


That is because of what is known as poor man's fertilizer. The lightning combines some of the nitrogen so they can be carried down by the water and one's lawn is, in fact, greener after a thunderstorm than it is when they water it. We have kind of learned how to mimic lightning, and we now know how to make nitrogen fertilizer from gas. By the way, before we knew how to do that, the only sources of nitrogen fertilizer were barnyard manurers. If one is on the Eastern Shore with a lot of chickens, one could go a long way with that now in agriculture, could one not? But barnyard manurers would fertilize only a tiny percentage of the nitrogen needs of our plants.

And other than that it was guano. My colleagues know what guano is. Guano is the droppings of bats or of birds on a tropical island, their droppings accumulating for thousands of years, and there was a major industry in sending ships around the world to tropical islands and getting the guano.

We must not squander the opportunity that we have. Jevons Paradox becomes applicable here. Just a word about what Jevons Paradox is because I am going to mention it a time or two again. But Jevons Paradox says that frequently when one works to solve a problem, they really make the situation worse.

Let me give one little example. Suppose there is a small businessman who owns a store. He is really concerned about peak oil, and he is concerned about energy, and he wants to do something. His little store is using $1,000 worth of electricity a month, and he decides that he can really cut that use. So he does several things. He gets a storm door. He puts on storm windows. He insulates more. He turns down the thermostat, and he asks his workers to wear sweaters. And he is successful because he reduces his electric bill from $1,000 to $500. Almost no matter what he does with that $500, he has just made the situation worse by doing that.

Let me explain. One of the things that he may do, and it is a natural thing for a small businessperson to do, he may decide, I could hire more people and have a bigger business if I expanded. And so now he will expand, and he will still be using as much energy. Or if he decides to invest his money, if he invests his money in the bank, the bank will lend his money out five or six times, and at least some of those loans will be to small business people. And what the small business people will do is to create jobs and use energy. So the store owner is concerned about energy and the environment and being a responsible citizen, cutting his use of electricity, because everybody did not do it, because only he did it and nobody took advantage of the opportunity that was presented because he used less energy, he really contributed to the problem.

Because after he expanded his business, he would be using still more energy. Or if the money was lent out by the bank and small businesses created more jobs and they used more energy, the situation would have just gotten worse.

All that the ``green revolution'' did was temporarily extend the caring capacity of the world. If we think about that, ultimately if we cannot do something about it to stabilize it, the green revolution just made matters worse. In the meantime we have all eaten very well in spite of the fact that about a fifth of the world will go to bed hungry tonight; but on the average, we are eating very well, and because of the average American, we are eating maybe too well.

[halva]

But what we have done with the green revolution is to permit the population of the world to double and double again. So if we cannot now make sure that we stabilize population and bring it to the point where it can be supported by a technology where there is not what was ordinarily perceived as an inexhaustible supply of oil, there will simply be more people out there to be hungry and starved if we cannot meet their needs. So we have got to make sure that whatever we do to solve this problem that Jevons Paradox does not contribute.

Chart 10, this shows that this growth cannot be sustained forever. The greatest power in the universe, Albert Einstein was asked this question: Dr. Einstein, you have now discovered the ability to release energy from the atom. We get just incredible amounts of energy from the atom. A relatively small amount of fuel in one of our big submarines will fuel it for 33 years now. Enormous energy density. And they asked him, Dr. Einstein, what is the most energy-intensive thing in the world? He said, ``It is compound interest.''

That is what we have here in this exponential curve. And by the way, we, and when I say ``we,'' I mean the world, have been using oil as if our economy could just continue to grow on this unlimited exponential curve. Whether it is 2 percent a year or 5 percent a year or near 10 percent, which is what China has been growing in the last few years, we are still on an exponential curve.

Not quite so steep if we are on a lower growth rate. It goes up and up forever and ever.

Obviously, there is not an inexhaustible amount of oil in the world; so we have the exhaustible resource, which is this lower curve. It reaches a peak,


[Page: H1412]
which, if not now, shortly. Oil, as the Members may have noticed, is $54 or $55 a barrel. I saw the other day one future had sold for $100 a barrel, and the experts are saying we are probably going to see $60 before we see $50. We will wait and see.

The third curve here is the renewable resource curve. Do not be confused by the size of these curves. They are simply placed here so that lines would not cross other lines. But in actual practice, the renewable resource curve is likely to be nowhere near the peak of the exhaustible resource curve, energy.

Let me give a little example of what the problem is and why this is almost certainly true. One barrel of oil, 42 gallons of oil, equals the productivity of 25,000 manhours. That is the equivalent of having 60 dedicated servants that do nothing but work for someone. We can get a little better real-life example of this. A gallon of gas will drive a 3-ton SUV, and some of those are better than others, and let us say it takes it 20 minutes, which some will but most will not. Most are around 10. But let us say one gallon of gas will take a 3-ton SUV 20 miles at 60 miles an hour down the road. That is just one little gallon of gas, which, by the way, is still cheaper than water. We pay more for water in the grocery store than we pay for gas at $2 a gallon at the pump, added up.

How long would it take one to push their 3-ton SUV the equivalent of 60 miles an hour, 20 miles down the road? To get some idea of the energy density in these fossil fuels, there is just nothing out there in the alternatives that have anything like this energy density. There are some potentials, nuclear, and we will talk about those in a little bit. But of the general renewables, there is nothing out there with that kind of density. So this curve is likely to be much lower than this curve; and notice that if it is, in fact, going to be renewable, it cannot go to an unrealistic height. There is only so much wood to cut. Easter Island had that experience. When they cut the last tree, they totally changed the ecology.

The Bible talks about the large clusters of grapes and the honey and so forth that they found when the spies went out. That now is a desert. The Cedars of Lebanon, the grand Cedars of Lebanon that built the temple, that is now largely a desert. Why is it a desert? Because they cut the trees, they changed the environment, they changed the climate. So obviously this line has to be a reasonable sustainable level. It just cannot go on forever.

The challenge, then, is to reduce consumption ultimately to a level that cannot be sustained indefinitely without succumbing to Jevons Paradox.

How do we buy time, the time that we will need to make the transition to sustainability? Obviously, there are only two things that we can do to buy time. One is to conserve, and the other is to be more efficient. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned our increasing efficiency. We have done a great job. Our refrigerators today are probably twice as efficient as they were 20 or 30 years ago. But instead of a little refrigerator, we have a big one. Instead of one, we may have two. So I will bet we are using as much electricity in our refrigeration as we ever used.

Conservation, we can do that. Remember several years ago when there were brownouts, blackouts in California and we were predicting, boy, the next year is really going to be rough? Do the Members know why it was not and we did not see any headlines about blackouts in California? Because knowing that there was a problem, the Californians, without anybody telling them they had to, voluntarily reduced their electricity consumption by 11 percent. That is pretty significant. And that avoided the rolling blackouts or brownouts.

And, finally, we must commit to major investments in alternatives, especially as efficiencies improve. This must ultimately lead to the ability to do everything within the capability of renewable resources. If we have got a solar breeder, and this shows a picture of a solar breeder. That, by the way, is about 5 miles from my home. It was built by Solarex, and it is a sign of the times. Mr. Speaker, this is now owned by BP. They know that oil is not forever. They are now the world's second largest producer of solar panels.

A few years ago, the largest buyer of solar panels in the world, and I do not know if that is true today, but a few years ago it was Saudi Arabia. Why would Saudi Arabia, with the most oil in the world, be the biggest purchaser of solar panels in the world? The reasons are very simple. These are not dumb people, and they figured out that solar panels were better for them in producing electricity than oil because they had widely distributed communities that were very small. Electrons in a wire are very different than oil in a pipeline. Put a gallon of oil in a pipeline up at Prudhoe Bay, and a gallon will come out where it goes on the ship. If we put electrons in a line which is long enough, nothing will come out in the other end. It is called line loss.

And they knew that in their small communities, widely distributed, with the enormous line losses they had from big plants, that they would be better off with distributed production.

[halva]

By the way, just a hint to our people who are concerned with homeland security, the more distributed production we have, the less vulnerable we are going to be to terrorist attacks on our power infrastructure.

Transition to sustainability will not happen if left applying market forces alone. Everyone must be part of the effort or Jevons Paradox will prevail. If only our country tries to do it and nobody else helps, we will just put off the day when we must make the transition, and it will be even more difficult. The market will, indeed, signal the arrival of peak oil. To wait until it does, however, is like waiting until we see a tsunami: by then it may be too late to do anything.

We now are doing a lot of talking here in the Congress and fortunately across the country about Social Security, and it is a big problem. But I tell the Members if the problem of Social Security is equivalent to the tidal wave produced by the hurricane, then this peak oil problem is equivalent to the tsunami. The impact and the consequences are going to be enormously greater than the impact and the consequences of Social Security or Medicare or those two put together.


[Time: 20:30]


It will take a sustained, conscious, coordinated national and even international, effort. If everybody is not working together and buying time by conserving and being efficient and using wisely that time we bought, then all we do is put off the inevitable.

The hydroelectric and nuclear power industries did not arise spontaneously from market forces alone. They were the product of a purposeful partnership of public and private entities focused on the public good. This is what we have to do relative to alternatives.

As I mentioned, California solved their energy crisis by voluntarily reducing their demand for electricity. Time, capital and energy resources are all finite. We have only so much time until it would be too late to avoid a real problem. Capital is limited and energy resources are certainly limited.

This time it will not be like the seventies. The big difference between now and the seventies is that in the seventies, we were just going up this curve, we were nowhere near the top of the curve, so there was always the ability to expand, to surge. If, in fact, we are now at peak oil, there is no such ability remaining.

Is there any reason to remain optimistic or hopeful? Let me go back to Matt Savinar, that not-too-optimistic journalist. ``If what you mean is there any way technology or the market or brilliant scientists or comprehensive government programs are going to hold things together or solve this for me or allow for business to continue as usual, the answer is no. On the other hand, if what you really mean is is there any way that I still can have a happy, fulfilling life, in spite of some clearly grim facts, the answer is yes. But it is going to require a lot of work, a lot of adjustments, and probably a bit of good fortune on your part.''

What now? Well, what we need to do now clearly is to buy time, and we buy that, as I mentioned, with efficiency and conservation. This will keep energy prices affordable. If demand continues to increase and output cannot increase, energy prices are going through the ceiling.

So we have got to reduce demand so that prices do not get so high that it is impossible to invest the capital necessary to develop the alternatives,


[Page: H1413]

[halva]

using existing conventional technologies to make the transition as new technologies are developed.

We must use it wisely. If we do not use it wisely, and I have talked about Jevons Paradox several times, we have got to make investments in efficient, sustainable technologies, further reduce requirements for energy in any form, making smaller systems feasible which reduce both initial and operating costs.

The benefits are enormous. Additional benefits include business opportunities, lots of business opportunities we do not even dream of. Look at the business opportunities created by putting a man on the moon. I have 200-some companies in Maryland alone which are there only because of technology breakthroughs in putting a man on the moon.

That same thing could happen if we had a Manhattan type project focusing on renewables, potential worldwide markets, if we are the leader, and we have every reason to be the leader because we have the biggest problem. We can develop worldwide markets, domestic job creation and environmentally benign technologies with potential to reduce and or eliminate pollution. We could be a real role model.

We are, as I mentioned, less than 5 percent of the world's population, and we use 25 percent of the world's energy. I was in Europe a month or so ago, and their comment was somewhere between anger and disdain. ``You are still only paying $2 a gallon for gasoline in your country.'' It is $5.50 or $6.00 a gallon there. And they are not unmindful that this one person in 22 in the world is using 25 percent of the world's energy. We have a real opportunity to be a role model.

Let me put up the last chart. This is potential alternative solutions. For what time we have remaining, let me ask my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) to join us as we talk about this.

I have only have some of the potential solutions here. I just want to go down this list and look at these. There may be some others. The gentleman mentioned hydrogen from the ocean. That is certainly one.

There are some finite resources here, ones we have not maximally exploited here, and some renewable resources here, and we want to spend another whole hour talking about this, because there are a lot of things to talk about in these resources. But almost none of these have the density of energy that we find in fossil fuels.

There are tar sands in Canada, there is oil shale in this country, but it takes an awful lot of energy to get energy out of those. You may not have much more than a one-and-a-half to one. I have heard it takes six barrels of oil to get one net barrel of oil out of these tar sands and oil shale. There is an awful lot there, but there are considerable environmental costs and enormous economic costs to develop it.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will yield, another analogy I heard recently about the efforts to bring out ever-increasing and diminishing oil reserves and how that simply is not going to work for sustaining our energy needs, this particular physicist gave an analogy that compared the oil to a lion in Africa taking the energy of catching two gazelles to catch one gazelle. How long would that lion last? It takes the energy of catching two gazelles to only catch one, but he needs it to sustain himself, and that simply is not going to work.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Maryland, and I would like to be a part of the extra hour that we will do maybe this week to show what the alternatives are, simply because our energy requirements are increasing, they are not decreasing, and they will continue to increase.

Political parties are not going to let the grid go cold, but what do we do when we rely on oil and natural gas as the predominant energy source for this country? We have to simply find alternatives.

If I could just say briefly, there are two problems

with our dependence on oil, and the gentleman has laid those out exceptionally well tonight. Part of the first problem is trade deficits and national security because of our oil dependence. When the price goes up, because we do not have most of the reserves, when oil peaks, we have no control over that. There will never be a decrease in demand. There will always be an increase in demand, no matter what happens, and our energy hunger is gargantuan.

The other problem with our oil dependence is that we are burning fossil fuel. We are returning to the atmosphere carbon that has not been there in this amount for millions of years, and what we are burning in decades it took the natural processes millions of years to lock away.

One other comment about letting the market forces deal with this fairly eminent problem. The global marketplace deals with the CEOs that are rightly so in the business to make a quick profit. The international marketplace is when nations get together, discuss an issue and they find mutual benefit to these vast problems. Vast solutions are available through what the gentleman has described so well tonight.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, of course the real challenge is to have everybody agree on what the facts are. I suspect a big percentage of the people that might read or listen to what we say this evening had not even heard of peak oil.

We really had about 30 years warning that this was going to happen. When M. King Hubbert predicted oil would peak in this country in 1970 and it did, and 5 years later, certainly by 10 years later we knew absolutely he was right, because we were well down on the curve 10 years later, we should have had some hint that he probably was right, he and Colin Campbell were probably right about world production? We paid no attention to that.

As a matter of fact, the people that were talking about this until very recently have been quickly relegated to the lunatic fringe. If I had been up here 3 or 4 years ago talking about this, someone may want to relegate the two of us this evening to the lunatic fringe.

But I think the evidence is out there. I think the evidence is out there, and the marketplace is saying that it is out there, because oil is now at $54 or $55 a barrel, they are saying we are going to see $60 before we see $50. I saw one future that was $100 a barrel.

By the way, at $100 or $200 a barrel, tar sands and oil shale become somewhat competitive, but with enormous costs. They will be positive, we will get a little more out than we put in, but not the kind of energy we are now using.

Coal, we have a lot of coal. China has a lot of coal. We now use coal primarily in this country for producing electricity. It is very dirty. Our environmental requirements now, there has not been a new coal plant in a long while, it is all natural gas. It is a real pity. Oil and natural gas are, in a very real sense, too good to burn. They are the feedstock for an enormous petrochemical industry. I mentioned only the fertilizer that grows our crops and the pesticides we make from oil. We live in a plastic world, and all of that plastic is made from oil.

Now, it is true that you can also use biomass and so forth to do some of that, but let us remember that we are just on the verge of not being able to feed the world. Tonight about one-fifth of the world will go to bed hungry. We we are not going to bed hungry in this country, not by a long shot, and we are living very high on the food chain. The time will come when you will not be able to eat the pig that ate the corn, because there is at least 10 times as much energy in the corn that the pig ate as you are going to get out of the pig by eating him. So we can certainly do a lot of by living lower on the food chain.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield for a second, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman on this fascinating factual presentation which leads me to what I want to say.

The gentleman said something earlier about finding solutions to the problem is going to be similar to the Manhattan Project or similar to placing a man on the moon within a decade when President Kennedy made that statement, and it is that kind of leadership from this Congress, from the administration, to incentivize, to create the kind of inspiration from the general public, to put these forces together to make it all work.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, but now we must do it on a global basis, because of Jevons Paradox, if all the world does not cooperate, we will not get there. Had we


[Page: H1414]
paid attention to M. King Hubbert and not relegated him to the lunatic fringe, and he was right as evidence indicates on his prediction from 1970, had we paid attention to him we would have had at least 20 years headstart, and then we could have done it alone in this country because we are so big and use so much of the world's energy.

[halva]

Before we leave coal, we are going to come back to this and spend another hour with a lot of detail on this, but someone said there are 500 years of coal, that is not true there is maybe 250, at present use rates. But as oil becomes harder and harder to find, we are going to turn more and more to coal, and that 70 years with enormous environmental penalty will shortly become a relatively few years. That is not forever. But we will be leaning on coal more than in the past nuclear.

Three ways we can get nuclear energy. For one of them we are home free, and that is fusion. We send a little less than $300 million a year on that. I would like to spend more if there was the infrastructure out there to support it, because if we get there, we are home free.

But I kind of think that hoping to solve our energy problems with fusion is a bit like you or me hoping to solve our personal financial problems by winning the lottery. That would be real nice. I think the odds are somewhere near the same. I am about as likely to win the lottery as we are to come to economically feasible fusion.

I hope I am wrong. Frequently my hopes and my anticipations are different. My anticipation is we are not going to get there because of the enormous engineering challenges. My hope is I am wrong and we are going to get there.

Two other ways to get energy from nuclear. One is the light water reactor, which is all we have in this country. By the way, tonight when you go home, every fifth home and every fifth business would be dark if we did not have nuclear. It produces 20 percent of all of our electricity. But there is not all that much fissionable uranium in the world, so we are not going to get there with light water reactors.

France produces about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear. They have a lot of breeder reactors. They do what the name implies, they make more fuel than they use, with big problems, in enrichment, shipping it around, squirreling away the products for a quarter of a million years. That presents enormous challenges to us.

So there is the potential here in nuclear, but a lot of problems involved with it. It is not just that simple. By the way, it takes a lot of oil to build a nuclear power plant.


[Time: 20:45]


At some point, you pass the point of no return where there is not enough readily available high-quality fossil fuels to support our present economy while we make the investment we have got to make to transition to these renewables. And then we come to true renewables: solar, wind, geothermal, ocean energy. All of these suffer.

By the way, I am a big supporter of these. I had the first hybrid electric car in Maryland. I had the first one in the Congress. I have a vacation home that is off the grid and totally powered by solar. And I am going to put in a wind machine. I am a big supporter of this.

But the energy density here is very low. And it is intermittent. It takes a lot of solar panels to produce the electricity that you use in your home. It takes 12 of them to power your ordinary refrigerator just as an example. So those are real potential, and they are growing. Wind machines now produce electricity at 3 1/2 cents a kilowatt hour. That is getting competitive. A whole lot of them in California. They are in West Virginia. We are putting some up on Backbone Mountain in western Maryland.

Boy, if we could get down there to geothermal we would have it, would we not?

There is not a single chimney in Iceland because they do not need them. They have got geothermal. They have a little bit of it in the West. But for most of the world that molten core is far too deep for us to tap.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield just for a second, I am sure he knows, but the general public, I do not think realizes it is not necessary to be sitting right on top of a volcanic area, an earthquake zone to get geothermal energy. We on the Eastern Shore of Maryland have a number of schools that are actually providing heat for those schools from geothermal energy. Some of these things are sort of a hidden secret. But it is the classical conventional wisdom that keeps us from exploring some of these things a little bit further. And I think the gentleman is bringing those out tonight.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Is this tying the school to the molten core, or is it simply using a heat pump and exchanging, not with the air? What you are trying to do in the winter-time is cool the air and what you are trying to do in the summer time is heat the air.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is actually bringing water up from the surface, from the subsurface. The water is much warmer further down.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. It is indeed. But you still have to have energy to use that. You are much more efficient using a heat pump that is tied to the ground, to groundwater than it is to the cold air in the winter and the hot air in the summer. If you are thinking about what you are trying to do is to cool the cold air in the winter time and to heat the hot air in the summertime. And obviously ground water is very much better in both seasons than either the air in the winter or the cold, the hot air in the summer or the cold air in the winter.

Ocean energy. You know, it takes an enormous amount of energy to lift the ocean 2 feet. That is roughly what the Moon does in the tides, is it not? But the problem with that is energy density.

There is an old adage that says what is everybody's business is nobody's business. And the corollary to that in energy is if it is too widely distributed, you probably cannot make much of it. And we have really tried to harness the tides. In some fjords in Norway where they have 60-foot tides you put a bar there, when it runs in you trap it and then you run it out through a turbine. When it is running out, you can get some energy from it. And there is potential there, a lot of potential energy. But you know it is very dispersed. We have a hard time capturing that energy.

I suspect that our hour is about up, and this is maybe a good place to end. We are going to come back and spend another hour looking at agriculture, enormous opportunities from agriculture. But let me remind the gentleman that we are just barely able to feed the world now. And if we start taking all of this biomass off the field, what is going to happen to the tilth of our soil, to the organic matter in our soil, which is essential to the availability of nutrients in the soil by the plant. So there are lots of challenges here. There are lots of opportunities here. And we will spend another hour talking about them. Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. Speaker.

END

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Bartlett's own website:

In the 109th Congress, Bartlett serves as Chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. One of three scientists in the Congress, Dr. Bartlett is also a senior member of the Science Committee. Due to his ten years of experience as a small business owner, he also serves on the Small Business Committee and is its Vice Chairman.

More info at www.bartlett.house.gov
Many thanks to Greg T for so persistently following this subject.
-AF

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here.

[halva]

Peak Oil Conference in Edinburgh, 25th April 2005

Guest writes: A one-day conference on the impending peak and decline in global oil production will be held at the Royal Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh on Monday, 25th April.

The conference is titled 'Peak Oil UK: Entering the Age of Oil Depletion' and it will bring together six leading experts to discuss the problem from various perspectives -- economic, social, technical and political.

As mounting evidence suggests that the era of cheap, abundant oil is rapidly coming to an end, many experts are now forecasting that global production could reach its all-time peak before the end of this decade, or soon after. The clear implication is that ever-diminishing supplies will lead to rising prices -- not only for oil itself, but for everything that depends on it. 'Peak Oil' will therefore be a critical turning point for the modern world, challenging our economic and social systems as never before.

Former UK Energy Minister Brian Wilson MP will head the programme. The other speakers will be Colin Campbell, chairman of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO); Chris Skrebowski, editor of the UK Energy Institute's magazine, 'Petroleum Review'; Matthew Simmons, chairman of major US energy investment firm, Simmons & Company International; David Spaven, chair of TRANSform Scotland, the campaign for sustainable transport; and Jeremy Leggett, chief executive of the UK's leading solar energy company.

There will be ample opportunity to ask questions and interact with the speakers during a roundtable session in the afternoon, moderated by Mark Stephen from BBC Radio.

The conference is being organised by an Edinburgh-based awareness-raising group, Depletion Scotland, with support from The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC). Full programme details and a registration form can be downloaded from http://www.odac-info.org.

[foot_soldier]

Re: March 14 Peak Oil Presentation to the US Congress:

.....Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield just for a second, I am sure he knows, but the general public, I do not think realizes it is not necessary to be sitting right on top of a volcanic area, an earthquake zone to get geothermal energy. We on the Eastern Shore of Maryland have a number of schools that are actually providing heat for those schools from geothermal energy.....
I think this is very interesting. Why aren't we hearing more about this option?

Geothermal Education Office
http://geothermal.marin.org/

Geothermal Energy Research
http://geothermal.id.doe.gov/

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Geothermal Technologies Program
http://www.nrel.gov/geothermal/

[halva]

My (not only my) "Jekyll and Hyde" article has been published by Spectrezine.

http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall3.htm

[halva]

Extracts from private correspondence:

"The first ‘oil shocks’ will hit us in as little as two years. After that there will not be enough oil for everyone. The price of Brent crude reached over $56/barrel for the very first time last week. OPEC countries are predicting $80 before end of year, and $180-$200 / barrel at ‘Peak Oil’! Here’s your issue for contrails and air travel……….stop it………..there is not enough oil to grow food and distribute it so stop people flying on holidays and flights of fancy. Cheap air travel is almost over anyway. ‘Peak Oil & Gas’ is set for 2015………….kiss goodbye to the contrails!"

[jayreynolds]

Extracts from private correspondence
Who cares what one nutcase says to another?
Hey, whatever happened to Jimbo?
Is he still at the sanitarium?

[halva]

The quote from the private correspondence was not from a 'nutcase'.

W.H.
(Moderator)

[Yaak]

The quote from the private correspondence was not from a 'nutcase'.

W.H.
(Moderator)

....but you admit that the correspondence was to a 'nutcase'. Is that so?

[jayreynolds]

Yes, Wayne isn't just stupid, his heritage includes nutcases, fruitcakes, and assorted chocolates!

Of course he's also admitted he is a liar as well, and that there's no evidence whatsoever for the hoax he's been trying to promote over the last few years. This 700 page thread is evidence of all of that, endlessly repeated.

[jayreynolds]

Hey Wayne, looks like my buddy Jimbo isn't going to answer your question.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8179

[hoot]

http://tinyurl.com/55jrf

[halva]

A new Toronto-based 'Mystery Lines in the Sky' site.
http://www.airapparent.ca/

[Boomer Chick]

Cleaning up Mother Nature!

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-22-09.asp#anchor4

Newark Superfund Cleanup Costs US$3 Million

NEWARK, New Jersey, March 22, 2005 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reached an agreement with 11 private parties, requiring them to immediately pay $800,000 for part of the $3 million in cleanup work conducted by EPA at the Bayonne Barrel & Drum Superfund site in Newark.
The parties are also required to pay the $2.2 million balance of EPA's past cleanup expenditures, minus the value of future work that is anticipated to be conducted at the site by private parties.

"EPA is pleased that the private parties have stepped up to the plate to clean up the contamination at the Bayonne Barrel & Drum site, which will be protective to people's health," said Acting EPA Regional Administrator Kathleen Callahan from her office in New York. "With this agreement, EPA will be reimbursed for the cost of our work, while the responsible parties continue to clean up the site at their own expense."

Bayonne Barrel & Drum operated as a barrel and drum reconditioning facility in the early 1940s until the early 1980s when the company filed for bankruptcy. The site is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin/furans, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons and various other hazardous substances.

A number of companies, including the parties named in this settlement and in a prior settlement, are deemed potentially responsible because their drums were sent to the site for reconditioning.

In 1994, EPA established site security, and has since removed 46,000 drums including liquid and solid hazardous wastes, cyanide residue, tank liquids and sludges, and dioxin contaminated ash piles.

In 2003, EPA entered into a prior agreement with the 11 private parties to conduct additional cleanup work. They agreed to maintain site security, abate and remove asbestos, and dispose of various waste materials from the site including liquids, solids, sludges, tanks, piping and other equipment. The private parties also demolished buildings and other structures on the site and disposed of the demolition debris.

To date, they have spent about $1.2 million cleaning up the site. They are working towards developing a final cleanup plan. EPA and the private parties expect to enter into a third settlement agreement for the final cleanup.

Under the current settlement, the private parties are obligated to pay the balance of EPA's past cleanup costs within 18 months. This payment is subject to a potential adjustment based on the amount of future work private parties are expected to perform at the site.

***

The EPA isn't all bad! Takes them long enough, though!

[Boomer Chick]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1329954.htm

Last Update: Wednesday, March 23, 2005. 12:29pm (AEDT)

Nuclear conference boasts benefits of 'clean' energy

An international conference on nuclear power has wrapped up in Paris, trumpeting atomic energy as an answer to the world's galloping fuel needs and fears of global warming.

In a final statement, the 74-nations at the conference have said the majority of participants believe nuclear power can make a major contribution to sustaining the world's development in the 21st century.

The statement also praises nuclear power for not generating air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions and for being a proven technology.

But the statement says for nuclear power to thrive all states must commit themselves to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The conference has been organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the French government.

- AFP

[Boomer Chick]

As though reduced emissions make up for the constant carbon production, spewing tons and tons of extra CO2! Zero emissions is what we need! No fossil-based oil emissions.... please! Didn't GM just junk hundreds of hybrid vehicles it says it couldn't sell?

An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking
By Danny Hakim
The New York Times

Tuesday 22 March 2005

Detroit - Toyota, Ford, BMW and several other automakers are financing an advertising campaign aimed at politicians that asserts that automobiles are "virtually emission-free."

The campaign is part of an effort by a broad coalition of automakers to present their vehicles as environmentally benign at a time when the coalition is suing California to block a new regulation to curb global warming emissions and continuing to lobby in Washington against tougher fuel-economy regulations.

A print version of the ad has appeared in journals aimed at legislators like Roll Call, Congress Daily and Congressional Quarterly, as well as in the industry trade publication Automotive News, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the lobbying group behind the campaign.

The ads have sparked a campaign by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmentalist group that says its efforts have generated 20,000 complaints asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the industry is making misleading claims.

While regulations have indeed forced automakers to greatly improve emissions of smog-forming pollutants, the ads essentially ignore greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as an automotive emission. The ads appear to contradict some automakers' own statements about rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Smog-forming emissions remain a public health issue, according to environmental and consumer groups, as the number of vehicles continues to increase.

"Our advertising practices division and our enforcement division are both aware of the ad and the campaign by UCS," Mitch Katz, a spokesman for the trade commission, said, referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We are evaluating the complaints we've received right now."

He declined to say how many complaints the commission had received.

The alliance includes most major automakers: Toyota, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Mazda, BMW, Mitsubishi, Porsche and Volkswagen.

The ad shows a picture of a toddler in a car eating a Popsicle.

"Your car may never be spotless, but it's 99 percent cleaner than you think," the ad says. "Autos manufactured today are virtually emission-free. And that's a dramatic improvement over models from just 30 years ago."

Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the alliance, said that the ad's use of the term "virtually emission-free" should be understood to refer only to emissions classified as pollutants by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Whether to consider greenhouse gases as pollutants is a politically charged issue. The Clinton administration determined carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, but the Bush administration reversed the decision. Several states and environment groups are suing to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants.

But David Friedman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean vehicles program, said the advertisement itself made no such distinction - it simply called vehicles "virtually emission-free."

"It reminds you of the cigarette makers," he said. "They're trying to hide the harmful emissions coming from their vehicles."

Though some cars on the road today are considered to be emitting roughly 99 percent fewer smog-forming particles than cars did in the pre-regulatory 1960s, Bergquist said the statement could not be broadly applied to all new cars and trucks until regulations of such emissions take effect by 2010.

Automotive emissions of greenhouse gases, however, have been rising for two reasons: The number of vehicles is increasing and average fuel economy has declined since the late 1980s because of surging sales of sport utility vehicles and big pickups.

Many scientists have raised potentially serious health concerns related to global warming, though there are dissenters. Most major automakers have said that they do take the issue of reducing global warming emissions quite seriously. In DaimlerChrysler's 2004 environmental report, for instance, the company's chief executive, Jürgen Schrempp, said in an opening statement that reducing "CO emissions is the central topic as we strive for sustainable mobility."

But Dennis Fitzgibbons, a spokesman for the company in Washington, said that the ad referred to emissions "that have health-based effects that are defined under the Clean Air Act."

Not all automakers appeared to agree with the alliance's blanket assessment that cars are now "virtually emission-free." Honda, which is not an alliance member, said, "Today's vehicles in many cases are virtually emissions-free with regards to smog-forming" gases. "However, CO emissions remain a significant contributor to global warming trends."

-------

[jayreynolds]

As though reduced emissions make up for the constant carbon production, spewing tons and tons of extra CO2! Zero emissions is what we need! No fossil-based oil emissions.... please! Didn't GM just junk hundreds of hybrid vehicles it says it couldn't sell? -------
Let's face it, folks. We all rely on fossil energy to run our computers, light our homes, and provide transportation. Burning this fuel yields carbon dioxide, just like burning food in our bodies does.
Even a bicyclist produces carbon dioxide!
Even hybrids produce carbon dioxide!
The auto industry is to be congratulated for reducing unneeded byproducts of this energy use by 99%. You can read more about it here:
http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ultra_clean_autos.php

:

[Boomer Chick]

Computers are run by electricity, including all appliances of the home and office. Such electricity does NOT have to be, ultimately, created by fossil fuels.

The point was, American car manufacturers are slower in the R & D regarding fuels and emissions than the other countries. Why give them kudos when they're so behind? Makes no sense! You say "auto industry" and considering it globally, I would agree, but just considering American.... no, they are only now attempting to catch up with Toyota, Honda, and other Asian and European manufacturers.

For cars and transportation:

Dimethyl ether a new fuel: (notice Japan, China, and other countries? )

EXCELLENT INFO !!!! :

http://www.greencarcongress.com/dme/

***
Honda is not American!

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef361b5

You are correct CNG cars are very clean burning. Here are some facts to back it up...

1. Natural Gas Civic is rated the "Cleanest Internal Combustion Engine" ever tested by CARB.

2. The Civic GX emissions of reactive hydrocarbons driving from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. are less than that of spilling a TEASPOONFUL of gasoline.

3. When Honda and the Federal Governement first tested the NGV Civic the emission equipment could not dectect anything. They had to create more sensitive equipment to measure the emissions.

4. "In highly polluted areas, the air coming out of the GX’s exhaust pipe can actually be cleaner than the air you are breathing."

All from these articles: http://www.greenatworkmag.com/gwsubaccess/01novdec/special.html

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0401/et0401s13.html

***

See Crighton forum for CO2 discussion:
http://www.crichton-official.com/~adara/cgi-bin/messageboard-mc/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000090

***
One must ask, "Who manufactures the hybrids? "

Excerpt: Porche Thinks Hybrids Will Gain Ground [paraphrased]

Feb. 2005

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05059/464017.stm

Porche is a 36-year-old policy expert at the Rand Corp. think tank in Oakland. He spends most of his time these days analyzing the future communications needs of America's armed forces, but his hobby, and much of his training, is in energy-saving automobiles.

Unlike environmentalists or those who want to free the United States from dependence on foreign oil, Porche is not basing his bullish prediction for hybrids on the fact that they can get up to 60 miles per gallon and reduce pollution.

American buyers already have shown that high mileage and cleaner emissions aren't enough to drive most of them to a new model.

What attracts most U.S. car buyers, he said, is power, safety and "image" -- all features that they're willing to pay extra for, and all features that many of the new hybrids will be able to offer.

To see where the hybrid market might be heading, Porche said, pay attention to advance orders for the new Lexus hybrid SUV, the RX400h. Already, buyers have placed sight-unseen orders for half the 24,000 models that will be offered for sale in the United States this year -- at an estimated $45,000 sticker price.

Porche cited two salient facts about the RX400h: the four-wheel-drive SUV will get 30 mpg, and it will be able to accelerate to 60 mph in eight seconds.

It's the second fact that will drive more sales than the first, he predicted, and that offers a hint of why bigger hybrid vehicles may take a sizeable share of the future automotive market.

The new Lexus, like Toyota and Ford hybrids, uses the electric motor for starting and early acceleration, with the gasoline engine kicking in later, while a competing hybrid model made by Honda uses an efficient gasoline engine for starting and supplements it at higher speeds with the electric motor.


Voltage for vroom


Electric motors have always been more efficient than gasoline engines because they don't waste energy by inefficiently burning fuel or transmitting their power through gears, Porche said.

"So when your neighbor gets that new Lexus that smokes you off the light because you're in your Dodge Durango that needs to sip gas for about 10 seconds before it really wants to move, he's going to go, 'I want that hybrid Lexus and I'll pay an extra $10,000 for it.' "

When Porche refers to American drivers' lust for power, though, he isn't just talking about the speed of an automobile -- he's also talking about the increasing demand for electrical power for accessories and controls inside the vehicle.

And that is reason No. 2 why he believes hybrid technology may have a much bigger future than J.D. Power forecasts.

"I call it the {(seelink)n," said Porche, referring to the MTV program that transforms everyday cars into customized high-performance vehicles that are often loaded with electrical gizmos like motorized shoe racks or remote-controlled digital cameras.

"People want everything in their cars -- all kinds of electronics, all kinds of gadgets.

"But guess what -- a 12-volt battery in a standard car will not take care of the power needs that people are going to have. If you start cranking up power on a car the way it is now, the wires will catch on fire and burn the car down."

Hybrids will help deal with that reality by making it cheaper to produce electric motors, nickel hydride batteries and other new components. Eventually, vehicles may feature auxiliary power supplies and separate wiring to accommodate all the devices people want to use.

The other reason hybrids may succeed, at least for the next few decades, is that they continue to make some use of the internal combustion engine.

That doesn't please those who want to sharply cut America's dependency on oil, but Porche noted that it's very hard to change an industry that has been built around one type of engine for nearly 100 years.

Moving to a more environmentally friendly auto industry isn't just a matter of developing new engines that run on new fuels, he said -- it's also how to do that in a way that won't cause a whole segment of the economy to collapse.

The auto industry includes not only the big plants that assemble vehicles, but "engine manufacturers, engine components makers, radio manufacturers, pump makers, all these systems. You're talking about changing a business model that's been very profitable" and is heavily entrenched.



continued...

[Boomer Chick]

Hydrogen-powered future?


Eventually, Porche believes there will be a new standard automobile, and it's likely to be powered by an electric engine that runs on hydrogen and has almost no toxic emissions -- the technology that President Bush has promoted in his State of the Union messages.

Porche would be happy to see a hydrogen-powered car come along and help clean up the skies -- but he didn't always feel that way.

Ironically, even though he once worked on General Motors' experimental electric vehicle program, Porche didn't have much sympathy for environmentalists.

"We used to say 'Who are these green people, these fanatics? Save a whale, leave us alone.' "

It was only after Porche got his doctorate in traffic control engineering at the University of Michigan in 1998 that he developed a "greener" outlook.

It happened when he was hired by Rand and moved with his family to work in its Santa Monica, Calif., headquarters, near Los Angeles.

"It didn't occur to me until I was driving into that brown layer of air out there that this could have health impacts. My kid developed asthma, and I developed a hacking cough that I still have to this day.

"The first time I realized that tailpipe emissions were making me sick, it all of a sudden became a political issue."

GM had recruited Porche when he was a 19-year-old undergraduate electrical engineering student at Southern University in his hometown of Baton Rouge, La.

The automaker paid for the conclusion of his undergraduate education and for his master's degree in electrical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, where he helped develop an automated highway system, a demonstration project that proved that 15 cars could move safely along an experimental roadway without any drivers controlling them.

He went to work for GM after that, helping design the electronic ignition and security system for the EV1 battery-powered car.

GM produced about 700 of the high-performance electric vehicles starting in 1996, leasing them primarily to drivers in California, which had developed strict new air pollution standards.

But for reasons that are still murky, GM eventually decided to kill off the EV1 program, pulling the cars off the market and crushing them as their leases expired. The decision has provoked outrage among EV1 enthusiasts, and as recently as this month, a group of them led by actor Ed Begley Jr. were staging public protests in an attempt to change the company's mind.

It was during his two years at GM that Porche also had to undergo the most unrelenting stretch of jokes about his name.

In Louisiana, Porche is a common Creole name, but once he left the state and went to work for GM, he had to listen to almost daily gags, even though his surname is spelled differently than that of the German luxury automaker.

But at least he didn't go through what his sister did, Porche said. When she attended Dartmouth College, somebody in the admissions office made sure her roommate was a young woman named Ferrari.


A car to power your house


Porche believes the best hope for a commercial low-emission vehicle in the future is hydrogen technology, in which low-cost fuel cells would split hydrogen into its constituent protons and electrons to generate electricity that would power an electric motor.

Some of the major U.S. developers of fuel cells are based in this region, including Siemens Westinghouse in Churchill and the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, W.Va.

The hydrogen fuel might be supplied by the equivalent of gas stations scattered around the country, which could convert natural gas into hydrogen that could be pumped into vehicle tanks, Porche said.

While many people instinctively fear the explosiveness of hydrogen fuel, haunted by old newsreels of the Hindenburg zeppelin disaster, Porche believes the fuel would be as safe as gasoline.

The bigger challenge would be creating a network of hydrogen fueling stations.

An intriguing alternative, he said, would be to connect devices known as reformers to natural gas lines at people's homes. The reformers would convert the natural gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

That would let someone fuel up his car at home, and could even allow the car to generate electricity for the house.

In that scenario, you would drive to your home at night, hook the car up to the reformer, and use the car's fuel cells to route electricity into your house, reducing your need for power from the local utility company.

If such a system were in place, Porche said, "not only would we have lower emissions but we'd have a safer power distribution system. If a hurricane hits and you lose power, no big deal. You turn the car on."

All of this may seem far-fetched today, and Porche is quick to acknowledge that such changes are probably 50 years away at least.

Nevertheless, he said, "it's important to take the first steps now, because you know in the very long run you don't want to be dependent on oil and gasoline."


Sorry for the goof -- please read whole article on link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent renewable energy news site:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

***

Come on, America, let's get hybrid cooking and realize some new technologies! China is even considering new R & D for transportation!

[whitemajikman]

Excellent And Informative Boomer....

Kudos....

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Here Is an article Right Here From arianna's.....Blog

I Agree with It except for The manmade global warming part......

Paying The Price For Bush’s Retro Energy Policy
March 23, 2005 [ Printer-friendly version ]

The new sales pitch for President Bush is that he’s a forward-thinking visionary, right? His policies in the Middle East were, it turns out, not about the bloody debacle in Iraq today but about democracy spreading throughout the region in a glorious future. And his plan to fix Social Security is not at all about privatizing the jewel of the New Deal but simply about ensuring a safe and secure system well past 2052.

But when it comes to dealing with the many energy-related crises we’re facing, can the Bushies really go on pretending that their policies are any more forward-looking than a rerun of “That ’70s Show”?

Exhibit A is the president’s bizarre and long-standing obsession with drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which just got Senate approval last week. I mean, how retro can you get? Instead of pushing to increase fuel efficiency standards that could save millions of barrels of oil each day and calling for a national commitment to investing in renewable sources of energy, he’s after one more fix of dinosaur byproducts from one of the world’s last pristine places.

Which might be understandable if making an Exxon Mobil theme park out of the refuge would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But it won’t. At best, there’s only enough oil there to satisfy U.S. demand for about six months. And it won’t be available for at least a decade — which is the only forward-looking aspect to Bush’s ANWR dream.

The consequences of Bush’s head-in-the-tundra policies are already all around us — starting with the record prices Americans are paying to gas up their cars. The national average just raced past $2.10 a gallon — up 21 percent from last year. The U.S. remains the world’s largest oil consumer, but with growing countries like China and India demanding more and more oil, and the world’s refineries already close to maxed out, things are only going to get worse. How long will it be before filling stations are asking: “Cash, Credit or Home Equity Loan?”

In response to this mounting economic calamity, President Bush summoned all his authority as leader of the free world and, uh, well, sent an official complaint to OPEC ministers meeting in Iran. I’m sure it was very strongly worded. In any case, most experts agree that even OPEC can’t pump enough additional oil to make a long-term difference.

Meanwhile, the president’s old oil company pals are raking in record profits. Exxon Mobil, for instance, more than doubled its cash flow last year, ending 2004 with $23.1 billion in its bulging coffers. In fact, every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar, Exxon’s accountants chalk up another $550 million in after-tax profits. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that oil companies are actually having a hard time figuring out what to do with all that cash.

The president’s outdated energy policies are also pushing us to the brink of an economic and ecological catastrophe brought about by global warming. Temperatures are climbing, sea levels are rising, Antarctica is thawing — and these are just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. The winter ice cap at the North Pole has shrunk 20 percent in the past two decades, and all that disappearing ice is going to reappear in the form of rising seas threatening coastal areas from New York to New Orleans.

Our MBA president’s energy plan is designed to coddle corporations, of course. But the most surprising aspect of the scheme is how bad it has been for business (non-oil business, that is). Oh, those unintended consequences.

Just look at the head-on collision at General Motors, which, along with the rest of the industry, has enjoyed one fuel economy loophole after another. The company bet the farm on hulking gas-guzzlers and engines whose basic designs date to the 1950s. Now, with gas prices heading through the sunroof, demand for SUVs has tumbled — and with it, GM’s fortunes. Despite rebates as high as $6,000, sales of models including the Hummer H2 have dropped by double digits. As a result, GM has taken a $4 billion cash flow hit and laid off thousands of workers — yet losses are still expected to reach $850 million in the first quarter of 2005 alone.

At the same time, Toyota and Honda, companies that have shown a commitment to higher fuel efficiency and fuel-saving hybrid technology, are running away with Detroit’s market share. In true Neanderthal fashion, GM has responded to its troubles by redoubling its focus — and its multibillion-dollar advertising budget — on hawking the upcoming models of its SUVs. They just don’t get it — and for that they are paying a heavy price.

And our leaders in Washington — their pockets stuffed with oil, gas and auto-industry donations — have been willing accomplices in this financial fiasco. By keeping mileage standards for SUVs lower than for cars, allowing unconscionable fuel efficiency loopholes that exempt monster trucks like the Hummer H2, and giving a special tax break allowing write-offs up to $100,000 on luxury SUVs, they helped create an artificial market for gas guzzlers — and helped lead GM to the corporate ICU.

Bush and company call themselves free marketers, but by indulging Detroit they’ve discouraged innovation and made it much easier for companies like GM to slowly destroy themselves — and their workers. It’s assisted suicide, Beltway-style.

Tom DeLay and Bill Frist should immediately call another midnight session of Congress to look into this. And someone needs to wake up President Bush before his habit of looking in the rear view mirror when it comes to energy policy leads us even further off the road to energy independence — and straight over a cliff.

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

Now we're going to buy Chinese autos? Excuse me? I'll be handing his ass to him!

http://www.greencarcongress.com/vehicle_manufacturers/index.html

January 03, 2005
Bricklin in Major Deal to Bring Chinese Cars to US
The Detroit News reports that Malcolm Bricklin, the entrepreneur who brought Subaru and the Yugo to the US, has signed the first-ever deal to import Chinese cars to the US.

Bricklin’s new company, Visionary Vehicles LLC, backed by Allen & Co., is working with Chery Automobile Co. The deal will be announced formally at the upcoming Detroit auto show.

The plan is to import up to 250,000 Chinese-made cars annually beginning in 2007.

The sale of the first Chinese vehicles to American consumers will be a watershed event both in the United States, where Asian automakers have been steadily taking market share from Detroit's Big Three, and in China, where hard-charging manufacturers like Chery are eager to expand globally.

Bricklin said that privately held Visionary Vehicles has committed to invest $200 million in the new product program at Chery—China’s eighth-biggest automaker—for the U.S. market. [...]

While Bricklin is chief executive officer of Visionary Vehicles, its management board is chaired by William vanden Heuvel, a senior advisor to Allen & Co. and former deputy U.S. representative to the United Nations.

In a recent interview with The News, vanden Heuvel compared the potential of bringing Chinese cars to the United States to the entrance of Japanese automakers into the American market more than 30 years ago.

“We think the opportunity is huge to be the first to go to market,” vanden Heuvel said. “It’s exactly the situation that Japan was in starting out.” [...]

“What I do best is import cars, and this is the most incredible opportunity in the car business,” [Bricklin] said. “I’d like to look at it as being the next Toyota.”

Bricklin said that Chery has engaged the Italian design houses Pininfarina and Bertone to design its U.S. models, and has contracted with the Austrian engineering firm AVL to develop new engines. [...]

Bricklin expects the automotive world to be skeptical of Chinese imports in the United States, just as it was when he brought in Subarus and Yugos. But with the signing of the Chery agreement, the aging automotive impresario believes he can make history.

“You know, if we don’t make sure these cars are among the best in the world, we’re going to get our ass handed to us,” he said. “But if we do what we’re supposed to do, this could be the deal that changes the industry.”

As the article points out, if not Bricklin, then someone else would do this. Despite the many challenges, the design and engine firms are clearly top-flight. The interesting question—and opportunity for the new venture—is whether or not it will compete solely on price, or whether it can carve out a distinctive product position, as Toyota and Honda did with hybrids.

AVL is no stranger to advanced powertrain design. (Earlier post on an AVL diesel-hybrid prototype.) A series of new low-cost vehicles with hybrid powertrains could be just the ticket for 2007—the year that ASPO currently projects for the peaking of global oil production.

:mad:

[whitemajikman]

Here Is a Site I Think everyone would Like ......

It's Informative And Up To date....

http://www.topix.net/tech/alt-energy

[Boomer Chick]

Another good site, WMM, thanks!

:D for the appreciation of the sites I linked!

Altogether, you can't go wrong keeping up with the alternative energy news! Now all we need to do is invest in the right companies and get this economic behemoth moving!

Ya?

;)

[Boomer Chick]

Here Is an article Right Here From arianna's.....Blog

I Agree with It except for The manmade global warming part......

Paying The Price For Bush’s Retro Energy Policy
March 23, 2005 [ Printer-friendly version ]

The new sales pitch for President Bush is that he’s a forward-thinking visionary, right? His policies in the Middle East were, it turns out, not about the bloody debacle in Iraq today but about democracy spreading throughout the region in a glorious future. And his plan to fix Social Security is not at all about privatizing the jewel of the New Deal but simply about ensuring a safe and secure system well past 2052.

But when it comes to dealing with the many energy-related crises we’re facing, can the Bushies really go on pretending that their policies are any more forward-looking than a rerun of “That ’70s Show”?

Exhibit A is the president’s bizarre and long-standing obsession with drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which just got Senate approval last week. I mean, how retro can you get? Instead of pushing to increase fuel efficiency standards that could save millions of barrels of oil each day and calling for a national commitment to investing in renewable sources of energy, he’s after one more fix of dinosaur byproducts from one of the world’s last pristine places.

Which might be understandable if making an Exxon Mobil theme park out of the refuge would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But it won’t. At best, there’s only enough oil there to satisfy U.S. demand for about six months. And it won’t be available for at least a decade — which is the only forward-looking aspect to Bush’s ANWR dream.

The consequences of Bush’s head-in-the-tundra policies are already all around us — starting with the record prices Americans are paying to gas up their cars. The national average just raced past $2.10 a gallon — up 21 percent from last year. The U.S. remains the world’s largest oil consumer, but with growing countries like China and India demanding more and more oil, and the world’s refineries already close to maxed out, things are only going to get worse. How long will it be before filling stations are asking: “Cash, Credit or Home Equity Loan?”

In response to this mounting economic calamity, President Bush summoned all his authority as leader of the free world and, uh, well, sent an official complaint to OPEC ministers meeting in Iran. I’m sure it was very strongly worded. In any case, most experts agree that even OPEC can’t pump enough additional oil to make a long-term difference.

Meanwhile, the president’s old oil company pals are raking in record profits. Exxon Mobil, for instance, more than doubled its cash flow last year, ending 2004 with $23.1 billion in its bulging coffers. In fact, every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar, Exxon’s accountants chalk up another $550 million in after-tax profits. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that oil companies are actually having a hard time figuring out what to do with all that cash.

The president’s outdated energy policies are also pushing us to the brink of an economic and ecological catastrophe brought about by global warming. Temperatures are climbing, sea levels are rising, Antarctica is thawing — and these are just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. The winter ice cap at the North Pole has shrunk 20 percent in the past two decades, and all that disappearing ice is going to reappear in the form of rising seas threatening coastal areas from New York to New Orleans.

Our MBA president’s energy plan is designed to coddle corporations, of course. But the most surprising aspect of the scheme is how bad it has been for business (non-oil business, that is). Oh, those unintended consequences.

Just look at the head-on collision at General Motors, which, along with the rest of the industry, has enjoyed one fuel economy loophole after another. The company bet the farm on hulking gas-guzzlers and engines whose basic designs date to the 1950s. Now, with gas prices heading through the sunroof, demand for SUVs has tumbled — and with it, GM’s fortunes. Despite rebates as high as $6,000, sales of models including the Hummer H2 have dropped by double digits. As a result, GM has taken a $4 billion cash flow hit and laid off thousands of workers — yet losses are still expected to reach $850 million in the first quarter of 2005 alone.

At the same time, Toyota and Honda, companies that have shown a commitment to higher fuel efficiency and fuel-saving hybrid technology, are running away with Detroit’s market share. In true Neanderthal fashion, GM has responded to its troubles by redoubling its focus — and its multibillion-dollar advertising budget — on hawking the upcoming models of its SUVs. They just don’t get it — and for that they are paying a heavy price.

And our leaders in Washington — their pockets stuffed with oil, gas and auto-industry donations — have been willing accomplices in this financial fiasco. By keeping mileage standards for SUVs lower than for cars, allowing unconscionable fuel efficiency loopholes that exempt monster trucks like the Hummer H2, and giving a special tax break allowing write-offs up to $100,000 on luxury SUVs, they helped create an artificial market for gas guzzlers — and helped lead GM to the corporate ICU.

Bush and company call themselves free marketers, but by indulging Detroit they’ve discouraged innovation and made it much easier for companies like GM to slowly destroy themselves — and their workers. It’s assisted suicide, Beltway-style.

Tom DeLay and Bill Frist should immediately call another midnight session of Congress to look into this. And someone needs to wake up President Bush before his habit of looking in the rear view mirror when it comes to energy policy leads us even further off the road to energy independence — and straight over a cliff.

WMM

Actually, this is an article written by Arianna Huffington! Not a blog! I posted her article because I receive them in my inbox. When you post an article by anyone, WMM, please put their full name as author of the article! O - Kay - DOH - Kay ???

She's syndicated as well, which means her article is carried by many publications across the nation, internet and print!

I assume you read my response to her article over there? Hmmmm?

[whitemajikman]

Actually, this is an article written by Arianna Huffington! Not a blog! I posted her article because I receive them in my inbox. When you post an article by anyone, WMM, please put their full name as author of the article! O - Kay - DOH - Kay ???

She's syndicated as well, which means her article is carried by many publications across the nation, internet and print!

I assume you read my response to her article over there? Hmmmm?


Actually Boomer I Didn't catch Your Response Over There.....

And I would Like To Point out To You that while You are Correct Regarding Syndication.....

This Article Was Taken From Her BLOG......

http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/index.php

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

Yeah, after I wrote the post, I realized she has a blog section, too. This piece was sent to me as an article and I posted it in her section for her articles. If you notice when you click on General Discussions, there's a forum for her articles there. At first I assumed you read her article there!
My baddy!!!

Glad you agreed with most of her points because I've had quite a few interesting debating experiences with various peeps regarding her observations and sentiments! I have liked her writing and thoughts for many years, own two of her books, have e-mailed her and received a response from her..... so you know I'm biased. But I try to be open to relevant opposing commentary. But if I disagree with said commentary and can prove it, I aim for the jugular!

Hehehe!

I wondered why you didn't post your reaction to her article over there! Then it all came together!

We've been discussing our climate, weather, emissions, contrails, and other related topics here quite peacefully since IS left. And I think giving Halva some time to adjust to his moderator role would show some compassionate humanity instead of totally smearing the board with irrelevant stuff. I like you and respect you so much, WMM, and Stu, too, and if Jay would just relax and let things slide a bit, you'll all see that Halva is nowhere near a nazi. He just doesn't like name-calling and flaming. I would support all of you if he deleted the posts using the word "hoax" as it's really not a flame, just a term with which he may disagree. But deleting would not be wise. Calling anyone a liar, however, is not acceptable and neither are posts solely directed to criticizing Halva. I'm sure Halva and Mike will work it out and Jay will just have to trust that Halva will be fair. Do you think I would even support Halva if he wasn't fair? No way! Give it some time ..... please? We just want to post in peace!

There has been a general crack down lately on the larger discussion board as well. People are venting over in other smaller forums toward the bottom on the opening page. So, just give it some time! Appreciate your contributions and especially your thread on Peak Oil! You da man!

Peace...

[jayreynolds]

Jay will just have to trust that Halva will be fair.
He has already demonstrated his idea of 'fairness'.

[whitemajikman]

He has already demonstrated his idea of 'fairness'.

YES HE HAS JAY.....

BUT HE HAS ALSO Admitted To Being WRONG.......

From The Peak Oil Thread.....


In any case, one of the points you reminded me of in your recent graffiti scrawling was the potential for incompatibility between moderating and participation in discussion.

Now isn't That CLARITY.....?

Isn't That The Main Reason Why SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN BANNED..........At Other Sites......?

When Moderators Get Caught Up In Participating ......And Not moderating......?

It Was REALLY BIG OF WAYNE To Be Able To Admit THIS........

That Should Say Something In His Defense......

WMM

[halva]

Global Dimming

On 21st March ABC Four Corners (Australia) aired a BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon documentary on Global Dimming. Also see this post on Global Dimming at Real Climate.

http://uber.tv/g-one/archives/2005/03/005699.html

and

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1325819.htm

[jayreynolds]

The link you posted isn't to realclimate, Wayne. Your link lays out a claim which jumps to this scaremongering conclusion, "Dr Leon Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store."

However, the realclimate site calls this sort of conclusion "hyperbole" and "horribly premature",


"The reference is to the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, partly caused by the failure of the Sahel monsoon (but clearly exacerbated by the poor governance of the Menghistu regime then in power). The link is based on a single modelling sensitivity study (Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002) which looked at only the changes in the indirect effect from the pre-industrial (ca. 1850) to the present day. In this study, there was a shift southward of the rainfall belts in a similar way to that observed over the whole century (i.e. not necessarily just the 1980s). While this is indeed very interesting and does suggest that aerosol indirect effects can have important climatic consequences, it is merely the first step to attributing any particular climatic effect (failure of Sahel monsoon) to a particular cause (aerosol indirect effects). The obvious open questions relate to the importance of other forcings, in particular, greenhouse gases (which were not changed in this experiment), and the robustness of any transient response (i.e. does a simulated drought occur in the Sahel in the 1980s more often than at any other time). Absent this further study (which we expect is ongoing as part of the assessments related to the IPCC 4th Assessment report), it is horribly premature to declare 'global dimming' the cause of this event. Note that while this study looked at the aerosol effects, it makes no claim to actually match the 'global dimming' results. Additionally, other model experiments (Giannini et al, 2003) point to warmer Indian Ocean temperatures to explain the 1980s droughts."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105#more-105


You really should change your signature, Wayne, if you are going to continue this self-defeating strategy of making claims not supported by the facts.

remember?- "Let us deal gently with the truth. No more scaremongering: about nukes, about the climate, about terrorists, about anything."

[halva]

As an anthropogenic climate change debunker you have been excluded from the discussion between chemtrails activists and climate scientists on the subject of 'Global Dimming'.

[Boomer Chick]

Halva:

quote]As an anthropogenic climate change debunker you have been excluded from the discussion between chemtrails activists and climate scientists on the subject of 'Global Dimming'.[/quote]

This post does not read or "feel" like Halva. Please consider that perhaps the poster is not Halva, before "freaking out."

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with Reynold's recent post regarding his Realclimate quote regarding global dimming. He should not be excluded from the conversation. Period. He did not flame, he used logical deductions and related quotes and was quite within his board rights to post what he did.

From the discussion area at Realclimate by a quite cogent and academic member of the realclimate commentary board, you can see his feelings on "scaremongering" are similar to Reynold's.


I haven't yet seen the documentary. I have only read the transcript and hence was spared the pictures of the potential apocalypse and the invocation of biblical-scale famines. However, as one of the lead scientists on the topic [and who was interviewed by the BBC for the Horizon documentary (transcript, previous post)], I feel I should explain a few things about it without using religious analogies and stoking unnecessary fear.
*
Finally a comment on language. It concerns me that articles from scientists and journalists alike have a tendency to use biblical and apocalyptic terms. This might be an appropriate way to describe a baroque church in Bavaria or a painting of P.P. Rubens (for instance in my favorite museum, the Alte Pinakothek in Munich) but I would rather keep this emotive language out of scientific discussions.





http://www.realclimate.org/

This is NOT a chemtrail board. I do suspect this last Halva post was NOT Halva! Please stay calm!

BC ;)

[halva]

As an anthropogenic climate change debunker you have been excluded from the discussion between chemtrails activists and climate scientists on the subject of 'Global Dimming'.




This post does not read or "feel" like Halva. Please consider that perhaps the poster is not Halva, before "freaking out."

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with Reynold's recent post regarding his Realclimate quote regarding global dimming. He should not be excluded from the conversation. Period. He did not flame, he used logical deductions and related quotes and was quite within his board rights to post what he did.

From the discussion area at Realclimate by a quite cogent and academic member of the realclimate commentary board, you can see his feelings on "scaremongering" are similar to Reynold's.



http://www.realclimate.org/

This is NOT a chemtrail board. I do suspect this last Halva post was NOT Halva! Please stay calm!

BC ;)

I have already made it perfectly clear that Jay Reynolds is not excluded from discussions on global dimming at Arianna's on the strength of being an anthropogenic climate change debunker.

If he wishes to issue personal recommendations, however, as he did above, dispensing advice on how 'chemmies' should address climate scientists), I merely inform him of the realities of the present situation.

I also remind Jay Reynolds once again that I am the moderator and that if he wants to start an argument on the basis of a link I post, he should address his remarks to all the audience, not to the moderator.

[halva]

By the way, everything of relevance in connection with the sensationalism of the BBC 'Global Dimming' programme was already argued about on these threads several weeks back.

There was no disagreement over the reality that the programme does indulge in danger-mongering. The disagreement was over the interpretation that should be placed on this, and the nature of the criticism that should be made.

[Boomer Chick]

As an anthropogenic climate change debunker you have been excluded from the discussion between chemtrails activists and climate scientists on the subject of 'Global Dimming'.

I understand now, Halva. Your comment does not refer to this board. It refers to your ongoing Ama Lahi communications. OK. I didn't realize the meaning of your statement. Now I do.

BTW, criticisms should be based on facts and that is the basis for critiquing any kind of "scientific" statement. "Shoulds" are not part of it..... the only "should" lies in the factual aspect of any theory or hypothesis. In order to gain relevant and reliable facts, perhaps continued research would be in order.


Communication skills on boards require much more than just cryptic statements, Halva. You could have explained to the readers the basis for your statement. Even though I receive your communication via e-mail regarding your ongoing correspondance with weather scientists, I still had a difficult time assessing your meaning. Imagine someone not knowing what goes on in your life and reading this?

Please just ignore someone who's already covered an issue, please. I thought global dimming was a theory you were holding as gospel which is why I reasoned Reynolds would be continuing to stress the fear-mongering angle. After his post, rather than stating that the topic was covered, or that you basically agree with the "hyped" angle of the film and the article, you state something cryptic. It makes no sense in the realm of board debate. Do you understand what I'm trying to communicate to you, Halva?

Thanks.

BC

[jayreynolds]

I also remind Jay Reynolds once again that I am the moderator and that if he wants to start an argument on the basis of a link I post, he should address his remarks to all the audience, not to the moderator.

Wayne, you are not a moderator, but merely a petty little tyrant.

I'll address you personally in whatever manner I see fit. I don't bow and scrape to you, or anyone else.

Better watch your own step son, the world might get a whole lot smaller sooner than you think.................


There was no disagreement over the reality that the programme does indulge in danger-mongering. The disagreement was over the interpretation that should be placed on this, and the nature of the criticism that should be made.

What you engage in is called SCAREMONGERING Wayne.

scaremonger
noun

1. An alarmist, or someone who causes panic or alarm by initiating or spreading rumours of disaster.

[halva]

BTW, criticisms should be based on facts and that is the basis for critiquing any kind of "scientific" statement. "Shoulds" are not part of it..... the only "should" lies in the factual aspect of any theory or hypothesis. In order to gain relevant and reliable facts, perhaps continued research would be in order.


I interpret this as a reference to the introduction of 'shoulds' by. Reynolds.



Communication skills on boards require much more than just cryptic statements, Halva. You could have explained to the readers the basis for your statement. Even though I receive your communication via e-mail regarding your ongoing correspondance with weather scientists, I still had a difficult time assessing your meaning. Imagine someone not knowing what goes on in your life and reading this?

Please just ignore someone who's already covered an issue, please.


I am not going to ignore a direct attempt to start an argument, addressed to someone who is supposed to be trying to moderate and NOT addressed to the other people posting here, such as you, for example.



I thought global dimming was a theory you were holding as gospel which is why I reasoned Reynolds would be continuing to stress the fear-mongering angle. After his post, rather than stating that the topic was covered, or that you basically agree with the "hyped" angle of the film and the article, you state something cryptic. It makes no sense in the realm of board debate. Do you understand what I'm trying to communicate to you, Halva?


Merely to have stated that I agree that the documentary was hyped would not have communicated the two points I wished to make, which were (1) that anthropogenic climate change debunkers disqualify themselves from right of access to strategic discussions between those who accept anthropogenic climate change as a reality, and (2) that communications concerning the forum and not moderating should be addressed to the forum, not the moderator.

The next communication from Reynolds containing threats will be deleted.

[jayreynolds]

The next communication from Reynolds containing threats will be deleted.

Don't take something I said the wrong way, Wayne, I never personally threatened you in any way.Based on your high-and-mighty attitude, I am actively seeking to overthrow you as moderator here, which will bring us closer together!

[halva]

That is a ridiculous thing to be seeking to do. Be sure that you really wish what you say you wish for. There is nothing I find more deplorable and disheartening than the person who is sad not happy when he succeeds in achieving his stated goals.

[jayreynolds]

Be sure that you really wish what you say you wish for. There is nothing I find more deplorable and disheartening than the person who is sad not happy when he succeeds in achieving his stated goals. Like when you opened this pandora's box of a thread, eh?

[halva]

Columns
Gavin Schmidt: Michael Crichton's State of Confusion
Author: Gavin Schmidt
Published on Mon, 27 Dec 2004, 07:29

http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/16581/printer

In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

Like the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton's scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other 'good guys') and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.


So for actors and lawyers everywhere, I will try and help out.

The issues Crichton raises are familiar to those of us in the field, and come up often in discussions. Some are real and well appreciated while some are red herrings and are used to confuse rather than enlighten.

The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO2. One character suggests that "if CO2 didn't cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?" (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current 'best guess' is that the global mean changes in temperature (including the 1940-1970 cooling) are actually quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability (particularly the 1930's warming in the North Atlantic). However, in no case has anyone managed to show that the recent warming can be matched without the increases in CO2 (and other GHGs like CH4).

Secondly, through the copious use of station weather data, a number of single station records with long term cooling trends are shown. In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long-term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970's). "There's your global warming" one of the good guys declares. I have to disagree. Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. It does not imply that the whole globe is warming uniformly (which of course it isn't). (But that doesn't stop one character later on (p381) declaring that "..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world. That's why it's called global warming"). Had the characters visited the nearby station of Santa Barbara Aeropuerto, the poster on the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have been proof of global warming? No. Only by amalgamating all of the records we have (after correcting for known problems, such as discussed below) can we have an idea what the regional, hemispheric or global means are doing. That is what is meant by global warming.

Crichton next raises the apparently unrecognised (by the lawyer character at least) fact that the interior of Antarctica is cooling (p196), an issue discussed in another post (Antarctica cooling, global warming?). This is more or less correct (given the obvious uncertainties in long term data from the continental interior), but analogously to the example above, local cooling does not contradict global warming.

Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. "Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247). Hansen's testimony did indeed lead to a big increase in awareness of global warming as a issue, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300%. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen et al, 1988 presented three model simulations for different scenarios for the growth in trace gases and other forcings (see figure). Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business-as-usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Both scenarios B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995. Rightly, the authors did not assume that they knew what path the carbon dioxide emissions would take, and so presented a spectrum of results. The scenario that ended up being closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the decade under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 C/decade observed (as can be seen in the figure). So given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a reasonable job. In fact in his testimony, Hansen ONLY showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario. The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable.

Dr Hansen is further quoted (a little out-of-context) saying: "The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". Given the discussion above it is clear that without good estimates of the actual forcings, the differences in the model projections can be large. It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible. Much of the future is of course unknowable. A new energy source could replace fossil fuels, governments could control emissions, or maybe a series of huge volcanoes will erupt. Therefore it is much more sensible to ask, what would climate be like if you doubled CO2? or if this or that scenario occured. There are much better defined questions. Hansen's quote is often taken to imply that models are so unreliable they are useless in helping assess the issue. In fact it is the opposite - Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections).

[halva]

Continuing to p315, it is claimed that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (and, as described on p563, the MIT academic apparently still thinks so). However, this is not an accurate statement and William Connolley's pages on the subject are an illuminating read for those wanting more details.

Another issue that often comes up in discussion about the surface temperature record is the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), and here it appears on p370. It is undisputed that the centres of cities such as New York are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside. This issue has been extensively studied and is corrected for in all analyses of the global temperature trends. To see whether there might still be a residual effect in the corrected data, a recent paper (Parker, Nature, 2004) looked at the differences in the trends if you looked separately at windy and not-so-windy conditions. Wind is known to diminish the impact of urban heating, and so the trends on windy days should be less than trends on still days if this was important. The trends actually end up almost exactly the same. Other validating data for the corrected surface temperature record comes from the oceans, which have also been warming in recent decades. Even Richard Lindzen , normally an arch-skeptic on these issues, stated that "ocean temperature increases present some support for the surface temperature record" Lindzen (2002). Another demonstration that the corrections are sufficient is that over the continental US, where many cities have a clear urban heating signal, the mean of the corrected data is actually rather flat (p88) - i.e. none of the strong urban biases in the US has made it into the regional or indeed global mean.

A central issue in the book concerns sea-level rise. Vanuatu is singled out for special attention since the islanders there are understandably concerned about their low-lying islands eventually being swamped. Sea level however is a surprisingly difficult thing to measure. Tide gauges are very noisy, and are usually located on the continental coast. Global trends in sea level from these gauges are between 1.7 to 2.4 mm/yr. Sea level though is not rising everywhere. In Scandinavia the continents are still rebounding from the ice age and local sea level is receding. Satellite data (TOPEX/POSIEDEN and JASON) can give a global picture, and indicate that although the global mean rise over recent years (2.8 mm/yr) is significantly larger than the longer term trend estimated from tide gauges, sea level change is actually very dynamic. There are many patterns of behaviour particularly in the Pacific, associated with El Nino variability - possibly related to Vanuatu's lack of actual sea level rise over the last 40 years. Curiously, Crichton cites the higher satellite derived number to claim that the rate of sea level rise has not increased recently ("[Sea level is] rising faster, Satellites prove it","Actually they don't"), p424. There are clearly some problems in comparing tide gauge and satellite data, and of course, satellites can have their problems (cf. MSU data), but the quoted numbers don't support the actual statement at all - though it would be fairer to say that the satellites are consistent with a recent rise in the rate, rather than a proof that it is occuring.

There are only a few out-and-out errors, but to be generous, they probably just slipped through the editing process. For instance, on p187 "higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds" - Presumably, he meant that if the temperature is higher, the relatively humidity could be lower (and so there might be less clouds). On p368. "Croplands are warmer than forested lands". This is probably a confusion with the urban heating issue, but the actual impact is the opposite - croplands have a higher albedo than forests, reflect more solar radiation, and are thus cooler. In fact, while this is not yet fully quantified, it appears to have been a significant cooling term in the global budget over the last 150 years. On p461 "...Greenland shows that, in the last hundred thousand years, there have been four abrupt climate change events" More like 40. And that is probably an undercount given that Greenland may not record events in the tropics.

At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.

Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

This is a reprint of an article first posted on RealClimate.org by Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA GISS and Columbia University. Reprinted with special permission.
© Copyright 2005 by YubaNet.com
Send your letters to the editor to news@yubanet.com

[halva]

The April issue of National Geographic has come out and the following is a one-page item near the front. Brian Holmes urges chemtrails activists to write to the magazine and bring to their attention the factors that in chemtrails activists' opinion should be added to the story.

The contact info is below.

"Jet Set Heats Up the Skies

Contrails may contribute to global warming

The image at right may look like a scratched-out lottery ticket, but it's
actually a satellite image of the skies above the southeastern United States
taken January 29, 2004. Some of the "scratches" are jet trails reflecting the
rush of winter vacation flights to and from Florida.

Contrails, which are trails of ice crystals formed in jet exhaust, thickly lace
the skies above western Europe, the United States, and the northern oceans.

But those fluffy white lines have a dark side: NASA research indicates that the
cirrus clouds these contrails form are likely increasing the Earth's
temperature-and their effect is especially intense in the United States.

The contrail-generated cirrus clouds reflect some of the sun's rays back to
space. But the clouds also trap infrared radiation emitted by Earth, causing a
greenhouse warming effect.

According to Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center, contrails may
have warmed air over the United States by one-tenth to one-half degree
Fahrenheit in each successive decade since 1975.

Ironically, the fuel-efficient jets that airlines are increasingly using could
exacerbate the problem, Minnis says. "They produce less heat, resulting in a
cooler mixture of exhaust and air," he explains. "The cooler the mixture, the
better the chances for contrail formation." -John L. Eliot

**

To comment write:

ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com

Include name, address, and daytime telephone number.

"Keep it brief and to the point" says Brian.

[jayreynolds]

The April issue of National Geographic has come out and the following is a one-page item near the front. Brian Holmes urges chemtrails activists to write to the magazine and bring to their attention the factors that in chemtrails activists' opinion should be added to the story.
Brian Holmes? You mean the guy that posted pictures which he claimed were taken by an anonymous pilot named "Haik", but which turned out to have been ripped off of airliners.net without attribution?
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessageRange? topicID=2925.topic&start=1&stop=20

now, here is a good question I'm thinking "chemtrails activists" like Wayne need to ask themselves:

What would "chemtrails activists" have to gain by writing to National Geographic regarding contrails?

The facts are that Holmes is a nutter, a dupe and a duper. He is going nowhere fast and is rightly perceived as irelevant. Association of "chemtrails" with contrails, or contrails with "chemtrails", tends in the former case to debunk "chemtrails", and in the latter to discredit concerns over contrails. National Geographic has fairly high standards, and would never associate themselves with a hoax like "chemtrails" in an activist mode, they have the means to debunk the hoax, but their space is probably too precious. The "chemtrails" hoax promoters do, however, do a disservice to those who seek more recognition about genuine aviation environmental effects by associating those with an easily debunked hoax.

[halva]

Brian Holmes? You mean the guy that posted pictures which he claimed were taken by an anonymous pilot named "Haik", but which turned out to have been ripped off of airliners.net without attribution?
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessageRange? topicID=2925.topic&start=1&stop=20

now, here is a good question I'm thinking "chemtrails activists" like Wayne need to ask themselves:

What would "chemtrails activists" have to gain by writing to National Geographic regarding contrails?

The facts are that Holmes is a nutter, a dupe and a duper. He is going nowhere fast and is rightly perceived as irelevant. Association of "chemtrails" with contrails, or contrails with "chemtrails", tends in the former case to debunk "chemtrails", and in the latter to discredit concerns over contrails. National Geographic has fairly high standards, and would never associate themselves with a hoax like "chemtrails" in an activist mode, they have the means to debunk the hoax, but their space is probably too precious. The "chemtrails" hoax promoters do, however, do a disservice to those who seek more recognition about genuine aviation environmental effects by associating those with an easily debunked hoax.

My impression is that you are no longer in a position to judge who is going somewhere and who is not. It is also a very different accusation to call someone a duper and to call him a dupe.

Generally speaking I agree that there is not much to be gained from writing to National Geographic on the subject of chemtrails. National Geographic is media. My objective is to remove all media and all middlemen from the interface between climate scientists and chemtrails activists. I put you in the same category as National Geographic: an unwanted third party.

But there are still a lot of "chemmies" who want to keep petitioning the media, and to keep them onside, as a gesture of friendship, one falls in with their requirements. After all it does no harm.

Brian Holmes has managed to construct one of the most well-mannered and most informative chemtrails sites and I pay tribute to him for that.

[jayreynolds]

My impression is that you are no longer in a position to judge who is going somewhere and who is not. It is also a very different accusation to call someone a duper and to call him a dupe.

He was a dupe to fall for the hoax perpetrated by "Haik", and a duper to deny what really happened, and to publish Jim Phelp's "chemtrails" hoax misinformation. Even my barium-debunking buddy 'chem11" said so:

A high number hits can overload a server with a Denial of Service, but it can't recode your website for you or attempt to sweep an unpleasant truth under the rug.

I have the utmost respect for Brian Holmes and his efforts, which is why when he tells me that a photograph was taken by a Fed-Ex pilot, I believe him (until Airliners.net says otherwise, anyway).

It's not Brian's fault that some POS ripped the photos and lied about their origins, and the photos speak for themselves. He should be very clear about what actually happened, and so should Rense and Coast to Coast.

If someone is running around deliberatley disinforming people, then the public should made aware of this activity (unless you, yourself, wish to be counted among the ranks of the John Reynolds, Patrick Minnis, Deb Phalen and 'Sprayplane Pilot').

See, Wayne, showing easily debunked pictures of contrails, and saying they are "chemtrails" is promoting false information. Brian Holmes' misinformation is making matters worse for "chemtrails", and 'chem11' puts him among the ranks of debunkers. In a similar fashion, Holmes's disinformation discredits concerns over the environmental effects of aviation, by associating them with the hoax called "chemtrails". By clouding the real issues, the public at large, who generally don't know the details, place both categories of information together.

It's the same way with 'footsoldier's' associating ozone concerns with false claims that aluminum/barium/titanium/polymer fibers are being sprayed. By continuing to let these false claims stand, and even promoting them further like you do, nobody benefits. Lies only produce harm, and lead to more lies.



Generally speaking I agree that there is not much to be gained from writing to National Geographic on the subject of chemtrails. National Geographic is media. My objective is to remove all media and all middlemen from the interface between climate scientists and chemtrails activists.

Wayne, your "objective" is a futile impossibility. Besides the fact that you admit there is no evidence for "chemtrails" to show these scientists, you could never control the world in that way,
and additionally, every time a chemmie approaches a scientist, they get a debunking lecture which weakens the hoax a little more. Thanks for your efforts!


Brian Holmes has managed to construct one of the most well-mannered and most informative chemtrails sites and I pay tribute to him for that.

According to 'Chem 11', Holmes is "disinforming people", and counts him(and you) among those who debunk!

[halva]

Wayne, your "objective" is a futile impossibility. Besides the fact that you admit there is no evidence for "chemtrails" to show these scientists, you could never control the world in that way.


I think you will have to agree that we have succeeded in asserting somewhat more control here than you probably expected, given that it is not our site.



and additionally, every time a chemmie approaches a scientist, they get a debunking lecture which weakens the hoax a little more.


If this is true, what need is there for you, and what role do you play?

[jayreynolds]

I think you will have to agree that we have succeeded in asserting somewhat more control here than you probably expected, given that it is not our site.
Actually, Wayne, each and every time you have tried to assert that some scientist sides with you, it turns out to be a bust. You have no more control over what scientists think than an amoeba would.


If this is true, what need is there for you, and what role do you play?

I'm here for the truth, Wayne. Something you show no regard for.

[halva]

Actually, Wayne, each and every time you have tried to assert that some scientist sides with you, it turns out to be a bust. You have no more control over what scientists think than an amoeba would.


Do you think there might be scientists who would agree with us that people like you have no place in our debate?

[jayreynolds]

Do you think there might be scientists who would agree with us that people like you have no place in our debate?

Wayne, there really isn't a debate. In order to debate, you would need some facts supporting your premise. You've admitted you have none whatsoever. That is why you had to selectively edit Ross Gelbspan's email to make it appear he supported you, even when he didn't. That's why you tried to make it seem Dr. Nikos Katsaros supported you, but he ended up telling me there was "no evidence whatsoever" for "chemtrails". That's why you told everybody that Dr. Christos Zerefos supported "chemtrails", but when asked he told me what you see are just contrails. Same with Dr. Cornell at Tyndall Centre.

So, there is no "chemtrails" debate regarding scientists, since they ALL reject the notion.

[halva]

Unfortunately the English language, probably all European languages, have no way of distinguishing between 'our' including the interlocutor and 'OUR' excluding the interlocutor. (This is what makes propaganda possible.)

I introduce my own method for making the distinction, as you see, using small-case letters for the former instance and capitals for the latter.

Repeating the question: 'Do you think there may be scientists who agree with US that people like you have no place in OUR debate?'

[jayreynolds]

Unfortunately the English language, probably all European languages, have no way of distinguishing between 'our' including the interlocutor and 'OUR' excluding the interlocutor. (This is what makes propaganda possible.)

I introduce my own method for making the distinction, as you see, using small-case letters for the former instance and capitals for the latter.

Repeating the question: 'Do you think there may be scientists who agree with US that people like you have no place in OUR debate?'

There is no room for YOU in any debate, Wayne. You have no facts to use within debate whatsoever. YOU simply don't play apart in debate without facts supporting your contention.
Propaganda plays no part in debate, except by losers and those unable to counter it. The use of propaganda in debate is a sure way to lose, if the opponent is skillful enough to recognize and challenge it with facts to the contrary.

[halva]

If debate involves the asking and answering of questions then on this occasion it is you who are avoiding debate in the sense that you are evading a question.

[Bonehead9]

The April issue of National Geographic has come out and the following is a one-page item near the front. Brian Holmes urges chemtrails activists to write to the magazine and bring to their attention the factors that in chemtrails activists' opinion should be added to the story.
. . . .

"Keep it brief and to the point" says Brian.


Hi Halva!

I have been away from this forum for too long. I's good to see you still tilting at windmills. :)


I bet the good folks at National Geographic will really appreciate those e-mails. LOL


I wonder how many they get before the set the spam blocker to the word "chemtrails?"

[halva]

As usual Mr. Reynolds calls in his reserves when he can't answer a question.

[Bonehead9]

As usual Mr. Reynolds calls in his reserves when he can't answer a question.

"as usual?" I haven't posted here in months and this is "as ususal?"

[halva]

I was referring to Jay Reynolds' habits, not yours. Haven't you got a more constructive way of using your time?

[jayreynolds]

Hey, Wayne, looks like your buddy Jim Phelps has gone off his meds again.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8179&start=15

[halva]

As usual Mr. Reynolds calls in Jim Phelps when he can't answer a question.

[halva]

Look at this from the Holmestead:

"Spring 2005 - Topic #3: Was it in 1997 that Will Thomas is credited with coining the term "chemtrails"? Well, not to take the wind out of his sails, but it appears that the folks at the United States Air Force Academy beat him to it by quite a few years.

There were courses, starting in Spring 1990, presented by the USAFA Department of Chemistry, with the intriguing title of "Chemtrails". The image below is from the title page of the Fall 1991 course policies and laboratory manual and was found in the Library of Kent State University.

It appears that this course was related solely to the chemistry of traditional condensation trails and that this use of Chemtrails was simply a "catchy" coined term used in the title of the courses. But one has to wonder...

(diagram, see: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html)

The above is a partial listing from another US reference, or depository, library where the actual course material may be available.

In addition it appears that there was a book published - or one of the courses was presented in book form. The book is titled, you guessed: "Chemtrails" and is ISBN: 0840378246 by USAF Staff and published by: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, May 1992. It is a paperback of 224 pages.

Some have questioned how the word "chemtrails" came to appear in the Bill by Congressman Kucinich, D-Ohio - HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001. As you see above, it appears that in certain circles in the United States Air Force, it was a term well known before that time."

Any answer to this Mr Jay Reynolds?

[halva]

That makes two unanswered questions.

[whitemajikman]

Look at this from the Holmestead:

"Spring 2005 - Topic #3: Was it in 1997 that Will Thomas is credited with coining the term "chemtrails"? Well, not to take the wind out of his sails, but it appears that the folks at the United States Air Force Academy beat him to it by quite a few years.

There were courses, starting in Spring 1990, presented by the USAFA Department of Chemistry, with the intriguing title of "Chemtrails". The image below is from the title page of the Fall 1991 course policies and laboratory manual and was found in the Library of Kent State University.

It appears that this course was related solely to the chemistry of traditional condensation trails and that this use of Chemtrails was simply a "catchy" coined term used in the title of the courses. But one has to wonder...

(diagram, see: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html)

The above is a partial listing from another US reference, or depository, library where the actual course material may be available.

In addition it appears that there was a book published - or one of the courses was presented in book form. The book is titled, you guessed: "Chemtrails" and is ISBN: 0840378246 by USAF Staff and published by: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, May 1992. It is a paperback of 224 pages.

Some have questioned how the word "chemtrails" came to appear in the Bill by Congressman Kucinich, D-Ohio - HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001. As you see above, it appears that in certain circles in the United States Air Force, it was a term well known before that time."

Any answer to this Mr Jay Reynolds?


Halva.......

GOOD FIND.......


But Could It Be That Kucinich was Lobbied By Chemtrail Activist's........

And Could It Be That Kucinich Was Familiar With The Course You Have Described and actually tried to amalgamate both in his proposal.......to congress.

WMM

[halva]

It seems to me more likely that he would have been familiar with the course than that he would have taken the terminology of chemtrails activists as sufficient basis for a Bill to be placed before Congress.

[whitemajikman]

It seems to me more likely that he would have been familiar with the course than that he would have taken the terminology of chemtrails activists as sufficient basis for a Bill to be placed before Congress.


Exactly....

So would it be fair to state that Kucinich Knew about the coined phrase "Chemtrails".......

And That He used that phrase in the bill knowing it would cause a STIR......among Congress......

And That Ultimately the bill would be amended ......

but not before that one phrase was used.......in a political arena......

in other words....Halva......

Was It Deliberate.......on his part.....to start controversy.........knowing what he knew.....

as in "sometimes you have to lose to win".....

or was he Merely Just Doing His job........And Including something that was suppose to be CLASSIFIED........

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

Hey, Wayne, looks like your buddy Jim Phelps has gone off his meds again.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8179&start=15

Well, I read it and find IS to be his usual. Amazing how he construes issues of truth. In assuming only one side, the chemtrail side, owns the truth, and any other side or any other truth regarding his side.......... colludes, connects to NWO and Bushites.....he hopelessly wallows in his own delusions. Truth is what I have pursued, but because elementary chemistry, government and foreign atmospheric chemists and scientists just didn't post IS's theories in any way shape or form, IS contends that his HF is secret...... And of course in that implication lies MY ignorance, not Stu's, not Yaak's, not Reynold's, but MY ignorance as to available knowledge on the internet. It is because of ME and my lack of realizing that the whole scientific world conspires against IS's truth..... that spins his wheels. Again, his female, probably mother connection, causes him the most pain, and must simply be outed. Oh yeah, and I really believe that Mark letter, custom made to make BC look dumb! How perfect!

And Swamp, well I refuse to discuss him. It's obvious by his remarks that he's got problems, so I won't belabor anything here.

It's been rather nice here, though! Chemtrails is still open to investigation. Still open to rigorous scientific observation and measurement and so we continue to remain open to scientific and legitimate contrail/chemtrail research. You are too, aren't you, Jay? Of course you are. If you see something truly credible and scientifically proven, regarding the purposeful spraying of anyone's skies.... you'd be the first one to scream to your Senator or local health department! I'm sure of it!

Reynolds ..... I do admire you. Not all of your tactics have been humane, but you are to be commended, nonetheless!

BC

[whitemajikman]

Jay has always been about the TRUTH.....

And He Is not scared To Push The Envelope To get to the truth........

Thats why I admire him.....TOO......

Because He Walks The Walk......

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

Jay has always been about the TRUTH.....

And He Is not scared To Push The Envelope To get to the truth........

Thats why I admire him.....TOO......

Because He Walks The Walk......

WMM

It's called integrity with BARK !!!! No real BITE, but plenty O Bark!!! No harm done, just getting at the truth!

:D

[halva]

Exactly....

So would it be fair to state that Kucinich Knew about the coined phrase "Chemtrails".......

And That He used that phrase in the bill knowing it would cause a STIR......among Congress......

And That Ultimately the bill would be amended ......

but not before that one phrase was used.......in a political arena......

in other words....Halva......

Was It Deliberate.......on his part.....to start controversy.........knowing what he knew.....

as in "sometimes you have to lose to win".....

or was he Merely Just Doing His job........And Including something that was suppose to be CLASSIFIED........

WMM

I don't know. I will leave it to you to speculate about Congressman Kucinich's motives.

I really prefer to pay attention to people I think have some hope of getting us somewhere.

[halva]

Well, I read it and find IS to be his usual. Amazing how he construes issues of truth. In assuming only one side, the chemtrail side, owns the truth, and any other side or any other truth regarding his side.......... colludes, connects to NWO and Bushites.....he hopelessly wallows in his own delusions.


If his belief is that he knows the truth, then no other stance could be expected. That isn't what's wrong with him.

Hopefully his choice to operate out of the supportive environment of CTC rather than here is a sign of some element of self-knowledge on his part.

.

[jayreynolds]

Look at this from the Holmestead:

"Spring 2005 - Topic #3: Was it in 1997 that Will Thomas is credited with coining the term "chemtrails"? Well, not to take the wind out of his sails, but it appears that the folks at the United States Air Force Academy beat him to it by quite a few years.

There were courses, starting in Spring 1990, presented by the USAFA Department of Chemistry, with the intriguing title of "Chemtrails". The image below is from the title page of the Fall 1991 course policies and laboratory manual and was found in the Library of Kent State University.

It appears that this course was related solely to the chemistry of traditional condensation trails and that this use of Chemtrails was simply a "catchy" coined term used in the title of the courses. But one has to wonder...

(diagram, see: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html)

The above is a partial listing from another US reference, or depository, library where the actual course material may be available.

In addition it appears that there was a book published - or one of the courses was presented in book form. The book is titled, you guessed: "Chemtrails" and is ISBN: 0840378246 by USAF Staff and published by: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, May 1992. It is a paperback of 224 pages.

Some have questioned how the word "chemtrails" came to appear in the Bill by Congressman Kucinich, D-Ohio - HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001. As you see above, it appears that in certain circles in the United States Air Force, it was a term well known before that time."

Any answer to this Mr Jay Reynolds?

The question was answered a long time ago, four years, to be exact. A certain "Deborah" has knowledge of it but appears unwilling to admit it. There seems to be an extremely short 'institutional memory' among chemtrail cult members, and little regard for self-correction. Will Holmes even bother to admit he was wrong about this one, or will he continue to promote yet another blatant misinformation?

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zs0uMZMTzMoJ:www.chemtrailcentral.c om/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000242.html+USAFA+chemtrails&hl=en

[halva]

I edited out the 'by your people'.

We'll see what the reaction is.

Following up any leads of this kind and speculating upon them is legitimate given the failure of government to provide plausible information to citizens on this subject.

That leaves one question that Mr. Jay Reynolds has still not answered.

[whitemajikman]

The question was answered a long time ago, four years, to be exact. A certain "Deborah" has knowledge of it but appears unwilling to admit it. There seems to be an extremely short 'institutional memory' among chemtrail cult members, and little regard for self-correction. Will Holmes even bother to admit he was wrong about this one, or will he continue to promote yet another blatant misinformation?

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zs0uMZMTzMoJ:www.chemtrailcentral.c om/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000242.html+USAFA+chemtrails&hl=en


Thank You Jay For Clearing That Up......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Some have questioned how the word "chemtrails" came to appear in the Bill by Congressman Kucinich, D-Ohio - HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001. As you see above, it appears that in certain circles in the United States Air Force, it was a term well known before that time."

Any answer to this Mr Jay Reynolds?

The HR 2977 bill was not written by Kucinich, and it is probable he never even read it. I contacted his press aide several times and they had no idea what "chemtrails" were even supposed to be. The activist group behind HR2977 is calle ICIS
http://www.peaceinspace.com/
It's membership is headed by two 'Mad Hatters', Carol Rosin and Alfred Webre.

Rosin, acolyte to LSD guru Timothy Leary, never got off her long trip.


Webre publishes a website which describes him in glowing terms:
http://www.exopolitics.com/

Webre says he is being personally attacked by microwave weapons.

Webre's wife is Geri DeStefano, Ph.D., a professional hotline "psychic" (at $75/ hour) and internet tea saleswoman. www.globalpsychics.com/lp...tefano.htm
Geri says, and she should know, "Through the time we've spent together I've watched him wage a battle, sometimes fierce and unsettling, with the mental illness that has plagued and enriched his life."

She says this in the context of the preface to Webre's book, "Recovery" which describes his lifelong decsent into the madness of parapsychology, UFO cults, and extraterrestrial chanellings(sound a little familiar, Thermit?).

Webre is the madman who has insinuated his personal demons into Kucinich's legislation. He carries on the long standing tradition of cooperation between the various factions of the ICP Paranormal/Occult/Paranoid/Greens.

This is what Kucinich's hometown newspaper found out when they got Kucinich backed into a corner about HR2977:
"Kucinich's willingness to listen to non-mainstream groups has created some controversy.

For instance, in his original 2001 bill to ban the use of weapons in space, Kucinich listed a series of weapons that should be outlawed.

The list went beyond the interceptor missiles and subatomic particle beams often associated with government's "Star Wars" programs.

His bill banned "other energies" directed at individuals or targeted groups for the purpose of "mood management or mind control." It also banned "chemtrails."

The term chemtrails is part of a conspiracy theory that has been at the center of lively Internet chat room debates and radio talk shows.

Its supporters believe the white streaks jets leave in the sky - known as contrails, which are formed by condensed water vapors - are actually toxic substances the government is spraying on people.

After being questioned about the bill last year, Kucinich rewrote it, removing the controversial language.

[b]"I'm not into that," he insisted. "Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, 'Look, I'm not interested in going there.' "
http://www.cleveland.com/kucinich/index.ssf?/kucinich/more/1047214686213910.html

[foot_soldier]

I hope you're enjoying your pulp fiction screed-in-progress here, Reynolds. You are once again lying in regard to me personally.

You're apparently so infatuated with seeing yourself in print you don't give a damn what you're spewing about other people so long as you can manage to get your little rocks off on a daily basis.

Grow up.

[halva]

Thank You Jay For Clearing That Up......

WMM

WMM, it is quite literally true in life that if one wishes to enjoy the respect of ANY of one's fellow humans, one has to decide at some point what one believes, who one is with, and who one is against.

[halva]

Reynolds I will continue deleting the entirety of any of your postings that are abusive and indicate lack of respect for whoever you are addressing.

I note that you are capable of dealing with a cool and unabusive disdain with points raised e.g. by Brian Holmes, but you cannot keep your self-control when it comes to anything pertaining to Footsoldier, now or in the past. This is not, I believe, unrelated to the question I mine that you refuse to answer.

[whitemajikman]

The New Wizard of the West

An interview with Tesla, the Modern Miracle-Worker, who is Harnessing the Rays of the Sun; has Discovered Ways of Transmitting Power without Wires and of Seeing by Telephone; has Invented a Means of Employing Electricity as a Fertiliser; and, Finally, is Able to Manufacture Artificial Daylight.
By Chauncy Montgomery M'Govern

From Pearson's Magazine, May 1899

Tesla's proposed arrangement of balloon stations
for transmitting electricity without wires

NOT to stagger on being shown through the laboratory of Nikola Tesla requires the possession of an uncommonly sturdy mind. No person can escape a feeling of giddiness when permitted to pass into this miracle-factory and contemplate for a moment the amazing feats which this young man can accomplish by the mere turning of a hand.

Fancy yourself seated in a large, well- lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets it fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep.

The odd flame having been extinguished as miraculously as it appeared, the tall, thin young man next signals to his assistants to close up all the windows. When this has been done the room is as dark as a cave. A moment later you hear the young man say in the laboured accentuation of the foreigner: " Now, my friends, I will make for you some daylight." Quick as a flash the whole laboratory is filled with a strange light as beautiful as that of the moon, but as strong as that of old Sol. As you glance up at the closed shutters on each window, you see that each of them is as tight as a vice, and that no rays are coming through them. Cast your eyes wherever you will you can see no trace of the source of the odd light.

Scarcely have you begun to marvel when the light goes out by a touch on a button by the young man's hand. The room is in darkness again until the same laboured accentuation causes the reopening of all the shutters. Some animal is now brought out from a cage, it is tied to a platform, an electric current is applied to its body and in a second the animal is dead. The tall young man calls your attention to the fact that the indicator registers only one thousand volts, and the dead animal being removed, he jumps upon the platform himself, and his assistants apply the same current to the dismay of the spectators.

You feel a creeping sensation course up your back, and you see the indicator slowly mounting up to nine hundred, and then one thousand volts, and you involuntarily close your eyes, expecting the young man to fall dead before you the very next minute. But he does not budge. Quickly the indicator goes up, up, up, until presently it shows that ten thousand volts, then two million volts of electricity are pouring through the frame of the tall young man, who does not move a muscle.

Nikola Tesla holding in his hands balls of flame

At a sign, the current is stopped, the room is again made dark as night, and presently the visitor sees the sharply-defined black silhouette of the young man, with a beautiful halo of electricity in the background, formed by myriads of tongues of electric flame which are darting out from every quarter of the tall, thin frame. The place is lighted once more, and as the young man comes up to you and shakes your hand, you twist it about in the same fashion as you have seen people do who hold the handles of a strong electric battery. The young man is literally a human electric " live wire."

To tell of these and a thousand other wonders that Tesla does in a trice gives only a faint conception of their effect on the visitor. To really appreciate them one must see, hear, and feel them in the flesh. It is a scientific treat of a lifetime, but it is a treat that few can enjoy, for the laboratory of Tesla is securely locked against everyone not provided with an introduction from a personal friend of the audacious wizard.

"Oh, pshaw! these are only a few play- things," Nikola Tesla replies when the visitor puts into words the astonishment he has experienced; " none of these amount to anything--they are of no value to the great world of science. But come over here and I will show you something that will make a big revolution in every business and home as soon as I am able to get the thing into working form," and then he leads the way through a forest of queer-looking discs and mysterious coils of copper and steel, until the party reaches a raised wall of masonry, on which reposes a long cylinder of glass filled with water, and surrounded by a circle of large mirrors. The roof over this apparatus is of glass, and as the sun pours its rays through this, the rays strike the mirrors and are reflected again towards the glass cylinder, magnifying glasses intensifying the heat of the rays before they strike the cylinder.

Nikola Tesla

"This is the experimental model of the apparatus with which I hope some day to so harness the rays of the sun that heavenly body will operate every machine in our factories, propel every train and carriage in our streets, and do all the cooking in our homes, as well as furnish all the light that man may need by night as well as by day. It will, in short, replace all wood and coal as a producer of motive power and heat and electric lighting

The plan of Nikola Tesla to harness the rays of the sun to do man's bidding is probably the boldest engineering feat that he or anyone else has ever attempted. Though the idea is so great, its principle is so simple that a schoolboy can readily comprehend it. It consists of concentrating the heat of the sun on one spot (the glass cylinder) by the series of complicated mirrors and magnifying glasses until the resulting heat is something terrific.

This manufactured heat is directed upon the cylinder filled with water. This water is chemically prepared so that in a short time the water has evaporated into steam and has passed from the cylinder through a pipe and into another chamber, In the latter place this sun-made steam is made to operate a steam-engine of ordinary construction, the horse-power of which will be determined by the size of the apparatus by which the sun generates steam in that spot. This steam-engine is used to generate electricity. And this electricity can be either used at once or else stored up in storage batteries to be used on days when there is no sunlight.

It will be seen that the object of this plan of Tesla is to do away with coal, wood, or other fuel, in the manufacture of steam. The remainder of his invention calls for the use of this sun-made steam-pressure, as steam-pressure made from coal is at present in use, throughout the world. The advantage of this Tesla invention is that the cost of manufacturing steam to generate electricity, which would propel say one hundred tram cars, would be infinitely smaller than the cost of the coal required to produce the power to do the same work. The cost of manufacturing the electricity to operate these one hundred tram cars by the Tesla plan, when once the sun station has been completed, would only be a sufficient amount to pay the salaries of a few engineers in charge of the sun-station.

"In this way electricity will be so cheapened," says Mr. Tesla," that it will be possible for the poorest factory-owner to use it as a power at a smaller cost than steam. Electricity will in this way supplant steam as a motive power on all railways and -- in the shape of storage batteries -- on all water vessels. And the humblest citizen will profit by the new system of producing electricity; for he can have it in his home to do all his cooking and lighting and heating. and it will be even cheaper for him than coal, wood, or petroleum."

It is, of course, not the intention of Mr. Tesla that one sun-station will provide all the electricity for the whole world. His scheme is that in every city and town the local authorities shall build one or more of these sun-stations by public taxation for the use of the whole population, just as these cities now have waterworks and gas plants. Each factory and home will then get its supply of electricity from the nearest sun-station by ordinary electric wires.

continued.......

[whitemajikman]

Any person can appreciate the big boon that Tesla will confer on humanity by the early completion of this master task. Among other things it will solve a question that has been occupying the minds of scientific men for a long time, viz: As the supply of coal in the earth will be exhausted in about: thousand years, what are we going to do for fuel?" It was when Tesla first thought about the question that he turned his mind to the invention of some form of making power that would not depend upon coal. The plan to harness the sun's rays is the result.

Quite independent of his scheme to harness old Sol, but yet capable of cooperation with it, is Tesla's invention to transmit electrical power without the use of wires, this consists of a means of generating electricity in one spot, where it can be done with little cost, and transmitting the electricity to some other spot where it is impossible to generate electricity except at a big outlay of money.

Of course, it is now possible to transmit electrical power from one place to another by the use of electrical cables, but the cost of these transmitting cables is nearly as great as would be the cost of generating the electricity itself in the locality to which it is desired to transmit it. By the use of Tesla's invention, the atmosphere takes the place of the electrical cables in the transmission of the power, and as the use of the atmosphere would be free, the cost of the transmission of electricity from one city to another would be merely nominal.

To make the atmosphere take the part of the costly cables, Tesla's plan is to erect large power stations at every spot where a great waterfall like Niagara, for instance, makes the cost of generating electricity only trifling when the apparatus has once been constructed.

Above each of the stations Tesla wants to build a high tower, over which will be suspended a large balloon. As the electricity is generated in the station below it is conveyed by cables to the tower, and thence to the balloon, where the electricity is set free into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere at this height is much rarefied, and as Tesla has demonstrated rarefied atmosphere to be a good conductor of electricity, the electricity which is thus set free will be carried on by the atmosphere to any indefinite distance.

The second part of the Tesla plan for transmitting electrical power without wires calls for the erection of receiving stations wherever desired. These will act as sort of receivers and storage houses for the electricity set free into the atmosphere at the generating station miles away. Over each of the receiving stations will be put up a tower and a balloon, which will be equipped with the apparatus necessary to absorb the free electricity in the atmosphere and send it to the receiving station below, from which it can be sent out on wires to light the surrounding country and drive all the machinery of that particular district.

It will be observed that in this scheme Tesla depends on getting his electricity through the agency of the waterfalls, while in the previous scheme he depends upon the agency of the sun for the same purpose but the inventor is far from believing that the two schemes will conflict. He believes that when both inventions come into popular use they will work together for the common good of man. "The agency of waterfalls to generate electricity could be used when that agency is most convenient in view of natural conditions," says Tesla, "and the agency of the sun could be used in all other cases. But my scheme of transmitting electrical energy without wires can be applied with equally good results to both systems."

Of all the great inventions which Tesla has well on the way towards that point where they can be given to the world for every-day use, his wireless telegraphy invention is the furthest advanced, All that is necessary now is the formation of a company to put up the public station. The principle of this invention is almost too well known now to bear extended explanation. Briefly described, it consists of constructing an apparatus to stir up the electric currents in the earth in such a way that their disturbance will be felt on a second apparatus fitted up in a different part of the world. Different disturbances of the electric currents produce correspondingly different impressions on the second apparatus --the receiver--and in this way an intelligible code is readily arranged.

For the benefit of non-scientific people the great inventor has described for me his wire-less telegraphy invention in the following words:

"Imagine you have on a table before you an immense rubber bag snugly filled with water. I take a rubber tube with a piston-rod in it and insert the tube into the rubber bag. When I press on the piston-rod I compress the water in the bag so that it expands the bag.

continued.......

[whitemajikman]

"When I withdraw the piston," continued Tesla, " the bag will shrink just so much as there is water drawn up into my tube; and now if I put a second tube with a piston-rod into the bag at the other end, at every pressure of the first piston-rod the effect will be felt and measured in the second tube. Now if a certain action of one piston-rod indicates a certain word or a certain sentence, if you watch the other piston-rod carefully you may easily read it. This is exactly what takes place in wireless telegraphy," concluded Tesla; " let the rubber bag stand for the earth, the water for the electric currents in the earth, and the two tubes and piston-rods for a sending oscillator and receiving oscillator. One sort of disturbance by one oscillator means a certain sentence, and when this particular disturbance is recorded on the second oscillator the operator there knows exactly how to interpret it."

The "oscillators" to which the inventor refers are huge discs on which are insulated hundreds of coils of copper wire whose ends connect with the centre of the disc, where there is a huge round copper ball. They are really the only apparatus required for wireless telegraphy. To operate them Tesla simply turns the transmitting oscillator face downwards, and turns on a current which causes immense tongues of visible electric flashes to leap from the ball into the ground. The receiving oscillator has a delicate contrivance which throbs with each disturbance of the earth's electric currents and records them on a specially contrived apparatus.

Not the least fascinating of Tesla's numerous inventions is one to which he has given the name of "visual telegraphy." With this apparatus one person has only to look into the receiver of an ordinary telephone in one city, and, while talking to a friend a thousand miles away, he can watch the expression on the other's face, criticise the cut of his new suit of clothing, or advise him what to do for that tired look about the eyes. In this invention the experimental apparatus has proved thoroughly successful. The principle of this invention is that just as much as sound-waves make an impression on the immediate atmosphere, so do light waves make their impression.

Nikola Tesla's wireless telegraphy apparatus

"Now, as sound waves of the human voice are transmitted miles and miles by the present telephone after their impression is made on the telephone transmitter," says Mr. Tesla, "just so my experiments have demonstrated that the light waves of the human body can be transmitted by a different sort of telephone miles and miles away. All we need is the invention of a new transmitter. As the impressions of light waves are so many times more delicate than the impressions of sound waves, it follows that to transmit the impression of the human face, for instance, we require a transmitter many times more delicate. Now, selenium being an extremely sensitive substance, I have utilised this material in the construction of the transmitter which I have just described, and I have found it to be perfectly satisfactory."

To make our homes, our offices, and the streets at midnight as light as day, is another of the great tasks which Mr. Tesla set out for himself many years ago. His hope was to invent a new kind of electric light which would have the strong, steady glow of sunlight.

That Tesla has succeeded in his dream to make artificial daylight there can be no doubt. To every visitor of his laboratory he shows numerous balls of glass of different sizes which look like miniature suns. The glass balls are perfectly empty, there are no wires in them, nor are there any wires on the outside of them. They do not burn the fingers when they are touched. The light does not hurt the eyes as sunlight and ordinary electric light do.

By the time this article is published, a number of the leading New York and Chicago photographers will have their studios supplied with the new artificial daylight.

The hand of Nikola Tesla, taken by his wonderful artificial daylight, just
perfected. This is the first photograph made by the light of the future

"The reason I have chosen to introduce the new daylight to the photographers first," says the inventor, " is that I believe them to be the severest critics, and most hard to please in the matter of light. If it succeeds with them, a new light will succeed everywhere."

Not the least ingenious of Tesla's great schemes is his invention to fertilise impoverished land by electricity. When Tesla has a company formed to put this invention on the market it will no longer be necessary for the farmer to spend half his year's receipts in purchasing fertilisers. He has only to buy an electric fertiliser of his own, which he can secure for a trifle at the nearest town.

Dumping a few loads of loose earth into the fertiliser, it comes out at the other end, ready to be spread over the surface of the impoverished ground, where it will insure for the following season the luxurious crop of the virgin soil.

The explanation which Mr. Tesla gives of just why so simple a piece of work should be productive of such wonderful results is not difficult to comprehend. " Everyone knows," says he, " that the constituent of a fertiliser which makes the ground productive is its nitrogen. Everybody knows also that nitrogen forms four-fifths of the volume of the atmosphere above that piece of unfertile land. This being the case it occurred to me: 'Where is the sense in the farmer buying expensive nitrogen when he has it free of cost at his own door? All the agriculturist needs is some method by which he can separate some of this nitrogen from the atmosphere above the ground and place it on the surface.' And it was to discover this means that I set to work."

As far as the non-technical eye can perceive, the working model of the electric fertiliser consists of nothing but an upright copper cylinder with a removable top, with a spiral coil of wire running throughout the length of the cylinder. Through the bottom of the cylinder are two wires, which connect with a specially constructed dynamo. A quantity of loose earth, treated by a secret chemical preparation in liquid form, is shoveled into the cylinder, an electric current is passed through the confined atmosphere; the oxygen and hydrogen are thus expelled, and the nitrogen which remains is absorbed into the loose earth. There is thus produced as strong a fertiliser for a nominal price at home as it is possible to purchase at a large cost miles and miles away.

Mention is made in this paper of only those inventions of Mr. Tesla which have passed beyond the experimental stage. But there are hundreds of other promised wonders in the yet incipient stage of development in the great inventor's miracle-factory. As I have heard one of his admirers express it, an enumeration of these " sounds like the dream of a half-intoxicated god." Signaling to other planets, raising of certain of the dead by electricity, ending all wars by a terrible machine -- these are a few suggestions selected at random.

Nikola Tesla is a young man yet, and on this account many of his promises have been looked upon by older scientists as but fanciful dreams of a youthful mind. He has scarcely ever made any invention which the scientific world has accepted as possible on the first public announcement. But sooner or later the scientific wiseacres have been compelled to admit that Tesla has proven their theories to be wrong.

How these conservative scientists sneered at Tesla's "Utopian audacity" when he first suggested that man should harness the great Niagara Falls! But they humbled their pride sufficiently to be present when the enterprise was formally completed. Again, when he announced the invention of the "Tesla coil" they set him down as "pipe-dreamer." But a few of the brightest of them set to work seriously on the "coil" with the result that one of them -- Roentgen -- discovered his famous X-Rays. No one who is privileged to know Tesla personally, to have heard him explain his plans, and to have been shown through his unique workshop, has the slightest doubt that every one of his promises will be fulfilled in an equally successful way.

WMM

[whitemajikman]

WMM, it is quite literally true in life that if one wishes to enjoy the respect of ANY of one's fellow humans, one has to decide at some point what one believes, who one is with, and who one is against.

WITHOUT DELETING IT THIS TIME.......

What Do You Believe In......?

WHO ARE YOU WITH....?

WHO ARE YOU AGAINST........?

AND WHAT WAS THe Point Of Deleting My Questions to You......?

WMM

[halva]

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2258.asp

Controlling the earth’s weather in a specific location manipulating ionosphere and the earth’s outer radiation belts is possible since late nineties. Many nations are now developing counter measures to neutralize the weather manipulation techniques.

Satellites are being designed and developed to monitor such activities.

The modern methods of artificial weather modifications involve artificial ionization of earth’s atmosphere between 15,000 and 30,000 ft. and above. Manipulating the ionosphere and use of controlled solar-terrestrial interactions can create much larger effects. Sun’s natural Electromagnetic Radiation reaching the earth controls the earth’s weather. The Sun’s Radiations and Ultraviolet Rays have to cross the ionosphere to reach the earth. Solar radiations and flares are directly responsible for planetary weather changes. Solar flares and levels of radiations are caused by bombardment of cosmic rays on the Sun from either a distant massive black hole or a star-cluster caused by the collapse of thousands and thousands of stars in a small space. Ionosphere acts as a filter to the solar radiations that reach the earth. Manipulation and controlling the filter is a potential source of massive weather modification. Controlling the ionosphere potentially allows weather control. There are many methods of controlling the ionosphere. It is the process of artificially manipulating ion density in the ionosphere. High power transmitter and antenna array operating in the HF (High Frequency) range is one of the methods. There are lots of literature on that in the Internet and declassified scientific research journals.

Many countries are now rushing to take counter measures to take control of the ionosphere that impacts their nation’s weather. The counter measures involve reverse ionization and monitoring through advanced satellite monitoring methods. The anomalies in weather prediction model also provide an early indication of someone trying to control the local weather. Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is hurriedly installing weather monitoring station all over India.

According to international think tanks, the major powers of the world are racing towards a cold war of controlling the ionosphere. The methods and counter methods need tremendous amount of electrical power. The hardware is now guided by the software algorithms to first detect such weather manipulation and then take counter measures to neutralize adversary’s attempts. Soon new generation of satellites will take control of the ionosphere.

The silent cold war on controlling the ionosphere is on!

Copyright © 2003-2005, Indiadaily.com. All Rights Reserved.

[halva]

WMM don't embark on another bout of graffiti writing. Sit down, get yourself together and work out what exactly it is that you are trying to do. Do you want to gain acceptance as a participant in the Peak Oil debate, or do you want to gain the prize for being the naughtiest juvenile delinquent at Arianna's?

[whitemajikman]

WMM don't embark on another bout of graffiti writing. Sit down, get yourself together and work out what exactly it is that you are trying to do. Do you want to gain acceptance as a participant in the Peak Oil debate, or do you want to gain the prize for being the naughtiest juvenile delinquent at Arianna's?

I Know What It Is I am Trying To Do.......

It Is You That Is Suspect.....

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Halva

What You Are Doing Is Censorship plain and simple.......

And it Is Not Even justified,,,,,,,,,,

WMM

[jayreynolds]

In my case, Whitey, Wayne Hall deleted a posting in which I held 'footsoldier's" feet to the fire over her foreknowledge of the information which debunks Brian Holmes.

Wayne deletes my postings because they show in no uncertain terms the futility of 'chemmie' claims to activism, yet being inactive when it comes to correction of one of their own. The two behaviors are mutually exclusive, antagonistic, and just plain 'duh-huh' stupid. It's the same old song-and-dance, let one of their own slide when he puts out bogus crap, and yet make claims that the government isn't doing enough.

If the going get's tough, keep that hand hovering over the delete button at all times, ready for action. Can't let 'footsoldier' get embarrased by Jay Reynolds when he points out once again how she knew about hoax upon hoax and yet kept her mouth shut about it................

Wayne, I suppose I will have to start archiving my posts over at Mav's again.
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessageRange? topicID=3172.topic&start=21&stop=29

[halva]

Previous post edited to remove accusations of cowardice and references to 'his people'.

[jayreynolds]

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2258.asp
The modern methods of artificial weather modifications involve artificial ionization of earth’s atmosphere between 15,000 and 30,000 ft. and above.
Wayne, what would happen if an ordinary airplane flew through this artificially ionized atmosphere?


Solar flares and levels of radiations are caused by bombardment of cosmic rays on the Sun from either a distant massive black hole or a star-cluster caused by the collapse of thousands and thousands of stars in a small space.

Oh, really?


The anomalies in weather prediction model also provide an early indication of someone trying to control the local weather. Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is hurriedly installing weather monitoring station all over India.
Well, it's about time they did that!

Wayne, perhaps you ddin't bother to see the rest of the tripe bubbling out of Indiadaily?

Have a snort of this:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2128.asp
They are blaming aliens for controlling their minds using the ionosphere.
OUT THERE!

[jayreynolds]

Previous post edited to remove accusations of cowardice and references to 'his people'.

Wayne, stop editing out my opinions. You are abusing your privileges as a moderator. You are part of a certain group which I choose to call "your people'. You are too cowardly to take stands against what is provably bogus information. You can't delete your way out of people recognizing these facts, or commenting on them.

[jayreynolds]

For the Record:
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessageRange? topicID=3172.topic&start=21&stop=30

[ICU812]

whitemajikman wrote:

""""Jay has always been about the TRUTH.....

And He Is not scared To Push The Envelope To get to the truth........

Thats why I admire him.....TOO......

Because He Walks The Walk......
WMM""""

05-10-2004
Jay Reynolds Wrote:
Dave, Whitey is a kook who has been caught in numerous lies.

05-10-2004
"""""whitemajikman wrote

Because Jay's Paranoia is legendary.......

As is his Arrogance.....

But not for long........

Because this Time .....The predator is now the prey......."""""


>>>>Some kind of threatening love/hate relationship going on. Somebody forgot their role. It wasn't nice to be messin' with mother nature when whitey came around<<<<

[whitemajikman]

whitemajikman wrote:

""""Jay has always been about the TRUTH.....

And He Is not scared To Push The Envelope To get to the truth........

Thats why I admire him.....TOO......

Because He Walks The Walk......
WMM""""

05-10-2004
Jay Reynolds Wrote:
Dave, Whitey is a kook who has been caught in numerous lies.

05-10-2004
"""""whitemajikman wrote

Because Jay's Paranoia is legendary.......

As is his Arrogance.....

But not for long........

Because this Time .....The predator is now the prey......."""""


>>>>Some kind of threatening love/hate relationship going on. Somebody forgot their role. It wasn't nice to be messin' with mother nature when whitey came around<<<<


What A Lame Attempt.......

ICU......

When People Are Passionate Regarding What They are debating......

It Sometimes Get Heated.......

Words Are said........

You See ICU.......

I Had All Of These Pre-conceived notions Regarding Jay.......

Until I Started Posting At Arianna's........

Where One By One Jay Toppled Those Notions......

And Thats Where We Are Today......

My Next Question To You.......is.....

If There Is A Side .........

Why Are You Serving The wrong Side........?

And What Was Your Motive For Posting This CRAP........?

WMM

[halva]

Might I suggest that Mav's might be a more suitable venue for interactions of this kind?

[jayreynolds]

Might I suggest that Mav's might be a more suitable venue for interactions of this kind?

Why would anyone be in the least interested in following Wayne Hall's suggestions?

You are a misleader, and an idiot, Wayne.
Besides beinga pathetic little tyrant, that is.............

[whitemajikman]

Might I suggest that Mav's might be a more suitable venue for interactions of this kind?


MAY I SUGGEST.......

THAT YOU STICK TO MODERATING.....

Your Advice MEANS Very Little........

Your Participation Even Less........

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

whitemajikman wrote:

""""Jay has always been about the TRUTH.....

And He Is not scared To Push The Envelope To get to the truth........

Thats why I admire him.....TOO......

Because He Walks The Walk......
WMM""""

05-10-2004
Jay Reynolds Wrote:
Dave, Whitey is a kook who has been caught in numerous lies.

05-10-2004
"""""whitemajikman wrote

Because Jay's Paranoia is legendary.......

As is his Arrogance.....

But not for long........

Because this Time .....The predator is now the prey......."""""


>>>>Some kind of threatening love/hate relationship going on. Somebody forgot their role. It wasn't nice to be messin' with mother nature when whitey came around<<<<

Who the heck are you, ICU? GAWD, you took the time to post this crap? Who the heck cares?

You're like an Iago here .... get thee to a nunnery, clown !

[halva]

Who the heck are you, ICU? GAWD, you took the time to post this crap? Who the heck cares?

You're like an Iago here .... get thee to a nunnery, clown !

In future I will immediately delete any postings from 'chemmie' newcomers whose only purpose is to get the chemtrail debunkers here arguing with each other.

[halva]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363

By Russell Dovey
Fri Apr 8th, 2005 at 03:03:17 AM EST

Last year in April, at a sf convention here in Canberra, I watched a presentation on global warming by Gregory Benford, supposedly telling us about a global warming summit that he had recently participated in. Anticipating the nature of his audience, he first showed us the summit's deliberately conservative final numbers on temperature rise, carbon dioxide levels etc for the next 26 years, then quickly demolished some popular but flawed solutions with clear logic and straightforward calculation.

Then he showed us the solution that he'd presented, amid mixed amusement and excitement, to the distinguished climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, political scientists, economists, engineerists, environmentalists and journalists at the summit.

As a result of attending Greg's little overhead-projected show, I now believe that the cheapest, most effective and most practical answer to global warming is to think like a supervillain and block out the sun's rays using a giant rotating Space Lens suspended directly in front of the Sun! Muahahaha!

Let me tell you why.

Gregory Benford is a professor of plasma physics and astrophysics at the University of California, and received his PhD in 1967. He's been an adviser for NASA, the Department of Energy and the White House Council on Space Policy, and attended the first NSF global warming summit back in 1992. He's also a writer, and has bashed out some of the best hard sci-fi novels of the modern age, including Timescape, Cosm, and the Galactic Center Saga which spanned six books from In The Ocean Of Night to Sailing Bright Eternity.
This experience of painting mind-expanding mental images with strict scientific accuracy allowed him to give a very complete picture of the challenges of global warming, free of the usual distortions, half-remembered statistics and lies motivated by personal gain.

Using the "best case" global warming numbers agreed on by the summit to destroy one solution popular among the ignorant, he showed that for nuclear power to make enough of a difference to stop global warming by 2030, the world would have to replace the electrical output of one large coal-fired power station with an equivalent nuclear power station, EVERY DAY for the next 25 years. Every damn day. 365 per year. I would not have believed the figures if I hadn't seen every step of his working-out in that meeting.

Stopping global warming by 2030 is vital because it is a tipping-point where the rising temperatures begin to trigger the release of carbon dioxide and methane from natural sources, which raise temperatures, which release more carbon etc; in other words, after the expected temperature rise by 2030, we will experience a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in huge increases of eight degrees Celsius or more by 2100.

The effect of an eight degree rise in global temperatures would be catastrophic. One effect would be rising seas flooding the land upon which around half the world's population currently lives. Another would be the destruction of biodiversity on a scale dwarfing even our current extinction rate, as entire populations desperately flee to remote areas, rising seas drown whole ecosystems, and habitats disappear due to the climate shift.

In any case, it is clearly impossible for us to stop global warming solely by replacing our current and future power generation with nuclear power. Quite apart from the expense of building a new nuclear power station every day for 25 years, there is not enough nuclear fuel on the planet to cope with the demand. We must think of other ways, such as solar, wind, geothermal or tidal power, architectural albedo modification (Painting roofs and roads white, since white will reflect sunlight more effectively and increase Earth's reflectivity), geoengineering (from filling the stratosphere with silver foil to burying carbon dioxide in the ocean) and lifestyle changes.

However, if we're realistic, the governments of the world will never be up to the huge plethora of detail this multifaceted solution would entail. I personally think that Gregory Benford's plan, which he presented to the summit and showed us in the talk, is the best (cheapest, most practical and most effective) option we've currently got available. It is also the most fun, though an atmosphere full of floating silver foil might be a close second until planes start flying through air-drifts of foil and their engines explode.

Dr Benford, while doing most of the work himself, has exploited his friends at NASA to confirm that the engineering is viable, and the results were astounding: The whole project could be achieved with today's technology at a cost of $10 billion US dollars up-front, and another ten for maintenance over the decades of designed lifespan.

That's a lot of money, but it's still about two-fifths of the initial appropriation from Congress for the Iraq war. Benford proposes an international collaboration between wealthy nations to spread the load, and I would also suggest commercial sponsors. This would make the project almost indecently viable, considering the return each nation would get from being able to ignore Kyoto and its successors for as long as they feel like.

Gregory Benford's idea is to build a concave Fresnel Lens 1000 kilometres across but only a few millimetres thick at the L1 stable orbital point between us and the Sun, to slightly diffuse its light and cool us down enough to balance the warming effect of carbon dioxide, methane etc.

A few explanations are in order for that sentence:

The L1 (Lagrange 1) point is a point in space on a direct line between the Earth and the sun, 1.5 million kilometres away from our little blue dot. At that point, the gravity of the Earth is balanced with that of the Sun in such a way that anything placed there will, if gently nudged back into place every 25 days or so, orbit the Sun once every year. This means that it will remain directly between Earth and Sun with almost no fuel expenditure. Currently there's a solar observatory satellite called SOHO there. It may have to move.

A Fresnel lens is simply a magnifying (convex, outward curving) or diffusing (concave, inward curving) glass, with all the useless inside glass taken out and the lens concentrically cut into thousands of ringlike sections. If you've seen a lighthouse's light up close, or one of those flat sheets of plastic that nevertheless magnifies things, you've seen a convex Fresnel lens.

Dr Benford's circular, millimetres-thin Lens would be made from an advanced plastic, and would need to be adjustable to fine-tune the amount of light that it prevented from reaching the Earth. Benford proposes spinning the 1000-kilometre structure fast enough to stiffen and maintain its shape. The Lens would need thrusters around its rim to keep from drifting away, and these may also assist the focussing and spinup stages.

The reduction in incoming sunlight would be 0.5 to 1%, enough to neatly stop global warming and keep temperatures stable. It would give us time to stabilise our emissions, then start the long process of filtering greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere and storing them somewhere. The Lens can of course be adjusted, so as greenhouse gas levels dropped the diffusion effect would be reduced as well, until we reached a point where the Lens was no longer required and could be safely dismantled, or more playfully used to frighten the hell out of everyone in a medium-sized nation with an appropriate orbital insertion to enter the Earth's atmosphere flat-on.

The downside of this approach is that the other effects of the increased carbon dioxide would have to be addressed, such as increased plant growth (great if you like weeds) and less of an incentive not to pollute the air with fossil fuels. Coal might seem like an even better option to fast-growing developing countries like China, Brazil and Nigeria, meaning sooty, gritty misery for anyone living nearby, unless stringent pollution standards are internationally enforced somehow.

More info on the L1 point and Gregory Benford can be reached on Google, while the continuing progress of the 1-kilometre high, no-emission, oxygen-producing, 200-megawatt Australian solar tower which will be built by 2009 at Buronga, 25 ks east of Mildura in New South Wales, can be found here. The project has just recently purchased the land they plan to build upon, and has so far defied the usual predictions of failure that accompany any new way of doing things. Here's hoping that the Solar Tower is successful, just so some madman decides to build a 2-kilometre high one to show up those damn Aussies.

[whitemajikman]

In any case, it is clearly impossible for us to stop global warming solely by replacing our current and future power generation with nuclear power. Quite apart from the expense of building a new nuclear power station every day for 25 years, there is not enough nuclear fuel on the planet to cope with the demand. We must think of other ways, such as solar, wind, geothermal or tidal power, architectural albedo modification (Painting roofs and roads white, since white will reflect sunlight more effectively and increase Earth's reflectivity), geoengineering (from filling the stratosphere with silver foil to burying carbon dioxide in the ocean) and lifestyle changes.

WHAT WOULD FILLING THE THE STRATOSPHERE WITH SILVER FOIL..........do.....?

BESIDES CREATE HAVOC.....?

AND BURYING CO2 WOULD CREATE AN EVER BIGGER PROBLEM......


WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS HALVA.....?

WITHOUT THE ADVICE PLEASE.........OR THE DELETIONS.......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

In future I will immediately delete any postings from 'chemmie' newcomers whose only purpose is to get the chemtrail debunkers here arguing with each other.
Wayne, what's the difference between you calling someone a chemmie, and me calling chemmies "your people"?

Hint: When I wrote "your people", you censored, then deleted my post, but when you call someone a chemmie, you don't delete yourself.

Hypocrisy?

Most Definitely!

For the record, Wayne Hall deleted yet another of my posts since this morning, no reason given.
He does whatever he damn well pleases, like a puny hitler.

[jayreynolds]

In future I will immediately delete any postings from 'chemmie' newcomers whose only purpose is to get the chemtrail debunkers here arguing with each other.
Wayne Hall, explain what this new rule you have made really means. Where is this rule written down here at arianaonline. I demand to see this put into plain english, justified, and approved by the higher ups.

What objective criteria will be used, or is it just whatever you damn well please once again?

Or is this just some new vendetta you have runninga against Boomer Chick because you drank too much coffee?

You're acting out like a berserker, dude. Better rein yourself in.

Perhaps you don't realize how petty, vindictive, and shallow all this looks, even if you can try to quickly erase all posts critical of your delete-mania. People can see through to what is happening.

[whitemajikman]

HALVA YOU DELETED ANOTHER POST......?

COULD YOU DO US ALL A FAVOUR AND RESIGN.........

RESIGN AS MODERATOR............

ACTUALLY LETS TAKE A POLL........

AND TO BE FAIR......

WE WILL POST IT THROUGH OUT THIS WEBSITE.......

FOR REAL NON-OBJECTIVE VALIDITY..........

IF YOU FAIL THE POLL .....YOUR GONE......YOU HAVE TO RESIGN............

SO IS IT A DEAL........WAYNE.....?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

wayne.....?


WMM

[Boomer Chick]

Wayne, what's the difference between you calling someone a chemmie, and me calling chemmies "your people"?

Hint: When I wrote "your people", you censored, then deleted my post, but when you call someone a chemmie, you don't delete yourself.

Hypocrisy?

Most Definitely!

For the record, Wayne Hall deleted yet another of my posts since this morning, no reason given.
He does whatever he damn well pleases, like a puny hitler.

I'm upset about this, too. I've written the mods. Will write more tomorrow. Have you reported as well, Jay?

[Boomer Chick]

Wayne Hall, explain what this new rule you have made really means. Where is this rule written down here at arianaonline. I demand to see this put into plain english, justified, and approved by the higher ups.

What objective criteria will be used, or is it just whatever you damn well please once again?

Or is this just some new vendetta you have runninga against Boomer Chick because you drank too much coffee?

You're acting out like a berserker, dude. Better rein yourself in.

Perhaps you don't realize how petty, vindictive, and shallow all this looks, even if you can try to quickly erase all posts critical of your delete-mania. People can see through to what is happening.

That was quite moderate and actually compassionate of you, Jay. I'm extremely disappointed in Halva. He's not making sense at all, either. I think it's best to just write our letters and see what happens. You didn't write anything lately he could use against you, did you? He's sending me stuff you wrote that I've never seen trying to convince me to dislike you for some reason. If it was in the past .... I don't care because people change and the past is the past. On this board here and now I've not read anything you've posted that goes against the rules of AO.


I have moved on from the days of holding revenge, of taking anything personally on the net, and assuming there's some kind of real battle going on. I find this kind of relating immature, lacking spirituality, and frankly.... not promoting peace and understanding in the world. I don't care if you threatened lawsuits..... if people actually took that as somehow meaningful and threatening.... that's their problem. How could you even spend your time, money, and effort doing such a thing anyway? I guess gullibility runs the gamut and those that hold fear within can find a reason for their fear without.... seems they gravitate toward it as well. Odd, but true.

But it's time for tough love. We can still practice compassion while we firmly state our case that Halva is simply unfit for moderating responsibilities. It's not political at all, it's a matter of fair policy and judgment with integrity which he definately lacks.

Halva, this is the last post I'm dedicating to discussing you. This is a science thread and somehow you managed to put all the attention on you? Gee! Interesting turn of events. No matter how much I kept asking you to stop your social commentary, your obsession with Jay, your obvious lack of interest in the subject, you'd always manage to get back to you and how you feel about Jay or me. Jay does not hate you. Now let's drop it and why don't you just resign and realize you're too emotional to do a fair job.

Sincerely,

BC

[jayreynolds]

He's sending me stuff you wrote that I've never seen trying to convince me to dislike you for some reason.
Well, he shouldn't be trying to run some sort of underground smear campaign. If he wants to discuss something, he should be open about it like a man and bring it up with me., right here in public. But that would take courage................
.

[halva]

I have moved on from the days of holding revenge, of taking anything personally on the net, and assuming there's some kind of real battle going on.


There IS a real battle going on, BC.

[Boomer Chick]

There IS a real battle going on, BC.


OK..... T O ( time out ) ..... it's now time for bringing all thoughts to light here, Halva. You owe it to us, the board members to thoroughly explain and define the battle that is REAL and GOING ON.

Please describe the battle in REAL terms. By real I mean, in reality.

1. Define the battle

a. WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?
b. WHAT ARE THE STAKES? in other words..... WHAT IS EACH SIDE FIGHTING FOR?


2. In REAL terms, this means EFFECTS THAT REVEAL THEMSELVES OUTSIDE OF CYBER SPACE...... WHAT ARE THE REAL EFFECTS that emanate from this "battle?"


3. ARE YOUR RIGHTS Being ABUSED? Your right to ACTIVISM? Is your right to RESEARCH and use your findings to PROMOTE your cause in REAL LIFE curtailed in some way?

4. IS someone preventing you from access to knowledge, access to researchers themselves?

5. Why haven't you contacted directly the university researchers in your own locale?

Please consider these questions when stating your case. This is the time for you, Halva, to explain yourself once and for all. If you cannot at least explain your position and give us your personal explanation for your behavior as mod lately, then please just resign.

You are not fair, you are attempting to use your position to further your own personal cause or some cause you believe is political, but we deserve an explanation out front and in public on this board.

Thank you.

If you cannot do this, I will continue to complain about your unfair practices. Put yourself in anyone's place, including Reynold's . What if Reynolds was moderator and he deleted posts just because he disagreed with them, or found them offensive according to his own personal emotions, disregarding board rules. How would that feel?

If you delete this post, Halva, I will know you have lost all sense of balance in cyber-world and in the real world as well. Please answer the questions and explain yourself.

[whitemajikman]

There IS a real battle going on, BC.


WAYNE DO YOU NEED A SHRINK........?

There is no battle......

Period.....

And If There is one currently being waged.......

it is one- sided and emanates from your mind.......

I Think You Have Watched The Movie "Unbreakable" too many times.....

You Never Told Us You had a BONE problem.......

is it serious.....?

Now Seriously I Vote for Boomer As Next Moderator If She Has The time To Spare......

You Better Start Packing Wayne.....

WMM

[peace-fries]

Pity you guys seem to be having a personal battle in this thread instead of continuing to argue about the original topic.
Forget about personal shortcomings, make peace, please!























"Follow your own dreams and take your own risks."
http://www.warriorofthelight.com

[Boomer Chick]

Pity you guys seem to be having a personal battle in this thread instead of continuing to argue about the original topic.
Forget about personal shortcomings, make peace, please!

I agree, PeaceFries! The situation is this: one of the posters, an environmentalist, became a moderator. In his moderator role, he has deleted posts of which he doesn't like and do not fit the criteria for deletion. All of us are environmentalists here.

We're actually all on the same side here, getting to the truth and caring for the planet ! But we do have a present social problem at the moment. One cannot ignore, nor gloss over, nor pretend social problems don't exist. We, as a board of members, or working it out together. This is the proper way to iron out difficulties when they arise between personalities.

Just to shout "PEACE" doesn't cut it ! Ever had kids? Ever teach in a classroom?.... do playground duty? Involved in international diplomacy?

People must air their grievances, state their cases, understand one another from that level of openess and resolve the problems!

If you take that extra step and assume all Americans can't get along.... why you're just plain wrong and assuming quite a bit. The moderator who was once a poster.... in fact, is Greek, lives in Greece.

Now if we can't all talk openly and honestly about our views and get them said right here on the board, and iron these wrinkles in the fabric of discourse out..... then you can feel pity!

Are you married? Is everyday just wonderful or do problems crop up every now and then?

OK, then........................ thanks and no thanks for your input ! You have no idea the social dynamics going on here!

:rolleyes:





















"Follow your own dreams and take your own risks."
http://www.warriorofthelight.com[/QUOTE]

[jayreynolds]

As a matter of fact there is extended reference to Jim Phelps in the article. I just wanted to see if you knew that already.

I, and not only I, naturally I, want to get more information about what exactly is being done. If we can't get any information from official sources inevitably we will read and pay attention to what Jim Phelps says, until such times as we have something more authoritative to go by.

I don't know if G. Stetter's article is on line. He sent to me by regular mail the magazine it is published in.

Wayne, was your claim about Stetter making "extended reference" to Phelps in a recent article true, or false? There is no evidence of it being true at his website. If true, where was this alleged article published? If false, well, we know what you are, then..................

[masher]

WHAT WOULD FILLING THE THE STRATOSPHERE WITH SILVER FOIL..........do.....? BESIDES CREATE HAVOC.....?

Are you serious? If you really don't know, try the easy home science experiment of placing a sheet of aluminum foil between yourself and a hot light bulb. Report back to us on the results.

AND BURYING CO2 WOULD CREATE AN EVER BIGGER PROBLEM......

Lol, I can't even imagine what demonic problems you fantasize. But let me ask you, where do you think all that carbon came from in the first place? We dig it up or pump it up, burn it, and release it into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration completes the cycle.

[jayreynolds]

The question was answered a long time ago, four years, to be exact. A certain "Deborah" has knowledge of it but appears unwilling to admit it. There seems to be an extremely short 'institutional memory' among chemtrail cult members, and little regard for self-correction. Will Holmes even bother to admit he was wrong about this one, or will he continue to promote yet another blatant misinformation?

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zs0uMZMTzMoJ:www.chemtrailcentral.c om/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000242.html+USAFA+chemtrails&hl=en

Hey, Wayne, I guess your people aren't going to hold Brian Holmes to any standards of accuracy regarding his contentions about the US Air Force Academy, even though they already debunked his misinformation.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html
He hasn't made any change to reflect what other prominent members found out years ago.
Why is that?
It's always been the same, chemmies allow bogus misinformation to be promulgated, which allows them to subsequently appear ridiculous whever real fact is brought to bear against them.

By your inaction, you are setting him up for a big fall whenever anyone wants to debunk him, ya know.............

With friends like that, who needs enemies???

[whitemajikman]

WHAT WOULD FILLING THE THE STRATOSPHERE WITH SILVER FOIL..........do.....? BESIDES CREATE HAVOC.....?

Are you serious? If you really don't know, try the easy home science experiment of placing a sheet of aluminum foil between yourself and a hot light bulb. Report back to us on the results.

AND BURYING CO2 WOULD CREATE AN EVER BIGGER PROBLEM......

Lol, I can't even imagine what demonic problems you fantasize. But let me ask you, where do you think all that carbon came from in the first place? We dig it up or pump it up, burn it, and release it into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration completes the cycle.


THANK YOU JAY......

YOUR MASHER MULTIPLE I.D.

Has Been NOTED......

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

THANK YOU JAY......

YOUR MASHER MULTIPLE I.D.

Has Been NOTED......

WMM

IT'S SO OBVIOUS, TOO!

HI ! JAY! YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!

BC

[hoot]

"CHEMTRAILS"~~Chemistry 131~~manual fall 1990~~Course Policies and Laboratory Manual~~Department of Chemistry~~United States Air Force Academy~~~~~~~~~~D 305.19:C42~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Oh!Oh! Somebody forgot to shred all of these!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~I really didn't think that that shill Thomas coined the name anyway.~~~~~~~~~~Tah Tah All! ____hoot____ :razz:

[halva]

IT'S SO OBVIOUS, TOO!

HI ! JAY! YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!

BC

BC and WMM. Do you want Jay Reynolds to continue to be allowed to post at Arianna's,
i) under false identities?
ii) under his own identity?

Would you (or would you not) say that the autonomy and integrity of our discussions is undermined by the postings made by Jay Reynolds and by Masher, irrespective of whether they are or are not the same person?

What is your attitude to the assertion that this is a public forum, that freedom of speech applies, that Jay Reynolds has not broken any of the forum's rules and that there are therefore no grounds for permanently excluding him?

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, one of the universal laws of nature is that opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one.
I don't expect anyone to kiss mine, and don't intend to reciprocate.

Let's both understand this, and learn to improve ourselves from watching how our personal opinions stand up against solid debate over any issue.

I am not 'masher', and 'masher' isn't me. If we explore this, it will become crystal clear.

Now, what would make you happy, Wayne, and what would you be willing to accept here at arianna's?

[halva]

Wayne, one of the universal laws of nature is that opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one.
I don't expect anyone to kiss mine, and don't intend to reciprocate.

Let's both understand this, and learn to improve ourselves from watching how our personal opinions stand up against solid debate over any issue.

I am not 'masher', and 'masher' isn't me. If we explore this, it will become crystal clear.

Now, what would make you happy, Wayne, and what would you be willing to accept here at arianna's?

The reason given for requesting both you and me that we should refrain from posting for ten days was that we were both allegedly more interested in conducting a private vendetta than in participating in more general debate.

I agreed to comply with this request from the higher moderators. You did not even reply, so you were suspended, but your suspension has now been lifted after the passage of only three or four days, not the ten that were purportedly imposed.

The restoration of these rights indicates that it is the choice of the higher moderators that the discussion at these threads continue to be dominated by the 'two fighting cocks'.

Of course there were no fighting cocks and no private vendetta: there was just the fact that you kept on addressing your postings to me personally, even after I had been appointed moderator and was thus supposed to try to move away from participating to moderating.

I did not do any moderating during the period that I had been told to refrain from posting.

I started posting again rather than waiting out the ten days when I was informed that your posting rights had been prematurely and without explanation restored.

In both of my postings I address questions and remarks to other participants in this forum, not to you.

[halva]

Reiterating questions to BC and WMM.

[whitemajikman]

BC and WMM. Do you want Jay Reynolds to continue to be allowed to post at Arianna's,
i) under false identities?
ii) under his own identity?

Would you (or would you not) say that the autonomy and integrity of our discussions is undermined by the postings made by Jay Reynolds and by Masher, irrespective of whether they are or are not the same person?

What is your attitude to the assertion that this is a public forum, that freedom of speech applies, that Jay Reynolds has not broken any of the forum's rules and that there are therefore no grounds for permanently excluding him?


Wayne .....

Jay Brings to the Table ..........

A Lot Of Good Debate ......And Commentary.......

There would be NO Science Section With Out Jay's Contributions.........

He Has Been a large Contributor......

JUST AS YOU HAVE......

Think About That For A Moment..........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Wayne, one of the universal laws of nature is that opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one.
I don't expect anyone to kiss mine, and don't intend to reciprocate.

Let's both understand this, and learn to improve ourselves from watching how our personal opinions stand up against solid debate over any issue.

I am not 'masher', and 'masher' isn't me. If we explore this, it will become crystal clear.

Now, what would make you happy, Wayne, and what would you be willing to accept here at arianna's?


Jay .......

Shut Up.......

Relax......


And THIS TIME ......

TRY AND ENJOY YOURSELF....... ;)

WMM

[halva]

Originally Posted by whitemajikman
THANK YOU JAY......

YOUR MASHER MULTIPLE I.D.

Has Been NOTED......

WMM


When you accused Jay Reynolds here of posting under a false identity and so attempting to circumvent his suspension by the moderators, what were you complaining about??

Were you complaining about him not respecting the rules of the forum?

[halva]

WMM, you are acting like a moderator.

Do you want to be moderator here?

[jayreynolds]

The reason given for requesting both you and me that we should refrain from posting for ten days was that we were both allegedly more interested in conducting a private vendetta than in participating in more general debate.

I agreed to comply with this request from the higher moderators. You did not even reply, so you were suspended, but your suspension has now been lifted after the passage of only three or four days, not the ten that were purportedly imposed.

Wayne, perhaps some explanation is in order. On Sunday at 10 pm, mike sent us both his request. Early on Monday morning I posted and by 7:45 am Mike assumed I was ignoring his request. I was away from home during the day and night, but responded to Mike by Tuesday morning, and explained that I had not received his request until then. A factor in the delay was because I have never enabled the 'Pop-up' notification for private messages. He understood and informed me that I could post.



The restoration of these rights indicates that it is the choice of the higher moderators that the discussion at these threads continue to be dominated by the 'two fighting cocks'.

That might be presumptive, Wayne. However, when I came to the board this morning, I saw that YOU had put my name up for discussion, and had inferred that I might be posting under a multiple ID. I responded with a denial, a general statement about my views on debate, and in a conciliatory jesture asked what would make you happy.


Of course there were no fighting cocks and no private vendetta: there was just the fact that you kept on addressing your postings to me personally, even after I had been appointed moderator and was thus supposed to try to move away from participating to moderating.

So, one week ago when you asked me to refute the bogus allegation by Brian Holmes about the USAF academy journal, were you participating, or moderating??
http://ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=273839&postcount=7071

Additionally, when my subsequent posts were edited and deleted, should I have not responded with my opinions on those matters? Is there now a rule which states that I cannot address you when my posts suddenly disappear or are "bowdlerized"?



I did not do any moderating during the period that I had been told to refrain from posting. I started posting again rather than waiting out the ten days when I was informed that your posting rights had been prematurely and without explanation restored. In both of my postings I address questions and remarks to other participants in this forum, not to you.

Well, Wayne, I had hoped that you might have posted something constructive towards a resolution of the problem, but instead see you drumming up support for my "permanent exclusion", and a false inference that I am posting under a multiple identity. Did you really expect me not to respond, or was that just a provocation ploy?

Come on man, if you don't want me to address you, stop bringing me into the discussion and stop your unjustified deletions. If you want to discuss issues, expect to hear other people's opinions. Don't expect me to not respond with my opinions on any matter that comes up on this board.. This board is a forum for debate and discussion, and until I am told otherwise, let the debate begin!

PS, What really would make you happy, Wayne?

[halva]

I have moved on from the days of holding revenge, of taking anything personally on the net, and assuming there's some kind of real battle going on.




There IS a real battle going on, BC.




WAYNE DO YOU NEED A SHRINK........?

There is no battle......

Period.....

And If There is one currently being waged.......

it is one- sided and emanates from your mind.......


WMM when a poster is speaking as an individual, not claiming to say anything on behalf of any group, and is addressed in reply as "you people", which objectively and unjustifiedly imputes to the previous poster the claim to be speaking on behalf of a group, would you not say that the poster employing the term "you people" is launching a personal attack on the previous poster, thus putting the attacker in violation of rules 3 and 4 of the five rules prescribed for these threads by Mike and Libby,
(see http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19113&page=11&pp=10)

Would you not also agree that this practice, which is habitually engaged in by certain posters, is evidence of a battle being conducted in these threads?

[Boomer Chick]

Halva ---- There is a debate going on, not a personal battle. Jay refutes articles and points within various posted articles, takes the opposed position to just about anything regarding global warming, environmental issues, and whatever he thinks "doesn't add up" in his mind. It doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, it's just his view and often he refutes points quite credibly.

Jay -- I respect you extending your hand to Halva to ask him precisely "what would make him happy." This thought-promoting question will indeed help everyone.

I'm tired of the emotionalism. The key to academic debate, argumentation, and proper rhetoric, is to keep emotions out. Taking anything personally on the net is unwise and simply shows the human propensity to take opposing views as some kind of personal vendetta against oneself.

I've tried to understand everyone here and give everyone the benefit of any doubt. I respect Jay for living a lifestyle which seems close to the tenets of sound environmental policy, kind and loving regarding his community, and obviously full of hard work and effort. He has maintained more emotional groundedness on this forum than Halva and the late, IS. As I've said, he's a hard taskmaster and yes he might have trolled other sites and challenged the assumptions and perceptions at various sites.... but so what?

Refute, debate, and argue like adults. You disagree? State why, support your argument, and beyond that let it go and release yourself from negative emotional bonding.

Halva, what I want from you is to curtail and control your emotions. I never thought I'd have to say that to a male. Moderate with objectivity and grace. Can you do that? If you can't, then you had better choose again. Jay, maintain your objectivity.

Thank you. Now let's continue the discussion at hand.

BC

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, I'be been trying to engage these chemmies in debate for acouple of weeks, but none of them really appears to have any data to debate with.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5585

So far I've been through the basics of ordinary contrails, asked them what proof they have, and showed them how they can identify the planes, the standard drill. It seems they really have no proof whatsoever, cannot rebut factual information, yet still haven't a clue what to do except keep looking up and seeking new "converts".

Maybe you should take a break here and go help them out?
I really hesitated to respond to your continued attacks, but I am just making a suggestion that you take avacation and get a new perspective. I'll even pledge to not oppose you there for at least a week, deal?

Your people cry out for your wisdom, oh great sage!

[halva]

Halva ---- There is a debate going on, not a personal battle. Jay refutes articles and points within various posted articles, takes the opposed position to just about anything regarding global warming, environmental issues, and whatever he thinks "doesn't add up" in his mind. It doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, it's just his view and often he refutes points quite credibly.

Jay -- I respect you extending your hand to Halva to ask him precisely "what would make him happy." This thought-promoting question will indeed help everyone.

My position as moderator that Jay Reynolds repeatedly breaks the explicit rules of this forum and must be permanently excluded was not an emotional position but objective, derived from comparison of his actions with the forum rules..

It has become obvious from withdrawal of my 'editing' capacity over others' postings that I have, without explanation or notification, been removed as moderator.

I do not propose to react in any way to this development, other than through this posting. I certainly do not intend to attempt to establish any private communication with the senior moderators. I did not petition them prior to being appointed a moderator myself and I am not going to start doing so now. Or rather continue doing so, because as a moderator I did petition them, given that my powers were limited..

I don't really care how committed or uncommitted Arianna On-Line is to the defence of 'freedom of speech' and I don't propose to try to find out.. Reynolds can continue to appeal, in hard times, to his opponents' respect for his freedom of speech if he wishes. I could not be bothered making any such demand of any opponent. Arianna On-LIne is an opponent.

One shares information with friends. One withholds information from enemies.

For the moment there is still some useful information being provided on the threads here.
I will continue to access it, without providing any myself.

To answer Reynolds' question as to what would 'make me happy': I would like to see him desist finally from his never-ending attempts at public humiliation of footsoldier. I was not allowed as moderator to give her any relief from them..

However, she may well be making the decision, as I have, to provide no more informational input to these threads.

[whitemajikman]

Given that their understanding is what is involved in the 'chemtrails' and 'climate change' debates is superior to that of senior moderators at Arianna On-line, no matter what side of the 'chemmie/debunker' divide they have occupied in the past, this is tantamount to a dereliction of responsibility.

Responsibility is a two way street.........Wayne......

only through Co-operation can we ever hope to succeed in turning the tide of popular opinion.....

especially when the premise effects not only us......

But The Entire Human Race........

We Don't Need Division............Because Quite frankly .....Thats The State Of The World As It Sit's Today.........and it isn't working.......

What We Need Is TRUST.......

It Has To Start Somewhere ........

Why Not Right Here .......Right Now......

I Am Willing To Trust You Wayne......

Just As I Am Willing To Trust Jay.....and Boomer.....And Footsoldier.........

WHY.....?

Because Without It.........

Whats The USE......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Responsibility is a two way street.........Wayne......WMM
thanks for saving that bit that wayne has edited out, whitey. wish i had caught the whole thing before it was bowdlerized.

[halva]

WMM the only unfinished business with you is your apology to the young man who worked for Greenpeace until you came into his life.

I can find out his address if you want to write to him.

[Boomer Chick]

WMM, that was a lovely statement of how we as a board can express the micro-global peace ethic. You are so totally right and I've thought this and even expressed it here, many times.

Halva, I sincerely asked you to air your feelings and grievances here, frame the "battle" as you called it, and define it. It was your opportunity to openly reflect and share your views and YOU REFUSED. YOU IGNORED all of our pleas to objectivity and reasoning and a peaceful resolution of your moderating difficulties. You had the chance and you lost it. The mods took it upon themselves to make the decision for you. Had you explained yourself, stated your case of the "BATTLE" that you insist is real, backed up a bit, and realized that moderators CANNOT DO BATTLE as their function cannot bear it, you might have retained your moderator status. I hope you do not blame anyone but yourself. But as WMM quoted you, you obviously attempted to blame the senior moderators here. Too bad.

And most of all, I hope you gleened the lesson contained in the experience.

It is one of learning cooperation, objectivity, and the peace ethic. And I would also include "freedom of expression" within our Constitution as the freedom to express opposing views on American forums, the public debate. Yes, I do believe that the freedom of expression or speech ranks higher in importance to me and our moderators than it does in your abilities to perceive freedom.

I hope you decide to post eventually after you nurse your supposed ego wounds, and have enough reflective ability to realize your role in the whole experience. Your contributions would be appreciated in the subject matter at hand as long as they refrain from personal condemnation.

As far as FS's abilities to deal with Reynold's constant question-asking, that is up to her. She can handle herself quite beautifully and expresses what she wants when she wants and if she chooses NOT to post anymore.... so be it. It is totally her business and not yours.

Well, from me, I'll keep posting when I want and what I want according to what I find relevant to any of our science threads here. Perhaps posting in the larger "current events" forum now and then would garner a larger audience for environmental causes and education regarding peak oil and climate change as well as legislation regarding emissions and alternative energy R & D.

Thanks, everyone..... it's been quite an interesting social experiment here, hasn't it?

Peace,

BC :)

[whitemajikman]

WMM the only unfinished business with you is your apology to the young man who worked for Greenpeace until you came into his life.

I can find out his address if you want to write to him.


WAYNE.....

YOU OWE THAT YOUNG MAN AN APOLOGY.........NOT I........

It Was YOU who brought him into the DEBATE.....

IT WAS YOU.....That tried to USE GREENPEACE.......FOR YOUR CHEMTRAIL HOAX.........

REMEMBER......?

BUT AGAIN THIS IS ANOTHER LESSON IN LIFE........THAT YOU MUST LEARN....

It's Called RESPONSIBILITY.......

YES I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS YOUNG MAN NOT WORKING ANYMORE FOR GREENPEACE..........

BUT YOU ARE THE REASON THAT HE NO LONGER HAS A CAREER.........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

WAYNE.....

YOU OWE THAT YOUNG MAN AN APOLOGY.........NOT I........

It Was YOU who brought him into the DEBATE.....

IT WAS YOU.....That tried to USE GREENPEACE.......FOR YOUR CHEMTRAIL HOAX.........

REMEMBER......?

BUT AGAIN THIS IS ANOTHER LESSON IN LIFE........THAT YOU MUST LEARN....

It's Called RESPONSIBILITY.......

YES I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS YOUNG MAN NOT WORKING ANYMORE FOR GREENPEACE..........

BUT YOU ARE THE REASON THAT HE NO LONGER HAS A CAREER.........

WMM


I NEED TO UPDATE THIS....

I JUST RETURNED FROM C.F.B. WAINWRIGHT................

THOSE LINES IN THE SKY YOU ARE SEEING WAYNE..............

ARE INDEED CHEMTRAILS..........

AND ARE BEING EMPLOYED TO HELP FIGHT THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN U.V. RADIATION.....

IT IS ALSO A WORLD-WIDE EFFORT.........

AND IS CONCENTRATED WHERE THE OZONE IS NON-EXISTENT......OR VERY THIN.......

ALSO AT THIS TIME......

THE INFO I JUST SHARED WITH YOU.......

IS HIGHLY CLASSIFIED........

I HOPE TO FIND MORE INFO........

NEXT WEEKEND........

HOPEFULLY MY INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER......PANS OUT.......AS I EXPECT IT TO.

NOW IF ONLY JAY WILL TAKE WHAT I AM SAYING SERIOUSLY

AND HELP IN THIS INVESTIGATION........

JUST AS YOU CAN TO WAYNE........

THE WAY I SEE IT CTC HAS A MASSIVE DATABASE WITH DOCUMENTED CHEMTRAIL SIGHTINGS..........

ALL ONE MUST REALLY DO IS CROSS REFERENCE THE SIGHTINGS WITH THE CONDITION OF THE OZONE LAYER OVER THAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AT THE TIME OF THE SIGHTINGS....

AND ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE SEASONAL NORMS FOR THAT AREA......

NOW THE REASON WHY I AM GOING OUT ON A LIMB HERE........

AND BRINGING THIS UP.......(CHEMTRAILS)..........

IS BECAUSE I FEEL IT IS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN UNITING........

DEBUNKERS.....AND ACTIVIST'S ALIKE.............

BECAUSE IF WHAT I AM ON TO HERE IS THE TRUTH.......

THE STATE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT IS A LOT WORSE THAN FIRST THOUGHT......

AND WHO IS THE GOVERNING BODY MAKING THESE GLOBAL DECISIONS WHICH EFFECTS ALL OF US.......?

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT ........

WMM

[foot_soldier]

I would like to publicly extend my thanks to "halva" for his efforts to at least mitigate if not eliminate the incidence of personal attack and deliberate humiliation of posters in this venue. I'm sorry things didn't work out. The truth is that people's tolerance for negative behavior varies widely and in fact runs the gamut from zero-tolerance to prurient interest. There's no accounting for human proclivities in this regard and there's ultimately no controlling of how others choose to behave. In the end one must decide for themselves what they are going to do and then simply do it.

[halva]

Close the thread, put it on a hard disc and keep it for the history books.

[foot_soldier]

One more thing - this is for WMM. I happen to agree that northern mid-latitude stratospheric ozone depletion is possibly the most challenging issue we face. I've said that for years now and there's been no reason to change my thinking in that regard. By the way, O3 depletion and climate change are definitely related.

You and BC are providing some excellent reference material and related media coverage. Keep it up. I'm not going to be around on a regular basis anymore.

[jayreynolds]

So whitey has gone back to chemmie, if he can't control debate Wayne wants to shut it down, and FS is becoming scarce. Looks like there are Bozos on this bus. Takes all sorts to make a world of comedy.
================================================== ======================
For the record, this quote from a previous post1/26/2005:

If I may be allowed to articulate a strategic objective, let it be this:
When the shit hits the fan about chemtrails, it must be the Crichtons and Raynolds that are designated scapegoats for the coverup, not Greenpeace, the BBC, the Guardian or the IPCC.
Let Raynolds get to work on plotting his counter-strategy now.
He won't be able to find one.
Wayne, closing in on one year since you last said "I WILL BURY YOU" to me.
You said you could get me banned.

Guess what, I'm still here, and in one year you've done absolutely nothing to further your hoax.

To the contrary, you've allied yourself with gaiacomm, a nutcase whose claim to fame was becoming the first and only person to get banned!

Your greek friends Dr. Nikos Katsaros and Dr. Christos Zerefos have both denounced any proof for "chemtrails" WHATSOEVER.

Your other-white-meat friend Liakopoulos revealed himself as a racist nincompoop on this thread.

Even YOU, Wayne Hall, conceded that you had NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for "chemtrails".

You've made an enemy out of the whole Tyndall centre who is the world's forum for geoengineering theory.

You have made an enemy out of one of the most prolific "climate change" authors on the planet, Ross Gelbspan, who is now my ally.

Your ally David G. Stewart came and went, in the process admitting he was a liar, and getting himself debunked by Chem11 among others.

Your ally footsoldier actually came out and debunked your whole "chemtrails are geoengineering" hoax, in public, and refuses to say she has any further belief in "chemtrails" whatsoever.

Your ally Brian Holmes has been exposed to be, at minimum, an exteremly gullible person unable to verify an anonymous hoax in the making, and then unable to admit his error when it was exposed publicly. To the contrary, his low-brow example of a coverup didn't pass muster even among "chemtrail" believers, who saw it as "dishonesty".

Your last ally, Jim Phelps, probably takes the cake, fruitcake, that is. If he had any sense at all, he would have applied some self-control. Rather than take it easy, in a few shor weeks he has become the laughingstock of the whole "chemtrail" milieu, widely seen as a racial and religious fanatic who claims to be considered as a God.
He also calls you "DUMBASS".
So much for allies, eh?

And so we come down to Wayne's little hissy-fit, "When the shit hits the fan about chemtrails, it must be the Crichtons and Raynolds that are designated scapegoats for the coverup...Let Raynolds get to work on plotting his counter-strategy now. He won't be able to find one."

Well, Wayne, from looking at your own list of achievements over the past year, it looks like YOU are the one who better start planning a counter-strategy, because your present one has gotten you pretty far up shit-creek, and you've got no paddle, old bean!

[whitemajikman]

So whitey has gone back to chemmie,

NO JAY.....

Just Looking For Answers.........

and this time I think you should be a little bit nervous.....

after all it is you who has built a career out of debunking this phenomena.....

by researching it......

all I am asking is for you to research it a little bit more.....

or can't you do this.......?

are you that shallow that you will protect your status as Chemtrail debunker simply because you have a lot of time and research invested...........

does the TRUTH not matter to you.........as much anymore.............

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

WMM,

I'm highly motivated and curious about your information regarding ozone depletion mitigation up in Canada.


I you could simply paraphrase various testimonies you heard verbally, and record them as objectively as you can...... you would truly possess information that many researchers lack, but it would only be a start in terms of investigating.

Beyond this..... I would ask you, in your next interview situation or conversation with pilots et al, to ask for backup information which might exist online through various Canadian programs and even companies you might inquire about.... jet fuel companies, spraying companies, pilot groups.... you know. Just prepare a series of pointed questions if you can or well thought-out questions that don't seem too probing but could advance your evidence for the operations. OK?

I realize the top secret nature of this, but in order for the public to make a case at any government forum or international organization, we have to have evidence.

I know you know this, but I just wanted to give you backing and suggest some strategies to help the cause of research. If you find that the spraying itself is basically only cloud producing involving harmless substances, that would be revelatory and not alarming whatsoever. BUT, if you find that unusual substances that DO have an impact on health or environment are being released, well, you know............. it requires much more research to ascertain the precise concoction.

What I find difficult in your situation is:

1. How do we know you actually met with the group you say you met with? Is there any proof you can give us on your own testimony? Can you offer yourself in a pic with a person, whom you will not name, a pic of a facility, anything?

2. Will anyone to whom you spoke offer you any proof besides their words? Any proof at all? Pics? Experimental Canadian sites, Canadian officials involved, a multinational group of any kind.... you know. ????

You are now considered an investigative journalist in my mind. So please consider your important role.

I swear to God, if you are putting us on, or presenting these second-hand reports simply to up the curiosity factor on your own ............... I don't know what.... but it will be devastating to all of us searching for the truth.

I trust you, but will need some kind of proof , some kind of lead, to go on from here.

Do the DOD and top secret scientists internationally feel that ice crystals themselves will protect people from UV rays? We all know that even thick cloud cover cannot inhibit such rays, so why would the program even exist to protect us from UV rays? It makes no sense. Could these pilots be given an alternate explanation for what they see and do? Could they be ignorant to what the spraying actually is? I suspect this more than anything. It you could get at least one of them to read the labels on spray apparatus, pressurized tanks, etc., you could then research the makers of the sprays.

Jay plays his role and we should not be surprised if he attacks everything to do with your study. Old dogs can't learn new tricks, you know, so just let him go, and do your work on the subject.

Be careful above all else and because you're not an American citizen, you DO have an advantage. Please don't keep the information hidden, unless you have proof that a board on which you post might be monitored and all members would be in danger of the information posted, OK? You might want to just offer links to a more secure site rather than post directly here? Just a thought.

I support you.

BC :-o

[jayreynolds]

I JUST RETURNED FROM C.F.B. WAINWRIGHT..THOSE LINES IN THE SKY YOU ARE SEEING WAYNE. ARE INDEED CHEMTRAILS. AND ARE BEING EMPLOYED TO HELP FIGHT THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN U.V. RADIATION.
IT IS ALSO A WORLD-WIDE EFFORT.AND IS CONCENTRATED WHERE THE OZONE IS NON-EXISTENT OR VERY THIN. ALSO AT THIS TIME. THE INFO I JUST SHARED WITH YOU IS HIGHLY CLASSIFIED.

"DURING MY WEEKEND JAUNT TO C.F.B. WAINWRIGHT HERE IN ALBERTA I BROUGHT UP A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN THE CONTRAILS IN THE SKY TO ABOUT A DOZEN MILITARY PILOTS BASED IN WAINWRIGHT MANY I HAVE KNOWN SINCE GRADE SCHOOL.

RIGHT OFF THE BAT I WAS CHASTIZED FOR CALLING THEM NORMAL CONTRAILS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL IN REGARDS TO THOSE DREADED LINES IN THE SKY. YOU SEE ALBERTA AND MANY OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD ARE DIRECTLY BENEATH HOLES IN THE OZONE LAYER OR ARE SUBJECTED TO THIN OZONE LEVEL'S.
THOSE LINES IN THE SKY SPREAD OUT.AND CREATE A FILTER....BY PRODUCING CLOUD COVER. THEIR WORDS NOT MINE. SO IN LIGHT OF THIS NEW INFORMATION FROM THE ACTUAL PILOTS THEMSELVES, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REOPEN THE CHEMTRAIL DEBATE.

Sorry for you, whitey. There are no debates without facts, and you have none.

This spiel comes from you, and if you want anyone to take you seriously, YOU have to back it up.
You won't, and so there we have it.
Another baseless rumor from another anonymous fruitcake.
Sad but true.

[whitemajikman]

WMM,

I'm highly motivated and curious about your information regarding ozone depletion mitigation up in Canada.


I you could simply paraphrase various testimonies you heard verbally, and record them as objectively as you can...... you would truly possess information that many researchers lack, but it would only be a start in terms of investigating.

Beyond this..... I would ask you, in your next interview situation or conversation with pilots et al, to ask for backup information which might exist online through various Canadian programs and even companies you might inquire about.... jet fuel companies, spraying companies, pilot groups.... you know. Just prepare a series of pointed questions if you can or well thought-out questions that don't seem too probing but could advance your evidence for the operations. OK?

I realize the top secret nature of this, but in order for the public to make a case at any government forum or international organization, we have to have evidence.

I know you know this, but I just wanted to give you backing and suggest some strategies to help the cause of research. If you find that the spraying itself is basically only cloud producing involving harmless substances, that would be revelatory and not alarming whatsoever. BUT, if you find that unusual substances that DO have an impact on health or environment are being released, well, you know............. it requires much more research to ascertain the precise concoction.

What I find difficult in your situation is:

1. How do we know you actually met with the group you say you met with? Is there any proof you can give us on your own testimony? Can you offer yourself in a pic with a person, whom you will not name, a pic of a facility, anything?

2. Will anyone to whom you spoke offer you any proof besides their words? Any proof at all? Pics? Experimental Canadian sites, Canadian officials involved, a multinational group of any kind.... you know. ????

You are now considered an investigative journalist in my mind. So please consider your important role.

I swear to God, if you are putting us on, or presenting these second-hand reports simply to up the curiosity factor on your own ............... I don't know what.... but it will be devastating to all of us searching for the truth.

I trust you, but will need some kind of proof , some kind of lead, to go on from here.

Do the DOD and top secret scientists internationally feel that ice crystals themselves will protect people from UV rays? We all know that even thick cloud cover cannot inhibit such rays, so why would the program even exist to protect us from UV rays? It makes no sense. Could these pilots be given an alternate explanation for what they see and do? Could they be ignorant to what the spraying actually is? I suspect this more than anything. It you could get at least one of them to read the labels on spray apparatus, pressurized tanks, etc., you could then research the makers of the sprays.

Jay plays his role and we should not be surprised if he attacks everything to do with your study. Old dogs can't learn new tricks, you know, so just let him go, and do your work on the subject.

Be careful above all else and because you're not an American citizen, you DO have an advantage. Please don't keep the information hidden, unless you have proof that a board on which you post might be monitored and all members would be in danger of the information posted, OK? You might want to just offer links to a more secure site rather than post directly here? Just a thought.

I support you.

BC :-o


THANK YOU BOOMER FOR YOUR SUPPORT.........

AND I DO INTEND TO BACK UP EVERYTHING I AM SAYING HERE..........

WITH EVIDENCE EVERYONE CAN VERIFY.......

As Soon as I Have All the Facts....

SO WILL EVERYONE ELSE............

I PROMISE YOU ALL THAT.....

And as For jay.......

He Will Come around When He SEES FOR HIMSELF WHAT EXACTLY IT IS I HAVE UNCOVERED......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Sorry for you, whitey. There are no debates without facts, and you have none.

This spiel comes from you, and if you want anyone to take you seriously, YOU have to back it up.
You won't, and so there we have it.
Another baseless rumor from another anonymous fruitcake.
Sad but true.

I WILL.....BACK IT UP....

YOU ASSUME TOO MUCH........TOO QUICKLY......

AND I FOR ONE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU TRYING TO DEBUNK WHAT IT IS I HAVE TO SHARE.....

WMM

[Yaak]

Let's have some fun and play a guessing game.:D
Can any of you guess who made the claims quoted below, and when and where they were made?


“chemtrails..........confirmed!”


“what is most interesting is the great debate over the existence of chemtrails.............well here is the proof....both legislative....and.....scientific........…”


“there is a wealth of proof of the existence of chemtrails and their link to weather modification......…”


“chemtrails are used to distibute barium......which in turn helps haarp in its experimentation with the weather modification...…”


“i am a (click here) rhoades (http://www.wayne.k12.in.us/rhe/) scholar.........and have several degrees......from three of the top learning institutions in the world..…”



“msc from m.i.t.......phd from oxford......and several other associate degrees.............all before i was 25........also....your belief that chemtrails do not exist goes against the findings of the world meteorological society......which has studied the phenomena........for the last 15 years................”



Did you guess correctly?
The answer can be found here (http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm3.showMessageRange? topicID=47.topic&start=1&stop=20).

[Yaak]

"there is no greater lie than the one the u.s. government/nwo has tried to cover-up regarding haarp and free energy.....checkout www.radarmatrix.com ....its a good sight and informative but whats special about this sight is the free energy physics link........"


"scalar electromagnetics is real and working.......chemtrails are reality not fantasy....the hutchison effect and the physics behind it are all well documented and are currently being applied .Ive done my homework.......its time for you to investigate before its too late......and by the way.....if you were illuminati........you would know who i am.......and what im about.....as i am well known in those circles and have been for a very long time.I give you this information freely for i fear no one........knowledge is power.........absolute power........"


"i met mr.Hutchinson 4 years ago and seen for myself what he proclaims.....and the funny thing is where i met him.........at haarp.....where i was doing my own research into scalar electromagnetics....the only thing you accomplish by criticizing without real investigation is chaos and loss of true knowledge.thx for the help.In the next 3 months i will make available a location ,time and date if you have the intestinal fortitude to make the journey you can see for yourself that what i claim is truth beyond reasoning......."

[whitemajikman]

Let's have some fun and play a guessing game.:D
Can any of you guess who made the claims quoted below, and when and where they were made?


“chemtrails..........confirmed!”


“what is most interesting is the great debate over the existence of chemtrails.............well here is the proof....both legislative....and.....scientific........…”


“there is a wealth of proof of the existence of chemtrails and their link to weather modification......…”


“chemtrails are used to distibute barium......which in turn helps haarp in its experimentation with the weather modification...…”


“i am a (click here) rhoades (http://www.wayne.k12.in.us/rhe/) scholar.........and have several degrees......from three of the top learning institutions in the world..…”



“msc from m.i.t.......phd from oxford......and several other associate degrees.............all before i was 25........also....your belief that chemtrails do not exist goes against the findings of the world meteorological society......which has studied the phenomena........for the last 15 years................”



Did you guess correctly?
The answer can be found here (http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm3.showMessageRange? topicID=47.topic&start=1&stop=20).



Thank you Ed.......

I Was Wondering when Someone would post these.........

You Did A Good Job........

I hope your Proud yourself.........

and I hope you feel real good.......about it.....

[Boomer Chick]

I find Yaak's humor lacking and quite underhanded!

I don't care where you were in the past, WMM!

We all grow, but it seems Yaak takes his sweet time!


Those recent posts weren't worth the bandwidth they were printed on! :mad:

[jayreynolds]

I find Yaak's humor lacking and quite underhanded!

I don't care where you were in the past, WMM!

We all grow, but it seems Yaak takes his sweet time!


Those recent posts weren't worth the bandwidth they were printed on! :mad:

You haven't a clue, BC?

The guy is all over the place, one day he's a PHd, next day he's a "retail manager". One day he's claiming to have been employed for years as a government debunker, next week he's a chemmie. One day he votes for me as moderator and Wayne is the demon, next week I'm the world's biggest problem. One day he's ready to publish scientiifc research, next day he's deleting all his posts.

Can you really miss this pattern?

Are these signs of growth?

No, my dear, these are signs of illness.

And I find your inability to recognize it very interesting.

[Boomer Chick]

You haven't a clue, BC?

The guy is all over the place, one day he's a PHd, next day he's a "retail manager". One day he's claiming to have been employed for years as a government debunker, next week he's a chemmie. One day he votes for me as moderator and Wayne is the demon, next week I'm the world's biggest problem. One day he's ready to publish scientiifc research, next day he's deleting all his posts.

Can you really miss this pattern?

Are these signs of growth?

No, my dear, these are signs of illness.

And I find your inability to recognize it very interesting.

Jay, I appreciate your views on this realize you've known WMM longer than I. Honestly, I haven't seen his PHd stuff, his "retail manager" stuff, his gov. debunker claim or is "chemmie" claims. I just haven't seen it on this board. His basic stated philosophies seem sound and quite intelligently articulated to me. When did WMM vote you as moderator? I don't remember that one. As far as his deleting his posts, I think he was disappointed in me and my frustration and yes, it was rather drastic, but I think he probably relied on my support and then it felt like I was pulling away. I wasn't pulling away, I was just whining a typical board whine when people ignore me. That was my problem, actually.

You see, I just don't know anyone's background here and can only take them for what they express on this forum for the last couple of months ..... that's it. I just didn't see any emotional problems with WMM at all. He's passionate and if he has something to offer on contrails and his pilots..... I would hope that you and Yaak could at least give him a chance and let him express what he's learned. It's not fair of you to assume that what he WILL SAY WILL be based in lies. Just not fair.

Yaak was slandering WMM's character and that's mean and not fair, either. I called it like I see it and not allowing people to grow from their past is not one of MY ways of treating others. You're like a dysfunctional family whose members don't allow one of more of its members to grow out of adolescent behaviors into adulthood.

So......... no, I didn't see the so-called patterns and I hope this explains it for you. Even if I had seen those past patterns, I would have allowed him respect anyway.

I certainly nailed IS's patterns and Halva's.

This is the area in which boundaries are crossed and I just don't do that, unless I'm forced to through harrassment or repeated and obvious patterns in others that disrupt our forum.

Thanks.

BC

[jayreynolds]

Jay, I appreciate your views on this realize you've known WMM longer than I. Honestly, I haven't seen his PHd stuff, his "retail manager" stuff, his gov. debunker claim or is "chemmie" claims. I just haven't seen it on this board. His basic stated philosophies seem sound and quite intelligently articulated to me. When did WMM vote you as moderator? I don't remember that one. As far as his deleting his posts, I think he was disappointed in me and my frustration and yes, it was rather drastic, but I think he probably relied on my support and then it felt like I was pulling away. I wasn't pulling away, I was just whining a typical board whine when people ignore me. That was my problem, actually.
You'll probably find this rude, but I get damn tired of having to bring you up to speed on just about every subject. Here is Yaak's post, read it and follow the link to see whitey in action as we saw him come on the scene.
http://ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283977&postcount=7156


You see, I just don't know anyone's background here and can only take them for what they express on this forum for the last couple of months ..... that's it. I just didn't see any emotional problems with WMM at all. He's passionate and if he has something to offer on contrails and his pilots..... I would hope that you and Yaak could at least give him a chance and let him express what he's learned. It's not fair of you to assume that what he WILL SAY WILL be based in lies. Just not fair.

Yaak was slandering WMM's character and that's mean and not fair, either. I called it like I see it and not allowing people to grow from their past is not one of MY ways of treating others. You're like a dysfunctional family whose members don't allow one of more of its members to grow out of adolescent behaviors into adulthood.

So......... no, I didn't see the so-called patterns and I hope this explains it for you. Even if I had seen those past patterns, I would have allowed him respect anyway.

It really seems you are a trifle gullible to take ANYTHING on the internet at face value.
NOT a good idea. Yaak was quoting Whitey spouting off the most incredible lies, which he has done many many more times since those quotes from two years ago.

Oh, and by the way, yes, your complaints precipitated moderator involvement in getting IS banned, in getting Wayne appointed as moderator, and also getting Wayne deposed as moderator! That is my opinion based on the sequence of events and other nuances.

Be careful what you ask for, BC, because you might just get it.

Lastly, IMHO, you had nothing to do with whitey deleting his posts, except that once he was exposed as a liar by Yaak's quotations, he had what is called a "conviction". Maybe the realization that he had let you down did it. This is where a person is confronted by an inescapable position, and must immediately and positively change his ways. The best thing you can hope to do for whitey is that he stay far away from temptation, not beg him to return. I've seen enough of his kind, though. Lies wrapped up with ego are a strong lure, you know. The tough time will come when he is in between the bipolar extremes, and comes back for a taste. Just one taste. Yeah, right. Lies are like drugs, they really need a twelve step program or something....................

[whitemajikman]

You'll probably find this rude, but I get damn tired of having to bring you up to speed on just about every subject. Here is Yaak's post, read it and follow the link to see whitey in action as we saw him come on the scene.
http://ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283977&postcount=7156



It really seems you are a trifle gullible to take ANYTHING on the internet at face value.
NOT a good idea. Yaak was quoting Whitey spouting off the most incredible lies, which he has done many many more times since those quotes from two years ago.

Oh, and by the way, yes, your complaints precipitated moderator involvement in getting IS banned, in getting Wayne appointed as moderator, and also getting Wayne deposed as moderator! That is my opinion based on the sequence of events and other nuances.

Be careful what you ask for, BC, because you might just get it.

Lastly, IMHO, you had nothing to do with whitey deleting his posts, except that once he was exposed as a liar by Yaak's quotations, he had what is called a "conviction". Maybe the realization that he had let you down did it. This is where a person is confronted by an inescapable position, and must immediately and positively change his ways. The best thing you can hope to do for whitey is that he stay far away from temptation, not beg him to return. I've seen enough of his kind, though. Lies wrapped up with ego are a strong lure, you know. The tough time will come when he is in between the bipolar extremes, and comes back for a taste. Just one taste. Yeah, right. Lies are like drugs, they really need a twelve step program or something....................


Jay your assumptions are just that assumptions............. regarding my internet persona......

Why don't You ASK Wayne for that young man's Phone Number.....In Greece.....

You Know the one That Wayne keeps saying I Owe An apology To.....

Ask him what happened with one phone call to his superiors by me......And ask him why?

also do you think you have the clout to be able to call half way around the world ...JUST ONCE....and have a Person Fired......? Based Upon Who You Are......?

I DOUBT IT........VERY MUCH.....

I Will Not Deny That I Have Had My Fun Over at MAV's........

But Thats What It Was....... FUN.........

This Is Different though Jay.........

Because It's a Serious Subject.........Human Survival.....Due To Climate Change....and dwindling natural resources.......

I Don't Give a Damn What You Think Of My Internet Persona........

But You Don't Know Me Personally.....

And You Don't Have A Clue Of Who I Am Or What Your Really Dealing With.......

THATS THE FACTS.......

Everything Else Spewing From Your Mouth......


Is Garbage Plain And Simple.......

You Have No Proof To The Contrary..........

And Never Will........

ITS THAT SIMPLE.......

Just as you are Simple.....And Totally Predictable......

By The way Why Do You Have A Security Clearance.......?

And Why Would you need one......?

also.......

SMILE.....

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

You'll probably find this rude, but I get damn tired of having to bring you up to speed on just about every subject. Here is Yaak's post, read it and follow the link to see whitey in action as we saw him come on the scene.
http://ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283977&postcount=7156

Bringing me up to speed? On every subject? Oh please.... now you're getting out into fantasy land! I'll give you that you're a great googler and researcher, always have given that to you. I wasn't totally immersed in the chemtrail online drama, so no, I don't know a lot and I'm glad I don't. Don't care, either. I simply allow people to be and was concerned myself, so I did the work it took to find information and am satisfied that I did. Always was a free agent and didn't need to put others down along the way.




It really seems you are a trifle gullible to take ANYTHING on the internet at face value.

Face value? My point was simply the opposite of that. I don't take people at face value and assume something I have no proof for. I told you I didn't know about the past postings.... what's not to understand there? And does it sink in yet, that I don't CARE what you or anyone else posted in the past when I wasn't witness to it?

And as far as face value on pertinent articles? Unless someone posts exactly what they think about an article, you have no right to assume that because they posted it that they believe and find every point credible. Sometimes people post things to get reactions from others, to get feedback. Perhaps you're the one assuming too much and actually showing YOUR gullibility?


NOT a good idea. Yaak was quoting Whitey spouting off the most incredible lies, which he has done many many more times since those quotes from two years ago.

Well, again, I didn't witness them, did I? So I can only go on what I've seen, and I told you what I saw. You and WMM start a new life everyday and you can chose a life of spiritual efficacy, or you can live a life of tension-creating negativity. It's up to you.


Oh, and by the way, yes, your complaints precipitated moderator involvement in getting IS banned, in getting Wayne appointed as moderator,

No, I had nothing to do with Halva getting his moderator position. It was a shock to me, but I congratulated him hoping he would do a good job. I wasn't involved one iota in his becoming moderator.


and also getting Wayne deposed as moderator! That is my opinion based on the sequence of events and other nuances.

I let everyone know OPENLY on this board what I was doing about IS and Halva. What nuance? It was up front and I posted exactly what I did, I even warned in advance what I would do as well. I wrote e-mails of complaint and registered complaints on the little dohickies on the posts themselves. No surprise for anyone, and no nuance involved.


Be careful what you ask for, BC, because you might just get it.

And what the heck are you talking about now? What did I ask for? I certainly wouldn't have chosen Halva for moderator given how he was obsessed with you and enfatuated with nutso IS !!! Please! What are you saying here?


Lastly, IMHO, you had nothing to do with whitey deleting his posts, except that once he was exposed as a liar by Yaak's quotations, he had what is called a "conviction". Maybe the realization that he had let you down did it. This is where a person is confronted by an inescapable position, and must immediately and positively change his ways. The best thing you can hope to do for whitey is that he stay far away from temptation, not beg him to return. I've seen enough of his kind, though. Lies wrapped up with ego are a strong lure, you know. The tough time will come when he is in between the bipolar extremes, and comes back for a taste. Just one taste. Yeah, right. Lies are like drugs, they really need a twelve step program or something....................

WMM PM'd me privately and expressed upset with me. That's how I know he was upset with me. Now maybe he was also POd at Yaak, but Yaak wasn't the only one he was upset about. Again, you slander someone you don't even know. LIke I said over on Mav's, you assume people lie when they simply go through a process of discovery and change their views as they go. Lying involves INTENT and the purposeful misleading of others through knowing deception. I have never seen this in WMM, and I don't care what you think. I will go by what I see and sense and I've lived longer than you and dealt with many, many, people, so just keep your nose out of it. I have my own ways of learning about people at my own pace and my views are quite different than yours.... so just keep your socks on, buddy!

And besides, I've practiced the same kind of fairness with you, too, while others were insisting you weren't worth listening to. Hey? So it cuts all ways, this fairness ethic and this ability to allow people... space.

Now, you get anyone fixated on others, off the topic, and harrassing others, and those perpetrators risk getting banned from the forum. It's as simple as that. The power is not in me, the power is in the truth.

I suggest that if anyone becomes fixated on any other poster, that he/she take a few steps back and take a long look at their personal lives. We're all here to get to the truths of matters larger than ourselves and to concentrate on eachother is to miss what's happening and it distracts. So.... let's get back to the subject at hand and move on! And I'm sorry I whined!

This is so tiring and boring! But, WMM, I do want you back! I resonated with you, I like you, and I respect you. Please return!

Jay, you know I respect and admire you for your farming and your lifestyle, so just quit the crap, OK? I also respect your search abilities and often how you refute certain things.

BIG HUG for (((((JAY))))))) now heal yourself and let's move on!!! :D

[jayreynolds]

I told you I didn't know about the past postings.... what's not to understand there? And does it sink in yet, that I don't CARE what you or anyone else posted in the past when I wasn't witness to it?

LIke I said over on Mav's, you assume people lie when they simply go through a process of discovery and change their views as they go. Lying involves INTENT and the purposeful misleading of others through knowing deception. I have never seen this in WMM, and I don't care what you think. I will go by what I see and sense

Ok, here it is again:


“i am a (click here) rhoades scholar and have several degrees from three of the top learning institutions in the world. msc from m.i.t phd from oxford and several other associate degrees all before i was 25. also your belief that chemtrails do not exist goes against the findings of the world meteorological society which has studied the phenomena for the last 15 years.
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm3.showMessageRange? topicID=47.topic&start=1&stop=20

I can lead to to the quote, but I can't make you read it?

[whitemajikman]

1) Jay What is your theory on WHY there is an increase in contrail formation.........?

give me a short paragraph........

the basics.....

can you manage that......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Boomer ....

I Apologize for that Message that I sent you.......

It was spur of the moment.........and very emotional of me.......

You See I was very foolish .......

Now Let's Build the viewership of this forum.....TOGETHER.......and that even includes Mr.Stuffy...A.K.A Jay Reynolds.....

Unless of course his main goal is to destroy this forum.....

Then that would be the Jay Reynolds I know.......

But Something tells me that your PURE Caring Nature.....Has Rubbed Off on him a bit.....

Right Now He is in Debunker MODE..... ;)

Give him about a week or two........

and He will be back to his old pompous self.......you see I shouldn't have brought up chemtrails......

it's a sticky subject with him.....

Just as always being questioned regarding my Integrity is my sticky subject.....

if you actually look at the dates of all of those quotes you will see that they were done in a very short time span.....

You See I thought Jay might have grown up........

and actually cared about SOMETHING other than debunking.............

Like maybe the state of our environment......

Jay himself is the biggest CHEMMIE going........Whether he likes it or not.........his whole REPUTATION is riding on the CHEMTRAIL premise......

He Lives and Breathes debunking this one SUBJECT........

Now the EPA in cunjuction with NASA and NOAA in 1999 disclosed that contrail formation would increase exponentially Due to GLOBAL WARMING.......

but you see they estimated that the increase would be noticable between then and 2050........



Somewhere along the line they figured out that contrail formation is exactly what is required to solve the increasing danger of u.v. radiation.....due to depletion of ozone.......

Now I know the Co2 levels will increase due to this phenomena.........

thats the crime......And Why Co2 levels have risen......

now all I need is the data providing the proof......

which is in the works as I type this.......

WMM

[Boomer Chick]

WMM,

So glad to see you back! You don't need to apologize, honestly, you don't. We're all human and go through our emotions and who knows what challenges you have in your life?

I don't know if you were here back then, but we posted on the percentage of radiative heat forcing and CO2 production contributed by air traffic emissions and it was a small percent compared to energy companies and manufacturers along with transportation emissions. Quite small according to the IPCC I think it was. I even posted a graph. But of course this is just so far as the gases and particulates have been measured. Also, the radiative forcings, sulfides, and CO2 from the aviation emissions accumulate over land masses and disperse and tend to mix over water. The Hawaiian atmospheric measurements I think were the latest posted.... was it NOAA's collecting lab there for the troposphere?

Anyway, yes, it will be GREAT when you get a good textual bead going on the contrails theory.

YOU DO realize that this is a COVER story in much of chemtrail lore, don't you-- the protection from ozone? You are aware of that, right? Can you trust these fellows you meet with to honestly be straight on serious and honest with you? Are you POSITIVE?

OK..... I'll be waiting! And I'm sure Jay will be eager to dissect your DATA! You had better get it sterilized and sanitized into perfection......... HEH? Do I sound Canadian.... HEH?

BTW, my daughter in law hails from Calgary. She just returned today from a two week visit with her family. My son and she live in Denver.

Yes, we WILL educate!

You know, she's a little nutty, too! Do you think Canadians are just so intelligent and good looking that they come across as squirrely at times? :p


Peace!

BC :D

[jayreynolds]

1) Jay What is your theory on WHY there is an increase in contrail formation? give me a short paragraph.

Contrail formation is dependent on the atmospheric temperature in which the airplane is flying.
If the temperature is cold enough, around -40F, contrails will form.
That's the basic idea, not my theory, but facts based on the published research.

I made this writeup:
http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/normalcon.html

What sort of "increase in contrail formation" are you speaking of, or are you calling ordinary contrails "chemtrails"?

[whitemajikman]

Contrail formation is dependent on the atmospheric temperature in which the airplane is flying.
If the temperature is cold enough, around -40F, contrails will form.
That's the basic idea, not my theory, but facts based on the published research.

I made this writeup:
http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/normalcon.html

What sort of "increase in contrail formation" are you speaking of, or are you calling ordinary contrails "chemtrails"?

WHY IS THERE AN INCREASE IN CONTRAIL FORMATION..........?

I WANT YOUR PERSONAL THEORY JAY......

WHAT YOU THINK.......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Stanford Environmental Law Journal January, 1998


GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT


Jay Michaelson [FNa1]

Copyright © 1998 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University; Jay Michaelson


I. Introduction .................................................. ................................. 74

II. Preventing Climate Change through Regulation ......................... 81

A. Introduction: Will and Uncertainty ........................................ 81

B. Climate Change Is an Absent Problem ................................... 84

C. Climate Change Is Difficult to Address ................................. 87

1. Cost .................................................. .............. 87

2. Equity .................................................. ........... 93

3. Complexity .................................................. ... 95

4. Disagreement .................................................. 95

5. Institutional Inefficiency ................................. 97

D. Climate Change Is a Tragedy of the Commons ...................... 99

E. Summary: Climate Change and Its Regulation ..................... 101

1. Effective Regulation Requires More Will than We Presently

Have .................................................. ........................ 101

2. Changing Deep Structures Is Very Difficult ............. 102

3. Adapting to Climate Change Is Myopic and Risky ... 103

III. The Political Economy of Geoengineering .................................. 105

A. Introduction: A Climate Change Manhattan Project .............. 105

B. Geoengineering May Be a Remedial Solution ...................... 109

C. Geoengineering Is Easier to Implement than Regulation ...... 110

1. Cost: Geoengineering Is Cheaper than Regulation .............. 110

2. Equity: Geoengineering Is More Fair than Regulation ........ 114


3. Complexity: Geoengineering Is Administratively Simpler than

Regulation .................................................. .......................... 116

4. Disagreement: Geoengineering Is Less Contentious than

Regulation .................................................. .......................... 117

5. Institutional Inefficiency: Geoengineering Minimizes

Institutional Roles .................................................. .............. 118

D. Geoengineering Avoids the Tragedy of the Commons ......... 121

E. Summary .................................................. .............................. 121

IV. In Defense of Geoengineering .................................................. . 122

A. 'It Just Won't Work'/'It Will Do More Harm than Good' ...... 122

B. 'It Costs Too Much' .................................................. ............ 125

1. The High Cost of Geoengineering Makes It Impractical .... 125

2. The High Cost of Geoengineering Makes It Inefficient at Best,

Counterproductive at Worst ............................................... 126

C. 'It Is Unnatural' .................................................. .................. 127

D. 'It Subverts Other Efforts' .................................................. . 129

V. Who's Afraid of Giant Laser Space Frisbees? ......................... 130

A. 'Deep' Environmentalists ....................................... 132

B. Holists .................................................. .................. 134

C. Political Environmentalists .................................... 136

D. Summary .................................................. .............. 138

VI. Conclusions .................................................. ............................. 139

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html

Jay Michaelson is a writer and teacher who lives in New York City. Prior to working in the private sector as founder and general counsel of Wasabi Systems, an open source software company, Jay was an Olin Fellow in Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School, and a Golieb Fellow in Legal History at New York University Law School.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3187


WMM

[jayreynolds]

What sort of "increase in contrail formation" are you speaking of, or are you calling ordinary contrails "chemtrails"?
reiterating

[jayreynolds]

The "chemtrails" hoax is stalled out.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chemtrails

[whitemajikman]

The "chemtrails" hoax is stalled out.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chemtrails


Thats A Lie......

and a blatent one......

chemtrail update.......googled.....

Results 1 - 10 of about 683 for chemtrail update for May,2005........

ChemtrailS update......googled....

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,120 for chemtrails update for May,2005........

so Jay the only thing that is TRULY STALLED......

is your premise that chemtrails has stalled out.....

When Actually the Truth of the matter is that most of those sites that google turned up .......Using the query........CHEMTRAILS UPDATE FOR MAY ,2005........

are alive and well......and continuing with the research and investigation into this phenomena.....

NOW BESIDES TRYING TO BAIT ME........

OR

FOOL THE READERSHIP OF THIS FORUM INTO BELIEVING YOUR CLAIM ........

WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVE FOR TRYING TO PASS OFF A LIE AS REALITY.........?

BESIDES DIVISION.......?

oh and by the way remember this little ditty.....you made......

"If you pass almost any chemical through a gas turbine engine, the combustion temperature is like 2000 degrees. Nothing survives: it's an incinerator."

THATS A LIE TOO.....

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Most modern passenger and military aircraft are powered by gas turbine engines, which are also called jet engines. There are several different types of jet engines, but all jet engines have some parts in common. All jet engines have a combustor or burner in which the air and fuel are mixed and burned. The burning occurs at a higher pressure than free stream because of the action of the compressor. The pressure in the burner remains nearly constant during burning, decreasing by only 1 to 2 per cent. Using our station numbering, the burner pressure ratio BPR is equal to pt4 divided by pt3 and is nearly equal to one:

BPR = pt4 / pt3 = 1.0

As opposed to the compressor and power turbine, we cannot simply relate the total temperature ratio in the burner to the total pressure ratio because the physical processes are different. In the compressor and turbine, no heat enters the domain. Under those adiabatic conditions the pressure ratio and temperature ratio are related. In the burner, heat is released in the combustion process, and the energy equation must be used to determine the temperature change. The energy equation is given by:

(1 + f) * ht4 = ht3 + f * nb * Q

where ht is the specific total enthalpy, f is the fuel to air mass flow ratio, Q is the heat release, and nb is an efficiency factor. The heat release Q depends on the particular fuel that is being burned and is determined experimentally. An efficiency factor is applied, as well, to account for losses during burning. The enthalpy is equal to the specific heat coefficient at constant pressure cp times the temperature which leads to:

(1 + f) * cp * Tt4 = cp * Tt3 + f * nb * Q

With a little algebra, this energy equation can be solved for the temperature ratio across the burner:

Tt4 / Tt3 = (1 + f * nb * Q / (cp * Tt3) ) / ( 1 + f)

The burner entrance temperature Tt3 is determined by the compressor and the external flow conditions. The fuel heating value Q is a property of the particular fuel being used, and the specific heat coefficient cp is a known property of air. In engine operation, we can set the fuel flow rate which determines a value for the fuel/air ratio f and sets the temperature ratio in the burner. The burner temperature ratio and pressure ratio determine a value for the engine temperature ratio, ETR, and engine pressure ratio, EPR, which in turn determine the theoretical engine thrust.

It would appear that we can make the temperature ratio and resulting thrust as large as we want by just increasing the fuel flow rate and the fuel/air ratio. However, the details of the combustion process sets some limits on values of the fuel/air ratio. And in engine operation, there is a maximum burner exit temperature Tt4 which is determined by material limits. If we try to run the engine hotter than this maximum temperature, the burner and the turbine will be damaged. You can now use EngineSim to study the effects of different materials on engine operation.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/burnth.html

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Jay I Will Give You Time to RETHINK your POSITION............


BEFORE I REALLY GET SERIOUS IN DEBUNKING YOU..........

IT WON"T BE HARD WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION YOU HAVE POSTED THROUGH THE YEARS.......

YOU HAVE LEFT SO MANY LOOSE ENDS.......

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT RESEARCHED EVERY LITTLE TID BIT OF INFO TO IT"S CONCLUSION......

AS ANY GOOD RESEARCHER WOULD.......

2005 is the year THE TRUTH ABOUT CHEMTRAILS(CONTRAILS) will be FOUND.....

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY.......

THE TRUTH REGARDING WHY A MAN NAMED JAY REYNOLDS DECIDED TO DEVOTE 6 YEARS OF HIS TIME DEBUNKING A PHENOMENA THAT HAS CAPTURED THE WORLD's ATTENTION.......

EVEN THOUGH THE JURY WAS STILL OUT ON THE PHENOMENA's MERIT........

WHAT WAS YOUR "REAL" INTENT.........?

MR. DEBUNKER.....

WMM

[jayreynolds]

oh and by the way remember this little ditty

"If you pass almost any chemical through a gas turbine engine, the combustion temperature is like 2000 degrees. Nothing survives: it's an incinerator."

Well, whitey, of course I didn't say that matter got destroyed, but the context of the quote, whoich was made duirng a telephone interview with Darren Keast a few years ago was regarding the contention that ethylene dibromide and various bacteria/virus, etc. was a component of jet fuel and was passing through the turbine. I see you weren't able to contradict me in any factual way, because what I said was true, the combustion temperature is what I said it was, and chemicals are destroyed at those temperatures.

Posting copy pastes about gas turbines won't get you anywhere, because it quickly becomes apparent you aren't a graduate of MIT, a "Rhoades scholar" or have a PhD from Oxford, all before you were 25! beter be careful getting into real science here, boy, because you're out of your league.

[jayreynolds]

Jay I Will Give You Time to RETHINK your POSITION BEFORE I REALLY GET SERIOUS IN DEBUNKING YOU.
2005 is the year THE TRUTH ABOUT CHEMTRAILS(CONTRAILS) will be FOUND.
Bring it on, boy, where is your research? Show us what you've got.

In fact, you can start by not dodging my question again. It's not a hard question, for a boy who claims to have a doctorate degree from Oxford!

Second reiteration:


"What sort of "increase in contrail formation" are you speaking of, or are you calling ordinary contrails "chemtrails"?

While we are at it, what is the best evidence for your supposed "chemtrails"?
Oh, and what is the difference between your "chemtrails" and ordinary contrails?

[whitemajikman]

Well, whitey, of course I didn't say that matter got destroyed, but the context of the quote, whoich was made duirng a telephone interview with Darren Keast a few years ago was regarding the contention that ethylene dibromide and various bacteria/virus, etc. was a component of jet fuel and was passing through the turbine. I see you weren't able to contradict me in any factual way, because what I said was true, the combustion temperature is what I said it was, and chemicals are destroyed at those temperatures.

Posting copy pastes about gas turbines won't get you anywhere, because it quickly becomes apparent you aren't a graduate of MIT, a "Rhoades scholar" or have a PhD from Oxford, all before you were 25! beter be careful getting into real science here, boy, because you're out of your league.

LMAO.......

You Failed to read the Article Didn't you.......JAY JAY....

Read Very Closely.......

if combustion occured at 2000 degrees as you claim........

Then Most Jets would not even be able to leave the Ground........

because of temperature degredation on the parts.........

they would start to melt......

CHECK THE SPECS FOR YOURSELF............

SO HERE LIES ANOTHER LIE........JAY JAY......

Your Whole Career as Chemtrail Debunker is full of them.......

not at first glance.....but with a little more research .....it is starting to look like your the biggest fraud going............

And Among The Biggest Hypocrites currently online.....

you see Jay Jay.....

I am not going to post my findings........

I am going to publish them........

And Your Going To Be The Star.......

But Not In a way that will flatter you.......or your debunktions......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Bring it on, boy, where is your research? Show us what you've got.

In fact, you can start by not dodging my question again. It's not a hard question, for a boy who claims to have a doctorate degree from Oxford!

Second reiteration:



While we are at it, what is the best evidence for your supposed "chemtrails"?
Oh, and what is the difference between your "chemtrails" and ordinary contrails?

Thats Easy Jay.......

CHEMTRAILS AND CONTRAILS ARE ONE IN THE SAME...........

THERE ARE NO ORDINARY CONTRAILS.............NOT ANYMORE........

JUST AS THE WMO,NASA,NOAA,ENVIRONMENT CANADA and MANY OTHER GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS OF RESEARCH HAVE CLAIMED SINCE 1995.........


THATS RIGHT JAY........

There is only three possibilities in the rise of contrail formation over the last twenty years......

1) CLIMATE CHANGE........THERE BY CHANGING THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE in relation to contrail formation......

2) A Change IN JET FUEL ADDITIVES.........

3) BOTH OF THE ABOVE.........BUT ALSO YOU MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT CLOUD SEEDING( especially cirrus) FOR MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE has many drawbacks as it does rewards.......

NOW LETS GET SCIENTIFIC JAY JAY........

SINCE I AM SUPPOSEDLY OUT OF MY LEAGUE.......

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO REFUTE WHAT I AM SAYING..........RIGHT....?

GET TO IT......

BECAUSE MY NEXT POST WILL BE A DOOZY........

EVEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DENY.........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

OOPS.....ONE MORE THING........

WHAT IS JAY MICHAELSON up to these days........?

who funds him.....?

and what is he researching......?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

NOW I AM REITERATING

REGARDING YOUR CLAIM CHEMTRAILS HAVE BEEN STALLED.....BULLSHIT.......


WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVE FOR TRYING TO PASS OFF A LIE AS REALITY.........?....JAY.......?


JAY......?

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Read Very Closely if combustion occured at 2000 degrees as you claim Then Most Jets would not even be able to leave the Ground because of temperature degredation on the parts they would start to melt CHECK THE SPECS FOR YOURSELF SO HERE LIES ANOTHER LIE.

Whitey, like I said, you are getting out of your league. here is your proof of aircraft gas turbine combustion temperatures. Read it and weep:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/097.htm#img711


I am not going to post my findings

QED

See, boy, turbine parts exposed to the high temperatures are equipped with cooling holes that channel compressor bleed air through them for cooling, preventing them from melting, fool.

But you would expect a real PhD to have been able to do better. Guess Oxford doesn't make PhDs that can prove their points, eh, whitey?

[jayreynolds]

CHEMTRAILS AND CONTRAILS ARE ONE IN THE SAME

I can live with that, in fact, that's what I've been saying all along.
Thanks for proving my point, boy.


There is only three possibilities in the rise of contrail formation over the last twenty years......
1) CLIMATE CHANGE THERE BY CHANGING THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE in relation to contrail formation.
2) A Change IN JET FUEL ADDITIVES.........
3) BOTH OF THE ABOVE
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO REFUTE WHAT I AM SAYING RIGHT....?

Sure, boy. Like I said, you haven't even got the basics down, and are WAAAAAAAY out of your league now, as my reply will show.

Here it is:.

Chemical composition of the atmosphere has no bearing whatsoever on contrail formation. As I said before, contrail formation depends on temperature, not chemical composition of the air in which the contrail forms.

If you want to try and prove that additives cause contrails to form, you'll have to do some research, and will fail, because contrails will form whenever conditions are right, regardless of whatever additives are used, except the few military planes which use stealth technology to prevent contrails. Contrails have been forming quite well for sixty years now with no help from climate or additives.

Here are some documented examples:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/wwiitrails.html

But you don't have to believe me, as nobody has to believe you, and they won't, either. It is encumbent on YOU to prove your points. I'll be happy to wait, as I have for six years now, for a chemmie to provide any evidence whatsoever for their contentions. Each and every time, I've proved their claims bogus.

[jayreynolds]

WHAT IS JAY MICHAELSON up to these days........?
Michaelson is a homosexual that teaches Kabbalah.
http://www.metatronics.net/apple.php
I'd say he is in the fast lane on the "Highway to Hell"

[whitemajikman]

Michaelson is a homosexual that teaches Kabbalah.
http://www.metatronics.net/apple.php
I'd say he is in the fast lane on the "Highway to Hell"


Not That Jay Michaelson........

WMM

[jayreynolds]

NOW I AM REITERATING REGARDING YOUR CLAIM CHEMTRAILS HAVE BEEN STALLED BULLSHIT

No, whitey, citing a google search with the word "chemtrails" is a lame way to show that anything new has happened in the hoax. Here is the latest (bad) news for you, and anybody can click and see:

http://news.google.com/news?q=CHEMTRAILS%20UPDATE%20FOR%20MAY%20%2C2005&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn

Even this one is coming up a blank, for now, anyways.

So, what is really new in the chemtrails hoax?

Nothing, except further depths of lunacy, whitey claiming to have degrees from MIT and Oxford, and empty promises of "research" that always turn out bogus, like gas turbines that would melt if combustion temperature was 2000 degrees.

Ha!

[jayreynolds]

Not That Jay Michaelson........WMM
He's the one you quoted yesterday, bogusboy............

[jayreynolds]

Not That Jay Michaelson........WMM
What an imbecile................

[whitemajikman]

I can live with that, in fact, that's what I've been saying all along.
Thanks for proving my point, boy.



Sure, boy. Like I said, you haven't even got the basics down, and are WAAAAAAAY out of your league now, as my reply will show.

Here it is:.

Chemical composition of the atmosphere has no bearing whatsoever on contrail formation. As I said before, contrail formation depends on temperature, not chemical composition of the air in which the contrail forms.

If you want to try and prove that additives cause contrails to form, you'll have to do some research, and will fail, because contrails will form whenever conditions are right, regardless of whatever additives are used, except the few military planes which use stealth technology to prevent contrails. Contrails have been forming quite well for sixty years now with no help from climate or additives.

Here are some documented examples:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/wwiitrails.html

But you don't have to believe me, as nobody has to believe you, and they won't, either. It is encumbent on YOU to prove your points. I'll be happy to wait, as I have for six years now, for a chemmie to provide any evidence whatsoever for their contentions. Each and every time, I've proved their claims bogus.


JAY JAY.....

I Said Contrails/chemtrails CHANGED THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE........

NOT

contrail formation depends on temperature, not chemical composition of the air in which the contrail forms.

just like they explain quite well here..........

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

also additives have shown to create larger particle emissions that form contrails........

ttp://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2001/PV2001_3745.pdf

Started proving it bogus Jay........

GOOD LUCK........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

No, whitey, citing a google search with the word "chemtrails" is a lame way to show that anything new has happened in the hoax. Here is the latest (bad) news for you, and anybody can click and see:

http://news.google.com/news?q=CHEMTRAILS%20UPDATE%20FOR%20MAY%20%2C2005&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn

Even this one is coming up a blank, for now, anyways.

So, what is really new in the chemtrails hoax?

Nothing, except further depths of lunacy, whitey claiming to have degrees from MIT and Oxford, and empty promises of "research" that always turn out bogus, like gas turbines that would melt if combustion temperature was 2000 degrees.

Ha!


Your Google Skills Are Lax........

Are You Making up the rules on how to do a search as you go along.......?

just type in CHEMTRAIL UPDATES FOR MAY,2005.........

Its That Simple Jay........

Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for chemtrail updates for may 2005. (0.27 seconds)

661......

not 0 as you claim......

then when you modify your query just a bit to include news..........

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,600 for chemtrail news for may,2005. (0.65 seconds)

MAN 8600 is a far cry from zero.......

By The Way Jay......Maybe you should stop using that beta version of google .......because it's lying to you.......LMAO.......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

He's the one you quoted yesterday, bogusboy............


BULLSHIT.....JAY......

I suggest you lay off the WILD TURKEY WHEN YOUR RESEARCHING......

go back and read through the thread........

maybe you might be able to figure out who Jay Michaelson Is.......

and his significance........


NOW LETS SEE IF YOU CAN INDEED DO A SEARCH WITHOUT SOMEBODY HAVING TO HOLD YOUR HAND......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

JAY JAY.....

I Said Contrails/chemtrails CHANGED THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE........

NOT

contrail formation depends on temperature, not chemical composition of the air in which the contrail forms.

just like they explain quite well here..........

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

Boy, your link says the same as I did, "A condensation trail, or contrail, forms in the wake of an airplane as a result of water vapor and aerosol emissions perturbing the local atmosphere when it is at conditions very close to forming a natural cloud."

Yes, of course airplanes make exhaust which changes the composition of the atmosphere. The contrail itself is made of water, which is added to the atmosphere. There is CO2, NOx, SOx all those things your car, lawn mower and home heater make as well.

But as the webpage I cited showed most graphically, contrails formed perfectly well during WWII, just as they do today. Get over it.

Now you chemmies wish you could get the balls to go up and suck up a contrail and get it analyzed, right? You say some additive has been added to make more contrails, right?

Ok, here's an easy way to settle THAT question.

See, the planes use the same fuel on the ground as they do in the air, bogusboy. The fuel comes from tankers

Just go to the airport and get an air sample. While you're at it, head over to the people that sell the fuel and buy yourself a drumful. They are in business to sell jet fuel and will gladly do business with you. Get it analyzed. Maintain a chain of custody throughout.
Show the certified analysis.

Now get going, boy, time's a wasting!


additives have shown to create larger particle emissions that form contrails........
ttp://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2001/PV2001_3745.pdf

Linkee no workee.

[jayreynolds]

JAY I suggest you lay off the WILD TURKEY WHEN YOUR RESEARCHING go back and read through the thread maybe you might be able to figure out who Jay Michaelson Is
Man, what a BOZO you are, whitey boy.

No, boy, it's YOU that is mistaken.
The author of your cited article is THE SAME Jay Michaelson who teaches Kabbalah and writes about screwing men in the keister.

Jay Michaelson is exactly as he portrays himself on his website:
http://www.metatronics.net/index.html
http://www.metatronics.net/words/law.html
http://www.metatronics.net/apple.php

Not a nice person at all, in my opinion, but of no significance whatsoever.

[halva]

Boy, your link says the same as I did, "A condensation trail, or contrail, forms in the wake of an airplane as a result of water vapor and aerosol emissions perturbing the local atmosphere when it is at conditions very close to forming a natural cloud."

Yes, of course airplanes make exhaust which changes the composition of the atmosphere. The contrail itself is made of water, which is added to the atmosphere. There is CO2, NOx, SOx all those things your car, lawn mower and home heater make as well.

Now you chemmies wish you could get the balls to go up and suck up a contrail and get it analyzed, right? You say some additive has been added to make more contrails, right?

Ok, here's an easy way to settle THAT question.

See, the planes use the same fuel on the ground as they do in the air, bogusboy.

Just go to the airport and get an air sample. While you're at it, head over to the people that sell the fuel and buy yourself a drumful. They are in business to sell jet fuel and will gladly do business with you. Get it analyzed. Maintain a chain of custody throughout.
Show the certified analysis.

Now get going, boy, time's a wasting!


ANVIK CORPORATION
6 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Phone:
PI:
Topic#: (914) 345-2442
Carl Weisbecker
BMDO 98-016
Title: High-Output, Monodispersed Aerosol Particle Generation Using Microfabricated Nozzle Arrays


Abstract: Aerosol generation is an important leading edge technology with relevance to ballistic missile defense because of the importance of bioearosol generation technology in the development of countermeasures for defence against biological warfare. Aerosol delivery is also an important route for the transmission of naturally occurring particulate materials. The development of new technology for the efficient delivery of aerosols has important applications in agriculture, medicine, ecological science, and materials science. The physical, optical, aerodynamic, and biological properties of an aerosol are strongly linked to its particle size distribution; therefore, efficient high-output generation of monodispersed aerosols is an important capability. The proposed program by Anvik Corporation will develop an efficient, monodispersed aerosol particle generator which will function by pulsed mechanical extrusion of high surface tension liquids through a microfabricated array of holes. The particle size distribution will be controlled by the diameters of the holes in a microfabricated nozzle array. In the fully developed system the aerosol particle size distribution can be both controlled and tuned by the separate actuation of multiple nozzle arrays with different nozzle exit hole sizes in the generator.


http://www.nttc.edu/resources/funding/awards/dod/1998sbir/981bmdo.asp

[jayreynolds]

Abstract: Aerosol generation is an important leading edge technology with relevance to ballistic missile defense because of the importance of bioearosol generation technology in the development of countermeasures for defence against biological warfare.
url]http://www.nttc.edu/resources/funding/awards/dod/1998sbir/981bmdo.asp[/url]
Hi, Wayne old bean!
Come back for another dose of whup-ass?

What does all of that "scientific stuff" mean to you?

What is microfabrication, dude?

Have you begun to understand that plenty of people make spray equipment of all sorts from tiny perfume bottles to gigantic equipment too big to haul around on a truck, but none of that in any way proves your hoax true whatsoever!

So what are your people doing googling wildly and posting whatever to try and keep your failing hoax alive?

Sure you'll lure in some more losers. Just what you need to get things off the ground, huh?

Like your newest member, whitey-boy.
Can't get his Jay Michaelsons straight.
Ha!

[whitemajikman]

Hi, Wayne old bean!
Come back for another dose of whup-ass?

What does all of that "scientific stuff" mean to you?

What is microfabrication, dude?

Have you begun to understand that plenty of people make spray equipment of all sorts from tiny perfume bottles to gigantic equipment too big to haul around on a truck, but none of that in any way proves your hoax true whatsoever!

So what are your people doing googling wildly and posting whatever to try and keep your failing hoax alive?

Sure you'll lure in some more losers. Just what you need to get things off the ground, huh?

Like your newest member, whitey-boy.
Can't get his Jay Michaelsons straight.
Ha!


JAY your an idiot .........

here is a hint on who Jay Michaelson is.......

The Stanford Environmental Law Society and Environmental Law Journal are ...
1982); Jay Michaelson, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project (Vol. ...
elj.stanford.edu/elj/public/archives/author.htm - 30k -

He Is A Lawyer....

But More Importantly what does he do now......?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Hi, Wayne old bean!
Come back for another dose of whup-ass?

What does all of that "scientific stuff" mean to you?

What is microfabrication, dude?

Have you begun to understand that plenty of people make spray equipment of all sorts from tiny perfume bottles to gigantic equipment too big to haul around on a truck, but none of that in any way proves your hoax true whatsoever!

So what are your people doing googling wildly and posting whatever to try and keep your failing hoax alive?

Sure you'll lure in some more losers. Just what you need to get things off the ground, huh?

Like your newest member, whitey-boy.
Can't get his Jay Michaelsons straight.
Ha!


HALVA PROVED YOU WRONG........

JAY JAY........

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DENY IT.........

LMAO........

WMM

[Yaak]

Genuine Chemtrails, the Real McCoys:



http://www.evergreenairlines.com/







http://www.evergreenairlines.com/supertanker/index.html

[Boomer Chick]

Jay, WMM is right. I looked Jay Michaelson up, saw the other JM, and here's the link to prove it. Now if you can prove that the metaphysical JM is the same one who works at Wasabi Systems and graduated in '97 from Yale Law School, then go for it!

http://www.metatronics.net/words/law.html

But might I add, everyone, that just because someone wrote a comprehensive article on the economics and legalities of geoengineering doesn't mean that it actually exists. He was making a proposal in that paper and it was excellent. But it doesn't mean that it exists. If anyone can find conclusive evidence that spraying the skies on purpose is happening and is referenced as definitive proof in the Michaelson paper, than please excerpt the part. One very well-written and resourced college law paper does not an actual program make!!!

Well, I read more and more and it seems Jay Michaelson is one intelligent and creative Jewish homosexual genius. And he's the same Michaelson who is on the board of Wasabi and who wrote the geoengineering paper. Amazing!

How can one person do so much?

Thanks!

BC ;)

[foot_soldier]

Post # 7190 whitemajikman wrote:

.....I Said Contrails/chemtrails CHANGED THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE........

NOT

contrail formation depends on temperature, not chemical composition of the air in which the contrail forms.

just like they explain quite well here..........

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

.....
Some of us understand exactly what you said and noted how it was twisted.

Just so you know.

Don't let the "boy" stuff get to you.

***
From the above-linked reference:

AVIATION AND THE CHANGING CLIMATE
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

Excerpt:

Technology exists to reduce aviation’s major emissions to varying degrees. Although reductions in emissions can compensate for some growth in air traffic, the actual growth expected over the next several decades may significantly exceed that which realizable reductions can counteract. END excerpt.

The consensus of the research community is consistent as to the above-excerpted statement.

[jayreynolds]

Jay, WMM is right.
Well, I read more and more and it seems Jay Michaelson is one intelligent and creative Jewish homosexual genius. And he's the same Michaelson who is on the board of Wasabi and who wrote the geoengineering paper.

Thanks, BC. I am at a loss to explain why whitey-boy can't get his facts straight, even when he is shown clear proof, except that he is under some strange delusions. Goes to character and credibility, I suppose. The bottom line is that he geoengineering scheme using aircraft is a pipe-dream, and could never be accomplished covertly, anyways. It's not happening, despite the unsupported claims of the chemmies, who offer no proof whatsoever for it beyond the pipe-dreamers writing about the possibilities..

[jayreynolds]

The consensus of the research community is consistent as to the above-excerpted statement.


Actually, Wayne and 'footsoldier' asked Dr. Sarah Cornell about whitey's contention, and here is what she said:

"Secondly, there is no evidence at all in the atmospheric chemistry that chemically altered emissions are being generated. Significant changes due to increased air transport have been detected in aerosol chemistry, and they are exactly what would be expected. Several major global research partnership programmes have sampled and analysed rainwater and aerosol around the world in recent decades - for example, the TRACE series ran through the 1990s, looking at the atmospheric transport and chemical changes of aerosol, preceded in the 1980s by AEROCE - so we now understand better than ever how human activities have altered the natural biogeochemistry of the planet. Spatial and time trends in aerosol chemistry correlate very well with changes in industrialisation, urbanisation, land use and transport patterns.

I studied the organic material in aerosol for a decade, and in 2002, I published a review of the literature on organic matter in aerosol and rain over the last century; other groups have worked in the same area, at all levels in the atmosphere, and published similar reviews for organic gases, too. We have found nothing to suggest that the nature of the organic matter in aerosol has changed in this period. There is certainly no indication that either organic matter or sulphate (the two most active materials for condensation nuclei for aerosol formation) have been put into the atmosphere, apart from the pollutants that we as society have tacitly accepted as normal and acceptable as a trade-off for our pursuit of economic improvements. These are a serious enough problem to address."
http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall3.htm"

Now, prove her wrong if you will, whitey-boy. But then, you admitted you would not post any proof already, didn't you?

[halva]

Given that in the couldn't-care-less liberal-democratic indifference of Arianna's forum Marlboro cigarette advertisers and insane maniacs have priority over normal people and non-advertisers and it is not possible to remove such nuisances, there is the alternative of organized evacuation, leaving Raynolds, Yaak and the Marlboro advertiser to their own devices.

I do not propose to say on the open internet where the evacuation would be to.

[whitemajikman]

Actually, Wayne and 'footsoldier' asked Dr. Sarah Cornell about whitey's contention, and here is what she said:


Now, prove her wrong if you will, whitey-boy. But then, you admitted you would not post any proof already, didn't you?


Many agents force Earth's climate. Changes in these agents or forcings can perturb the climate significantly. Atmospheric chemistry plays a critical role in the perturbation of climate by controlling the magnitudes and distributions of a large number of important climate forcing agents. For example, abundances and distributions of methane and ozone depend critically on the atmospheric chemistry. According to IPCC (2001), these two trace gases are the second and third most important greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have increased due to anthropogenic activities since the industrial revolution.

Effects of anthropogenic aerosols on the climate could be even greater, with a potential to cancel the positive radiative forcing of GHGs. Aerosols can alter atmospheric radiation directly by scattering and absorbing radiation. This direct effect depends critically on the chemical composition and mixing state of aerosols. Aerosols can also have an indirect effect via their interactions with clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Further, clouds can modify aerosols, their optical properties, their size distributions, and their ability to act as CCN. The indirect effect, which is a strong function of the chemical and physical properties of aerosols, can change clouds and even the hydrological cycle, two pivotal components of the climate system. In fact, atmospheric water vapour, a central link of the hydrological cycle, is by far the most important GHG. Any changes in water vapour due to GHGs and aerosols have a large indirect lever on climate.

Changes in climate can also affect the atmospheric chemistry significantly. For example, a change in water vapour due to change in temperature can alter the oxidation capacity of the atmosphere. A change in temperature or relative humidity can change the chemical and physical properties of aerosols. Changes in temperature also alter rates of chemical reactions and, thus, composition. These interactions and feedback processes are complex and poorly understood. Therefore, clear understanding of the processes acting in the climate system is essential. Because of their variability in space and time, even the current contributions of short-lived species to radiative forcing cannot be easily evaluated via their atmospheric observations alone. At present, there is a great deal of emphasis on the short-lived species because of the possibility of a quick "return" upon some policy action. Furthermore, these short-lived species are also the "pollutants" that need to be addressed for human health and other concerns. Therefore, clear understanding of the processes that connect emissions (source, precursors) to abundances and the processes that connect the abundances to the climate forcings are essential for an accurate prediction of the future climate and an assessment of the impact of climate change and variations on the earth system (Figure 1).

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News21/21_Ravishankara.html

WMM

[foot_soldier]

Jay Reynolds wrote:
.....Actually, Wayne and 'footsoldier' asked Dr. Sarah Cornell about whitey's contention, and here is what she said:....
Jay Reynolds is lying. I have never had contact with Dr. Cornell.

For the record then.

[halva]

Actually the fact that he keeps digging up the same old crap again and again indicates that the policy of information starving is yielding results.

[whitemajikman]

Jay Reynolds is lying. I have never had contact with Dr. Cornell.

For the record then.

I know JAY IS LYING.........

I KNOW SARA........

JUST LIKE I KNOW JAY MICHAELSON........

JUST LIKE I KNOW GAR SMITH.......

AND WILLIAM THOMAS......

THIS IS FOR JAY'S BENEFIT FOOTSOLDIER.......

MAYBE YOU HAVE READ IT........BEFORE .........

Gar Smith Responds

Some Background:
Before I could do any follow-up reporting on the chemtrail controversy, I was removed as editor of Earth Island Journal and assigned a new challenge as editor of Earth Island's on-line magazine, The-Edge. I passed the Reynolds critique along to the new editor with the suggestion that he consider running it as a letter-to-the-editor and invite Will Thomas to reply to the criticisms.

The Journal subsequently published the Reynolds letter as a full-page opinion feature on the last page of the Winter 2003 issue.

I eventually forwarded the following letter to the Journal:

To the editor
The Winter 2003 Journal featured a 680-word letter in the "Voices" section in which Jay Reynolds claimed that the article "Stolen Skies: The Chemtrails Mystery" (Summer 2002 EIJ) contained "many inaccuracies which [sic] deserve correction."

Reynolds not only failed to identify any factual errors in Thomas’ article, he also failed to cite a single source to bolster his contention that the long-lasting contrails visible in today's skies are identical to the ephemeral contrails of 50 years ago.

Reynolds falsely declared that Thomas' article "leads the reader to believe that the contrails produced by 6,000 commercial airplane flights per day are actually military jet's spraying of various substances worldwide."

Reynolds argued that the public's concern over chemtrails is based on nothing more than "speculation, hearsay, and rumor, but no tangible evidence."

In his very next sentence, Reynolds indulges in unsupported speculation himself when he proposes that contrails have been lingering in the skies for hours "probably as early as the Spanish Civil War." (An inept comparison, since high-flying jet aircraft did not exist in 1939. The first jet, the XP-59A, didn't take flight until 1942.)

While Reynolds' attack was devoid of citations, Thomas' Journal essay was densely sourced, citing 32 individuals, officials, government agencies and institutional reports.

The sources cited by Thomas included:

* News reporters,
* Air traffic controllers,
* Canadian military officials,
* The Associate Press,
* The New York Times,
* Science and Technology Review,
* The New England Journal of Medicine,
* The US Air Force,
* The US Navy,
* The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
* The Harvard School of Public Health,
* The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
* Hughes Aerospace,
* The US Patent Office,
* Physicist Edward Teller,
* US Representative Dennis Kucinich, and
* Canadian Opposition Defense Critic Gordon Earle.

In addition, Thomas extensively quoted USAF Col. Walter Washbaugh, an outspoken critic of "chemtrails."

Reynolds devoted several paragraphs to promoting the unsourced argument that jet pollution is "relatively small" since it contributes only "a fraction of the global emissions (2 percent)." In 1999, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that jet aircraft were responsible for 3.5 percent of climate-changing gasses. By 2050, the IPCC predicted, jets could account for 14 percent of global CO2 pollution.

Reynolds subsequently sent a gloating email to Thomas boasting that he (Reynolds) had "joined the Earth Island Journal staff." Thomas reports that the Journal never contacted him nor was he offered the opportunity to respond to Reynolds’ criticisms.

In recent years, a number of television, radio and print journalists in the US have lost their jobs after to airing chemtrail stories. I have learned that some members of the "chemtrail community" are now circulating the story that I was removed as editor of Earth Island Journal because I published Thomas' story. I wish to formally state that this is not true.

A Footnote
Jay Reynolds praised my 1997 Journal cover story ("Oil Spills in the Sky") as "accurate" but he believes that information in this article contradicts information in Will Thomas' 2002 Journal article. (I don't see a contradiction.)

I didn't publish the Thomas piece lightly. Over the course of the previous two years, scores of Journal readers had begged me to do a story on what they called "chemtrails." One reader actually drove nearly 100 miles to visit the Journal office with documents he had assembled and photographs he had taken of contrails in the skies over northern California.

I never ran these stories because I never saw sufficient evidence to explain adequately what was causing these historically atypical exhaust patterns. I certainly wasn't prepared to believe the stories about government involvement in some high-altitude conspiracy.

Will Thomas, a published author with a track record who had been published in the Journal several times before, finally provided an article with evidence, testimony and a debate about what might or might not be involved.

I still didn't believe that the US government was engaged in an actual operation to alter the atmosphere with chemical sprays. But what Thomas presented, for the first time, was evidence that (1) there were plans for attempting this and (2) patents had been granted for both the process and the machinery.

The discovery of high-level theoretical discussions to "address" global warming by deploying a "Sky Shield" of chemical clouds was alarming. In order to assure that such a project would never be attempted, it was necessary to publicize these plans. I decided to run the article.

The article was illustrated with a provocative photo showing at least six long-lived cloud trails crisscrossing in the skies over New Mexico. What made the photo more remarkable was that it was taken on September 11, 2001. On that day, due to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, all commercial jets had been grounded.

I ran the article with an important caveat, however. The closing sidebar, "Another Scary Scenario," proposed that the odd atmospheric effects could be the result, not of intentional intervention, but an unintended consequence of atmospheric pollution. The sidebar specifically cited "ardent chemtrails critic" Patrick Minnis for proposing this alternative, and quite plausible, explanation for the "chemtrail" phenomenon.

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=569&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery

It was around noon on March 12, 2000 when S.T. Brendt, the late night reporter for WMWV Radio, entered the kitchen of her country home in Parsonsfield, Maine. Her partner, Lou Aubuchont, was puzzling over what he had seen in the sky a half-hour before. The fat puffy plumes arching up over the horizon were unlike any aircraft condensation trails ("contrails") he had ever seen.

Instead of dissipating like normal contrails, these intersecting sky trails grew wider and began to merge. Looking towards the sun, Aubuchont saw what appeared like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colors.

Ordinarily, contrails flare briefly in the stratosphere as hot moist engine exhaust flash-freezes into a stream of ice-crystals. These pencil-thin condensation trails are short-lived, evaporating into invisibility as exhaust gases cool quickly to the surrounding air temperature.

As National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist Thomas Schlatter explains, the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F and humidity of 70 percent or more. Because the Federal Aviation Authority requires military tankers and transporters to cross continental airspace at altitudes below 30,000 feet, ensuring safe separation from airliners flying between 35,000 and 39,000 feet, these military flights should leave no contrails at all.

But in late 1997, Aubuchont began to notice thicker trails extending from horizon to horizon. Hanging in the sky, these expanding white ribbons would invariably be interwoven by more thick lines left by unmarked Air Force jets, white or silver in color.

As Brendt glanced out the window, it looked like another gorgeous, cloudless day. But not quite. She spotted two jets laying billowing white banners to the north. Turning her gaze due west, Brendt saw two more lines extending over the horizon. She called Lou. Within 45 minutes, the couple counted 30 jets. "This isn't right," Brendt thought. "We just don't have that kind of air traffic here." While Aubuchont kept counting, Brendt started calling airports.

Alerted by a call from Brendt, Richard Dean, WMWV's assistant news director and the WMWV news staff filed outside and counted 370 lines of persistent contrails in skies usually devoid of aerial activity.

Brendt phoned a number of Air Traffic Controllers. They all stated that nothing unusual was going on. After several calls, Brendt reached one ATC manager who offered a different story. He told Brendt that his radars showed nine commercial jets during the same 45-minute span. From her location, he said, she should have been able to see only one plane.

"What about the other 29?" Brendt inquired. The ATC official confided off-the-record that he had been ordered "by higher civil authority" to re-route inbound European airliners away from an airborne "military exercise" in the area. "They wouldn't give me any of the particulars and I don't ask," he explained. The controller (who insisted on being identified only as "Deep Sky,") subsequently repeated his statements on tape before witnesses at the WMWV studio.

'It's a Military Exercise'
On December 8, 2000, Terry Stewart, the Manager for Planning and Environment at the Victoria International Airport, responded to a caller's complaint about the strange patterns of circles and grids being woven over the British Columbia capitol. Stewart left a message on an answering machine tape - a message that later was heard by more than 15 million radio listeners. Stewart explained: "It's a military exercise, [a] US and Canadian Air Force exercise that's going on. They wouldn't give me any specifics on it."

Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Comox on Vancouver Island is Canada's biggest radar installation. CFB Comox is easily capable of tracking the US formations coming up from the south. When asked for a response to Stewart's statement, the base information officer at CFB Comox replied tersely that: "No military operation is taking place." Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier that his information had come directly from Comox.

By the summer of 2001, pictures of contrails were being circulated by the Associated Press and the word "chemtrails" could be overheard in coffee shop conversations across the continent.

'It's a Hoax'
In an April 20, 2001, letter to a US senator, Col. Walter Washbaugh, chief of the Congressional Inquiry Division for the Secretary of the Air Force in Washington, DC, called chemtrails "a hoax." Washbaugh blamed the increased number of contrails on "significant civil aviation growth in the past decade."

He is right on that score. A National Science Foundation study has found that in certain heavily trafficked corridors, artificial cloud cover has increased by as much as 20 percent.

Colonel Washbaugh ascribed widely reported grid patterns to overlapping aircraft flying north-south, east-west airways. The only thing wrong with this explanation, a Texas air traffic controller told me, is that US airways do not run north-south.

The colonel told the senator: "The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification and has no plans to do so in the future." In fact, the Pentagon has long been interested in using weather as a weapon of war. Attempts to steer hurricanes by spraying heat-robbing chemicals in their paths date from the 1950s. The recipe for creating "cirrus shields" was outlined in a 1996 US Air Force study subtitled "Owning the Weather by 2025." The report explained how "weather force specialists" were dispersing chemicals behind high-flying tanker aircraft in a process called "aerial obscuration."

Official denials reached new altitudes of absurdity when another colonel claimed: "The US Air Force (USAF) does not conduct spraying operations over populated areas." Apparently the colonel had forgotten how USAF air tankers dispensed thousands of tons of "Agent Orange" defoliants over the land and people of Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the Internet was abuzz with chemtrail conspiracy theories ranging from aliens leaving messages in the sky to government agencies dumping mind-control chemicals on an unsuspecting populace. The only problem was none of the theories were plausible.

The Welsbach Patent
In 1994, the Hughes aerospace company was issued a remarkable patent. The Welsbach patent "for Reduction of Global Warming" proposed countering global warming by dispensing microscopic particles of aluminum oxide and other reflective materials into the upper atmosphere. This "sky shield" would reflect one or two percent of incoming sunlight. The patent suggested that tiny metal flakes could be "added to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude."

Computer simulations by Ken Caldeira at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) calculated that employing Welsbach's chemical-sunscreen technology could stop warming over 85 percent of the planet, despite an anticipated doubling of atmospheric carbon within the next 50 years. LLNL estimated the cost of creating thisso-called Sky Shield at $1 billion dollars a year - a cheap fix to avoid threatening the massive profits of the oil industry.

CONTINUED......

[whitemajikman]

At the 1998 International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, Edward Teller, the "Father of the H-bomb," presented his Next Big Idea. Teller called for spreading reflective chemicals over the Earth to act like a mirror-shade. If it was impossible to protect the entire planet, these chemical sky shields could, at least, be extended to cover allies who secretly agreed to allow this unprecedented geo-engineering experiment to be carried out over their territory.

In the July-August 1998 Science and Technology Review, Teller argued that the Sky Shield offered a more "realistic" option for addressing global warming than drastic cutbacks in CO2 emissions.

When asked if the technology was being pursued, Teller replied: "To my knowledge the answer is negative.... My recommendation was a tentative one depending on further evidence whether expecting global warming is realistic."

In fact, the technology already exists. In 1975, the US Navy patented a device for producing "a powder contrail having maximum radiation-scattering ability." The powder contained a mixture of 0.3 micron-sized titanium dioxide pigment particles coated with 0.007 micron hydrophobic colloidal silica and 4.5 micron particles of silica gel. The purpose of the apparatus was "to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose."

The Welsbach Patent proposed using "very fine, talcum-like" powder of 10 to 100 micron-sized aluminum oxide to produce a "pure white plume" in the sky.

In a May 2000 draft report submitted to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an expert panel chosen from among 3,000 atmospheric scientists, concluded that Teller's scheme might work. But the IPCC warned against unpredictable upsets of the atmosphere. The panel also warned against angry populaces reacting to "the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky."

Caldeira was so concerned that he went public. Deflecting sunlight would further cool the stratosphere, he warned, and this could intensify icy clouds of ozone-gobbling CFCs that could destroy the ozone layer - the Earth's already damaged solar radiation shield.

Was Teller's Sky Shield experiment already underway? During his interview with WMWV reporters, Deep Sky hinted that it was. Were the tankers observed on ATC radars involved in climate modification? Our FAA source hesitated before responding: "That approximates what I was told." Similar military activities were ongoing in other regions, he stated.

Chemtrails and Health Problems
The Internet buzzes with conspiracy theories about chemtrails being used as part of a secret government biological experiment. But after more than three years of intense investigation, I have found no proof that chemtrails constitute a deliberate biological attack. (To be effective, bio-attacks must conducted close to the ground and never in daylight, in order to avoid ultraviolet sterilization of toxins.)

In the spring of 1998, rain falling through heavy chemtrails over Espanola, Ontario was found to contain concentrations of aluminum particles seven times higher than permitted by Canadian health safety laws. Provincial health officials ordered tests after residents began complaining about severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless "flu-like" symptoms. The results of the test were not released.

The reports of illness all came from residents inside a 50-square-mile area who complained that they had been subjected to "months of spraying" by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes. The USAF denied the intrusions.

On November 18, 1998, Canadian Opposition Party Defense Critic Gordon Earle petitioned Parliament on behalf of the people of Espanola. Speaking on behalf of Canada's New Democratic Party, Earle stated:

"Over 500 residents of the Espanola area have signed a petition raising concern over possible government involvement in what appears to be aircraft emitting visible aerosols. They have found high traces of aluminum and quartz in particulate and rainwater samples. These concerns combined with associated respiratory ailments have led these Canadians to take action and seek clear answers from this government. The petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected."

A Harvard School of Public Health team determined that particulates with a diameter less than 10 microns (one-tenth the thickness of a human hair) pose a serious threat to public health. On April 21, 2001, the New York Times warned: "These microscopic motes are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream, and have been most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems."

On December 14, 2000, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that inhaling particulate matter of a size 10 microns or smaller leads to "a 5 percent increased death rate within 24 hours." Teller's sunscreen calls for spraying 10 million tons of talcum-fine reflective particulates of 10 to 100 micron sizes.

Congress Addresses Chemtrails
On October 2, 2001, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced the "Space Preservation Act of 2001" (HR 2977), which called for the elimination of "exotic weaponry" from space. Among the weapons to be banned were weather-modifying weapons such as HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and chemtrails. Though HR 3616 was later amended to remove the section that would have banned chemtrails, the original bill acknowledging the existence of chemtrail technology remains on the pages of the Congressional Record.

With "chemtrails" now officially admitted by the US government, an even bigger trial is set to begin in the court of public opinion.

An earlier version of this report appeared in the October-November 2001 issue of Nexus Magazine.

Chemtrails Go Global
Sightings of oddly lingering plumes sometimes resembling rocket trails are not confined to North American skies.

While on leave in Italy in the summer of 1999, the US Navy's Kitty Chastain sat on her hotel balcony and watched aerial grids being laid all day just offshore over the Bay of Naples.

In Spain, on April 27, 2000, American tourist John Hendricks dashed off a quick email from El Café de Internet: "Were we surprised to see that the chemtrails are as bad here as they are anywhere, both in Mallorca and in Barcelona."

"Add Sweden to the list," a Swedish resident wrote after spotting eight to 10 parallel contrails. "I know the commercial routes, and we have a bunch of them, but not where these trails were."

Chemtrail activity has been reported in at least 14 allied nations including Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and the United States.

Chemtrail photos from France, Australia, Scotland and Germany may be viewed on the author's website.

Another Scary Scenario
According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co., the only way to form artificial clouds in warm dry air is to introduce enough particulates into the atmosphere to attract and accrete all available moisture into visible vapor. If repeated often enough, the resulting rainless haze can lead to drought.

Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric researcher with California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) and ardent chemtrails critic at NASA's Langley Research Center, reports that cirrus cloud cover over the US is up 5 percent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei. As the number of flights currently exceeds 15 million annually worldwide, artificial clouds will intensify as air travel continues to climb.

Perhaps the appearance of chemtrails is a "sign from on high" that our atmosphere has become dangerously burdened with pollutants.

(C) Earth Island Journal

By William Thomas;

http://www.drkelley.info/print.php?id=572

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Actually the fact that he keeps digging up the same old crap again and again indicates that the policy of information starving is yielding results.


JAY HAS NO AMMO.......NOT ANYMORE.......

AND THATS BECAUSE HE IS ONLY ONE OF A HANDFUL OF DEBUNKERS THAT HAVEN'T CLUED INTO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOTHING NORMAL ABOUT CONTRAIL FORMATION IN THIS DAY AND AGE......

WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS STATED IT TO BE SO........

HE IS TOO WRAPPED UP IN HIS CHEMTRAIL CONSPIRACY DEBUNKING.....

WHAT A SHAME.....

HE CAN'T DISTINGUISH THE BIG PICTURE.......

WMM

[hoot]

It is still my contention , as I have stated before, that all the players here work for the house.

[jayreynolds]

I know JAY IS LYING
I KNOW SARA JUST LIKE I KNOW JAY MICHAELSON JUST LIKE I KNOW GAR SMITH
AND WILLIAM THOMAS

There could be some truth to this statement. The truth is that whitey-boy says he knows all these people in the same way.
But what this really means is that he "knows" them only from their published writing!

I predict that whitey-boy will never be able to proffer any concrete evdence of actual personal interaction between any of the the above named persons and himself.



Gar Smith Responds
Some Background:
Before I could do any follow-up reporting on the chemtrail controversy, I was removed as editor of Earth Island Journal and assigned a new challenge as editor of Earth Island's on-line magazine, The-Edge. I passed the Reynolds critique along to the new editor with the suggestion that he consider running it as a letter-to-the-editor and invite Will Thomas to reply to the criticisms. The Journal subsequently published the Reynolds letter as a full-page opinion feature on the last page of the Winter 2003 issue.

Gar leaves the question begging as to just why he "was removed". Care to delve into that, Gar? I thought not.........

The statement by Gar Smith is false and misleading. The "critique" of Thomas' article which Smith refers to may be viewed here:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/thomaseij.html
It is a complete point-by-point refutation, with my words in red text, of Thomas' article, which showed the new editor of EIJ exactly how false, inaccurate and misleading Thomas' original article was.

The full critique was never published by Earth Island Journal, but the new editor did allow me one page for a factual presentation on the matter, for which I am grateful.

Isn't it interesting that Smith doesn't link his rebuttal to the full critique, yet makes the following claims:

"Reynolds not only failed to identify any factual errors in Thomas’ article, he also failed to cite a single source to bolster his contention that the long-lasting contrails visible in today's skies are identical to the ephemeral contrails of 50 years ago."
It's all in the full critique, Gar, but you know that, don't you, because I forwarded it to you!


"Reynolds falsely declared that Thomas' article "leads the reader to believe that the contrails produced by 6,000 commercial airplane flights per day are actually military jet's spraying of various substances worldwide."
Gar, the article says: 'It's a Military Exercise'"


"Reynolds argued that the public's concern over chemtrails is based on nothing more than "speculation, hearsay, and rumor, but no tangible evidence." In his very next sentence, Reynolds indulges in unsupported speculation himself when he proposes that contrails have been lingering in the skies for hours "probably as early as the Spanish Civil War." (An inept comparison, since high-flying jet aircraft did not exist in 1939. The first jet, the XP-59A, didn't take flight until 1942.)"

Gar, why would you try to mislead your readers into believeing that only jets can make contrails? At cold enough temperatures, evn helicopters make them! The documentary evidence for contrail formation in the Spanish Civil War by direct testimony from witnesses:

"1938- Battle of the Ebro at 7000 meters- The Messerschmitts are mixing it with No 4, judging by the contrails and the lines of tracer left behind in the high, cold air."
http://www.aire.org/gce/english/history/1938.htm

"While Reynolds' attack was devoid of citations, Thomas' Journal essay was densely sourced, citing 32 individuals, officials, government agencies and institutional reports.

I was not allowed linkage in my article, but you saw the copious linkage and references in my original critique, and you know that, Gar. Why did you choose to not link ti it, Gar?

In recent years, a number of television, radio and print journalists in the US have lost their jobs after to airing chemtrail stories."

What was that about "unsupported speculation", Gar? I simply don't believe you, Gar. Let's have some names............

"A Footnote
Jay Reynolds praised my 1997 Journal cover story ("Oil Spills in the Sky") as "accurate" but he believes that information in this article contradicts information in Will Thomas' 2002 Journal article. (I don't see a contradiction.)

OK, let's examine two quotes, Gar, for contradictions.
From your 1997 article:

"In addition to producing vapor trails that can stretch thousands of miles across the sky, jet exhaust also triggers the formation of artificial clouds by "seeding" the atmosphere with cloud-forming aerosols — droplets of sulfuric acid and particles of soot."

and from the article by Thomas, which you as editor published:

"Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery
Jet Trails in the Sky Used to Disappear. Now they Linger."

NO CONTRADICTION, GAR?

I ran the article with an important caveat, however. The closing sidebar, "Another Scary Scenario," proposed that the odd atmospheric effects could be the result, not of intentional intervention, but an unintended consequence of atmospheric pollution. The sidebar specifically cited "ardent chemtrails critic" Patrick Minnis for proposing this alternative, and quite plausible, explanation for the "chemtrail" phenomenon.

False, Gar. In your "sidebar", you mention Dr. Minnis, yet provide no quote or cite any reference for Dr. Minnis saying any such thing. The "sidebar" may be found at the end of the horribly flawed article you allowed to be published, and included the FALSE steatement that Dr. Minnis works for the State of California! Don't believe me?
Here is a quote:

"Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric researcher with California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES)"

The fact of the matter is that Dr. Patrick Minnis is not associated with the CERES system which provides environmental data for the State of California's Resource Agency. Dr. Minnis is NASA's foremost expert on contrails, clouds, and remote sensing by satellites. He has recently completed the world's first online contrail formation forcast program. He is co-investigator for NASA's Clouds and the Earth s Radiant Energy System (CERES) experiment. Dr. Minnis is well aware of the chemtrail hoax, and has done his best to provide accurate information showing that chemtrails are just contrails.

So much for inaccuracy that runs straight through your article to the end, eh, Gar?

[jayreynolds]

Jay Reynolds is lying. I have never had contact with Dr. Cornell. For the record then.

If so, why not?

[jayreynolds]

Actually the fact that he keeps digging up the same old crap again and again indicates that the policy of information starving is yielding results.

Wayne, if you are starved for information, perhaps you should heed my advice and get crackling!

Instead of trying to woo people away from free and open debate, you seek to take them away to a cloister to become mindless automatons in a world of delusion. Your continued pleadings belie the ineffectual nature of that gambit, old bean!

[halva]

It is still my contention , as I have stated before, that all the players here work for the house.

I don't remember you saying any such thing before.

If you had, I would have asked you to substantiate this probably meaningless assertion.

That was at the time that I was still posting here.

[whitemajikman]

I predict that whitey-boy will never be able to proffer any concrete evdence of actual personal interaction between any of the the above named persons and himself.

You See Jay Jay......

I don't need to provide PROOF......of my associations......

your trying to deliberately sway the reader from the real issues here....

which is how contrails effect climate change......

and how there is no such thing as normal contrails anymore as YOU knew in 1998..

your whole debunking career.....is based on one single word......."CHEMTRAIL".........


Maybe it's time for you to entertain the notion that your career as a debunker is over.......

a Debunker has No career when his credibility is in question......

and right Now you have none......

because your cornered.............

now here is something for you to prove........

can you state with confidence that the entire state of your chemtrail debunking career is valid.....?

no you cannot......

because I ,Footsoldier,Halva and Boomerchick have proved you wrong.....

and really not even us,but science........

The Proof is in the pages of this forum.......

you know all that informnation you have been fighting .......because it is contrary to your motives.......

Your Now Like That Old Cougar Who Has lost his Nails.......

Your Ineffectual......

not only that you are losing your grasp on what is Important.......

Is your EGO and Pride more Important than the Truth......?

Is losing your Debunker Status.......such a bad thing.......?you could always start researching CHEMTRAIL/contrail effects on climate change......It's not like you don't know a thing or two about that.....lol.

In other words JAY JAY you have been beat......

One Man cannot change reality.......

and the reality is CONTRAILS ARE NOT NORMAL.....

AND JUST ON THIS PREMISE ALONE...........

you are hooped......

because that is the central issue that you have used to eek out a meager Internet debunking career out of......

playing on peoples ignorance of the issues...........

Now that People have a real place to come with real information .....regarding climate change.....

it's ony a matter of time.....

that you ...yourself become obsolete......

Bye Bye Jay Jay.......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

There could be some truth to this statement. The truth is that whitey-boy says he knows all these people in the same way.
But what this really means is that he "knows" them only from their published writing!

I predict that whitey-boy will never be able to proffer any concrete evdence of actual personal interaction between any of the the above named persons and himself.




Gar leaves the question begging as to just why he "was removed". Care to delve into that, Gar? I thought not.........

The statement by Gar Smith is false and misleading. The "critique" of Thomas' article which Smith refers to may be viewed here:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/thomaseij.html
It is a complete point-by-point refutation, with my words in red text, of Thomas' article, which showed the new editor of EIJ exactly how false, inaccurate and misleading Thomas' original article was.

The full critique was never published by Earth Island Journal, but the new editor did allow me one page for a factual presentation on the matter, for which I am grateful.

Isn't it interesting that Smith doesn't link his rebuttal to the full critique, yet makes the following claims:

"Reynolds not only failed to identify any factual errors in Thomas’ article, he also failed to cite a single source to bolster his contention that the long-lasting contrails visible in today's skies are identical to the ephemeral contrails of 50 years ago."
It's all in the full critique, Gar, but you know that, don't you, because I forwarded it to you!


"Reynolds falsely declared that Thomas' article "leads the reader to believe that the contrails produced by 6,000 commercial airplane flights per day are actually military jet's spraying of various substances worldwide."
Gar, the article says: 'It's a Military Exercise'"


"Reynolds argued that the public's concern over chemtrails is based on nothing more than "speculation, hearsay, and rumor, but no tangible evidence." In his very next sentence, Reynolds indulges in unsupported speculation himself when he proposes that contrails have been lingering in the skies for hours "probably as early as the Spanish Civil War." (An inept comparison, since high-flying jet aircraft did not exist in 1939. The first jet, the XP-59A, didn't take flight until 1942.)"

Gar, why would you try to mislead your readers into believeing that only jets can make contrails? At cold enough temperatures, evn helicopters make them! The documentary evidence for contrail formation in the Spanish Civil War by direct testimony from witnesses:

"1938- Battle of the Ebro at 7000 meters- The Messerschmitts are mixing it with No 4, judging by the contrails and the lines of tracer left behind in the high, cold air."
http://www.aire.org/gce/english/history/1938.htm

"While Reynolds' attack was devoid of citations, Thomas' Journal essay was densely sourced, citing 32 individuals, officials, government agencies and institutional reports.

I was not allowed linkage in my article, but you saw the copious linkage and references in my original critique, and you know that, Gar. Why did you choose to not link ti it, Gar?

In recent years, a number of television, radio and print journalists in the US have lost their jobs after to airing chemtrail stories."

What was that about "unsupported speculation", Gar? I simply don't believe you, Gar. Let's have some names............

"A Footnote
Jay Reynolds praised my 1997 Journal cover story ("Oil Spills in the Sky") as "accurate" but he believes that information in this article contradicts information in Will Thomas' 2002 Journal article. (I don't see a contradiction.)

OK, let's examine two quotes, Gar, for contradictions.
From your 1997 article:

"In addition to producing vapor trails that can stretch thousands of miles across the sky, jet exhaust also triggers the formation of artificial clouds by "seeding" the atmosphere with cloud-forming aerosols — droplets of sulfuric acid and particles of soot."

and from the article by Thomas, which you as editor published:

"Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery
Jet Trails in the Sky Used to Disappear. Now they Linger."

NO CONTRADICTION, GAR?

I ran the article with an important caveat, however. The closing sidebar, "Another Scary Scenario," proposed that the odd atmospheric effects could be the result, not of intentional intervention, but an unintended consequence of atmospheric pollution. The sidebar specifically cited "ardent chemtrails critic" Patrick Minnis for proposing this alternative, and quite plausible, explanation for the "chemtrail" phenomenon.

False, Gar. In your "sidebar", you mention Dr. Minnis, yet provide no quote or cite any reference for Dr. Minnis saying any such thing. The "sidebar" may be found at the end of the horribly flawed article you allowed to be published, and included the FALSE steatement that Dr. Minnis works for the State of California! Don't believe me?
Here is a quote:

"Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric researcher with California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES)"

The fact of the matter is that Dr. Patrick Minnis is not associated with the CERES system which provides environmental data for the State of California's Resource Agency. Dr. Minnis is NASA's foremost expert on contrails, clouds, and remote sensing by satellites. He has recently completed the world's first online contrail formation forcast program. He is co-investigator for NASA's Clouds and the Earth s Radiant Energy System (CERES) experiment. Dr. Minnis is well aware of the chemtrail hoax, and has done his best to provide accurate information showing that chemtrails are just contrails.

So much for inaccuracy that runs straight through your article to the end, eh, Gar?


There are No Inaccuracies.......JAY JAY.......

ONLY THE ONES YOU ARE MAKING UP IN YOUR MIND TO TRY AND SAVE FACE.........

It's That Simple......

Your Hooped Jay Jay......

You Can't Even Claim To Be A Debunker Anymore.......

Not When You Lack Integrity.......

And You Have None......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

There are No Inaccuracies
Ha!
Tore you a new one, eh?

[whitemajikman]

Ha!
Tore you a new one, eh?

The Only Thing you Have Torn......

is your CREDIBILITY......

YOUR HOOPED JAY.......

It's That Simple.....

WMM

[jayreynolds]

I don't need to provide PROOF......of my associations
Bye Bye Jay

Ok, fine with me. My prediction stands that you will never provide any proof of your claim to have had any association with Gar Smith, Dr. Sarah Cornell, Jay Michaelson, or Wiliam Thomas.
QED

[jayreynolds]

The Only Thing you Have Torn is your CREDIBILITY YOUR HOOPED JAY It's That Simple.

If you keep this up, Whitey, my credibility will begin to soar through the roof!

As a matter of fact, it appears that some are wondering if we are working in concert to accomplish exactly that purpose.

[jayreynolds]

Still nothing on google news regarding "chemtrails".
The hoax has stalled out.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chemtrails&btnG=Search+News
QED

Speaking of the "chemtrails" hoax, where's that 'research' you claimed to have published, whiteyboy? This is a long wait for such a "simple matter", considering you claim to have a PhD and all.

BTW, I understand that in order to get a PhD from Oxford, you have to publish at least one research paper. Where is yours, whiteyboy?

[jayreynolds]

Hey, whiteyboy, looks like there's something new in "chemtrails" after all.
Wayne's best buddy "Mark Sky" is bawlin' 'cause his fifty pages of drivel got deleted.
Now ain't that a shame?
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread8430.html

[whitemajikman]

Ok, fine with me. My prediction stands that you will never provide any proof of your claim to have had any association with Gar Smith, Dr. Sarah Cornell, Jay Michaelson, or Wiliam Thomas.
QED

Your Prediction is meaningless......

as is your attempt to attack my character....

good try though....


but its not going to work.........

my association's have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with our topic of discussion......

which is your credibility.......and how contrail's are effecting GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.....

I will not allow you to change the focus......

Because to do so would mean we would have to let you off the hook for your years of STUPIDITY.....

And I Am Not Prepared to do that at this time.....

Not Until You SEE what your Mania for debunking has TURNED YOU INTO........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

If you keep this up, Whitey, my credibility will begin to soar through the roof!

As a matter of fact, it appears that some are wondering if we are working in concert to accomplish exactly that purpose.

Maybe there are a few people that think this.......

but those are the people that you have terrorized for years now.....

and expect that kind of Treatment.......

But Guess What....

Those Same People Should Realize that JAY REYNOLDS IS JUST A MAN......A warped Man.....But a Man none the less........

Nothing to fear.......

and when we are done here.......

hopefully they will all realize this..........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Still nothing on google news regarding "chemtrails".
The hoax has stalled out.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chemtrails&btnG=Search+News
QED

Speaking of the "chemtrails" hoax, where's that 'research' you claimed to have published, whiteyboy? This is a long wait for such a "simple matter", considering you claim to have a PhD and all.

BTW, I understand that in order to get a PhD from Oxford, you have to publish at least one research paper. Where is yours, whiteyboy?

JAY there Is Nothing Simple About Research.........

Look at yourself.....for a second......

You Have Been Debunking a MERE WORD for years..........

never giving credence that what these people were decsribing as "CHEMTRAILS"............

Was in fact Related To Climate Change.......

Instead you ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS THOSE EARLY Observers Of Chemtrails......In Promoting
their various theories.......

You Are The Main Reason Why It Took So Long To Connect The Dots..........For Most Of These People.......

And Why They are so confused today.........

Your Day Of Reckoning is fast approaching.......

You Can Either Keep on Debunking.......A MERE WORD.......

Or Get Serious and Use Your Talent For A Far Better Purpose........

To Educate The People regarding Contrails and Climate Change........

The Question Truly Is........

Are You Done Being A Malicious Net Entity........?

And Have You Grown Up Enough To Realize That You My Be Leaving One Chapter Of Your Life Behind That Has no Significance in this day and age.......and starting a more rewarding career as a climate change Investigator.......?

and as far as you trying to again attack my character....

It is not going to work......

I know my accomplishments......

and I am secure in the knowledge that I have made a difference.......

CAN YOU REALLY HONESTLY SAY THE SAME THING.......?

I don't think so.......

Terrorizing people no matter what your motive is NOT helping anybody........

Maybe You Should Look at what I am Saying Instead of TRYING TO WIN THIS GAME oF CHESS......

WMM

[foot_soldier]

whitemajikman wrote:

......You Are The Main Reason Why It Took So Long To Connect The Dots..........For Most Of These People.......

And Why They are so confused today.........
Reynolds is irrelevant, WMM. He's just a cog in the wheel of the fundamentalist Public Perception Management machine that's been refining its process since the 1970's when ordinary people were in fact directly aware of a number of emerging issues around which this machine has become very successful at sowing "confusion." He's no different than any of the "charismatic" evangelist types who have managed to infiltrate the American political sphere with their pious, overblown rhetoric on matters of simple common sense. Most thinking people wouldn't give his maniacal rantings so much as a nanosecond of their attention.

The only way Reynolds can get any attention is to continually shit on people and post lies about them and their processes. That's what he's best at. He doesn't even read most of the material others post.


whitemajikman wrote:

.....never giving credence that what these people were describing as "CHEMTRAILS"............

Was in fact Related To Climate Change.......
Reynolds doesn't "believe" in Climate Change.

Do you honestly think you're going to change his position on that? He's built a reputation on debunking Climate Change. That's the root of his entire schtick where "chemtrails" are concerned.

[whitemajikman]

Do you honestly think you're going to change his position on that? He's built a reputation on debunking Climate Change. That's the root of his entire schtick where "chemtrails" are concerned.

FootSoldier......I Think Jay Wants To Change His Position ....But Can't Due To The Tremendous Implications it would cause in doing so.........

WMM

[foot_soldier]

:rolleyes:

[halva]

Reynolds is irrelevant, WMM. He's just a cog in the wheel of the fundamentalist Public Perception Management machine that's been refining its process since the 1970's when ordinary people were in fact directly aware of a number of emerging issues around which this machine has become very successful at sowing "confusion." He's no different than any of the "charismatic" evangelist types who have managed to infiltrate the American political sphere with their pious, overblown rhetoric on matters of simple common sense.
The only way Reynolds can get any attention is to continually shit on people and post lies about them and their processes. That's what he's best at. He doesn't even read most of the material others post.

Reynolds doesn't "believe" in Climate Change.

Do you honestly think you're going to change his position on that? He's built a reputation on debunking Climate Change. That's the root of his entire schtick where "chemtrails" are concerned.

Yes. He doesn't 'believe in' climate change, and the rest follows. Because there is no climate change there is no 'mitigation' of climate change. There couldn't be, because if it is being mitigated then it must exist.

It is true that his primary identity is part of the 'fundamentalist Public Perception Management' machine. He just happens actively to have specialised in an area that many of the others stay away from, perhaps out of prudence and an instinct that there could be a risk involved in waking this particular sleeping dog.

But I can't agree with the 'Most thinking people wouldn't give his maniacal rantings so much as a nanosecond of their attention' line, which is also resorted to by many who in reality have been bluffed by him and prefer to stay away from him rather than try to confront him. Thus giving him the freedom of movement (and 'expression') he wants, and still has, despite being banned from forums.

And even BC here, whose motherly Christian forgiveness line in relation to Raynolds, (in combination with their shared American nationalism), has many many positive aspects to it, has been bluffed by Reynolds into confusing 'knowing' something with 'being able to prove it' to authorities who don't want to see it proved.

BC has one magical quality though: a proven ability to get the Arianna moderators to pay attention to her. Perhaps we should ask her also to complain about the cigarette advertisement.

[whitemajikman]

Yes. He doesn't 'believe in' climate change, and the rest follows. Because there is no climate change there is no 'mitigation' of climate change. There couldn't be, because if it is being mitigated then it must exist.

It is true that his primary identity is part of the 'fundamentalist Public Perception Management' machine. He just happens actively to have specialised in an area that many of the others stay away from, perhaps out of prudence and an instinct that there could be a risk involved in waking this particular sleeping dog.

But I can't agree with the 'Most thinking people wouldn't give his maniacal rantings so much as a nanosecond of their attention' line, which is also resorted to by many who in reality have been bluffed by him and prefer to stay away from him rather than try to confront him. Thus giving him the freedom of movement (and 'expression') he wants, and still has, despite being banned from forums.

And even BC here, whose motherly Christian forgiveness line in relation to Raynolds, (in combination with their shared American nationalism), has many many positive aspects to it, has been bluffed by Reynolds into confusing 'knowing' something with 'being able to prove it' to authorities who don't want to see it proved.

BC has one magical quality though: a proven ability to get the Arianna moderators to pay attention to her. Perhaps we should ask her also to complain about the cigarette advertisement.


AN EXCELLENT ,ACCURATE AND VERY ARTICULATE POST..........

WMM

[jayreynolds]

My prediction stands that you will never provide any proof of your claim to have had any association with Gar Smith, Dr. Sarah Cornell, Jay Michaelson, or Wiliam Thomas.


Your Prediction is meaningless as is your attempt to attack my character
No attack, dude. I just said you would not show any proof for your claim, and you agreed. Each time you fail to support your contentions in debate, you lose. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, and is impossible to defend against. Everybody knows.


my association's have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with our topic of discussion

Tough luck, you brought it up and failed to support it with anything whatsoever. I called you on it and you failed again. A strong trend towards repetition of this pattern is emerging.

[jayreynolds]

Those Same People Should Realize that JAY REYNOLDS IS JUST A MAN
No problem with that.

[halva]

Reynolds doesn't "believe" in Climate Change.

Do you honestly think you're going to change his position on that? He's built a reputation on debunking Climate Change. That's the root of his entire schtick where "chemtrails" are concerned.

If one does not think Raynolds is going to change his mind, what's the point of continuing the debate?

Either you keep at it, as WMM is doing, apparently believing that he can get Reynolds to divert his talents to constructive purposes....

Or you give up and stop posting here.

After all, it's not as if we've lost the game. We have two of our former opponents fighting each other.

Why post here just in order to tell WMM he is wasting his time?

[whitemajikman]

If one does not think Raynolds is going to change his mind, what's the point of continuing the debate?

Either you keep at it, as WMM is doing, apparently believing that he can get Reynolds to divert his talents to constructive purposes....

Or you give up and stop posting here.

After all, it's not as if we've lost the game. We have two of our former opponents fighting each other.

Why post here just in order to tell WMM he is wasting his time?

WAYNE YOU WERE DOING SO WELL.....

THEN YOU POSTED THIS......

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING.......?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

No attack, dude. I just said you would not show any proof for your claim, and you agreed. Each time you fail to support your contentions in debate, you lose. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, and is impossible to defend against. Everybody knows.



Tough luck, you brought it up and failed to support it with anything whatsoever. I called you on it and you failed again. A strong trend towards repetition of this pattern is emerging.


IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND AGAINST.......?

YOUR STARTING TO SOUND LIKE SOME KID PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Speaking of the "chemtrails" hoax, where's that 'research' you claimed to have published, whiteyboy? This is a long wait for such a "simple matter", considering you claim to have a PhD and all.

BTW, I understand that in order to get a PhD from Oxford, you have to publish at least one research paper. Where is yours, whiteyboy?

ALL ONE MUST REALLY DO IS CROSS REFERENCE THE SIGHTINGS WITH THE CONDITION OF THE OZONE LAYER OVER THAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AT THE TIME OF THE SIGHTINGS

I intend to take the dates of the Documented chemtrail sightings and then use the global ozone and u.v. map's that goes back to 1970 compliments of Environment Canada It's Actually pretty simple a process it makes wonder why nobody has ever done this before but so far GAR The Evidence is Damning
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessageRange? topicID=3313.topic&start=41&stop=50


JAY there Is Nothing Simple About Research

THANK YOU BOOMER FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I DO INTEND TO BACK UP EVERYTHING I AM SAYING HERE WITH EVIDENCE EVERYONE CAN VERIFY
As Soon as I Have All the Facts SO WILL EVERYONE ELSE I PROMISE YOU ALL THAT
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283953&postcount=7154m

I WILL.....BACK IT UP
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283955&postcount=7155

hahaha.
Still waiting for that simple research, whiteyboy.
My prediction stands.
Your promises are turning out as empty as ever, devoid of anything.

[jayreynolds]

I just said you would not show any proof for your claim, and you agreed. Each time you fail to support your contentions in debate, you lose. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, and is impossible to defend against. Everybody knows.
Tough luck, you brought it up and failed to support it with anything whatsoever. I called you on it and you failed again. A strong trend towards repetition of this pattern is emerging.

IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND AGAINST.......?
YOUR STARTING TO SOUND LIKE SOME KID PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.......
WMM
Continuing the pattern, eh, whitey?
Looks like you are stuck between arock and a hard place.
Not my fault. You put yourself there.
Checkmate.

[jayreynolds]

Most thinking people wouldn't give his maniacal rantings so much as a nanosecond of their attention.

If one does not think Raynolds is going to change his mind, what's the point of continuing the debate?

WAYNE YOU WERE DOING SO WELL.THEN YOU POSTED THIS......
WHAT WERE YOU THINKING.......?WMM

What they are trying to tell you, whiteyboy, is that they know I won't change my mind absent proof, and they also know that neither they nor you have any. The result is that you have become an embarrassment by continuing to make assertions you can't back up absent any facts to debate with. Worse yet, since I have ready accessto facts which demolish anything you try and come up with, the pattern of loss is quickly becoming intolerable to them.

In short, they are asking you to shut up and go away.

Of course, the question left begging is why they return time and again themselves...............

"Pot calling kettle, come in................."

[Yaak]

Whitemajikman, I do not understand why you did not wait until you had your proof in hand before you posted your contentions.

As it is, you make yourself look like a fool.

You have backed yourself into a corner.

You have placed youself in a class with Electricmojoman, Insurrectionchemistry, Julien Penrod and Weatherman717. I suspect that this was not your intention.

It is difficult for anyone to associate themselves with you, because you do not seem to believe in anything for very long. The unfortunate fact is, you can no longer be trusted or believed.

Please understand that I am speaking to and questioning your Internet personna, not the human being behind it. I know your intentions are good, but the truth must always prevail.

[foot_soldier]

.....What they are trying to tell you, whiteyboy, is that they know I won't change my mind absent proof, and they also know that neither they nor you have any. The result is that you have become an embarrassment by continuing to make assertions you can't back up absent any facts to debate with. Worse yet, since I have ready access to facts which demolish anything you try and come up with, the pattern of loss is quickly becoming intolerable to them.

In short, they are asking you to shut up and go away.

Of course, the question left begging is why they return time and again themselves...............

"Pot calling kettle, come in................." Post # 7240
Once again Reynolds is twisting the words of others to suit his personal agenda.

He is deliberately misquoting the words of others. He enjoys this.

What I said last night speaks for itself. I hope the person to whom it was directed (WMM) understands that I write exactly what I mean to say - nothing more and nothing less.

WMM, you are definitely on the right track. But of course you know this. Screw Reynolds. There will never be enough "proof" for him or those like him. You should know that by now. He is a fanatic and a gaslighter. He likes to play games with people's minds. Do you enjoy that sort of game?

As for why I keep "coming back here", I will do as I please in this regard. At this point I'm trying to convey some support to WMM and that's about it. I hope I've managed to do that as I'd like to wrap it up here.

[whitemajikman]

hahaha.
Still waiting for that simple research, whiteyboy.
My prediction stands.
Your promises are turning out as empty as ever, devoid of anything.


Jay ......May I remind You ......

Rome Was Not Built In a Day.........

And Also I Might Add.....

I Never Gave You A Date ....that I Would Post My Finding's........

your eagerness to Cry Foul.......Is Unfounded......

Also .......

Your The Last Person Who Should Be Talking about promises.......

If I Remember Correctly......

YOU PROMISED TO NEVER POST AT MAV'S EVER AGAIN.....After the CY /buzzkill incident......

Your Word means SHIT......

Now Wait......

because thats the only option you have left.......

And The Only One I will give you till I'm Ready.....

because quite frankly Jay.........your a fraud......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Whitemajikman, I do not understand why you did not wait until you had your proof in hand before you posted your contentions.

As it is, you make yourself look like a fool.

You have backed yourself into a corner.

You have placed youself in a class with Electricmojoman, Insurrectionchemistry, Julien Penrod and Weatherman717. I suspect that this was not your intention.

It is difficult for anyone to associate themselves with you, because you do not seem to believe in anything for very long. The unfortunate fact is, you can no longer be trusted or believed.

Please understand that I am speaking to and questioning your Internet personna, not the human being behind it. I know your intentions are good, but the truth must always prevail.


ED I SEE YOUR DILEMMA.....

YOU THINK BECAUSE I RATHER LEAVE ALL THE THEORIES THAT I HAVE ......OPEN....

THAT SOMEHOW MAKES ME UNTRUSTWORTHY......

SO BE IT...... ED.......

BECAUSE REALLY HOW CAN TRUTH EVER BE FOUND.......UNLESS YOUR WILLING TO LOOK AT THINGS YOU WOULD NEVER NORMALLY LOOK AT.....

I BEND LIKE A REED WHEN IT COMES TO INFORMATION.....

SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT HIT AND MISS RESEARCH........

CLOSEMINDED PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND THE TRUTH.......BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO PART WITH THEIR BELIEFS LONG ENOUGH TO RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION.......

I RECONSIDER EVERYTHING.......BECAUSE IT ALL HAS SOME SIGNIFICANCE........

NOW I AM NOT CALLING YOU CLOSED MINDED...ED......I KNOW BETTER .....YOUR NOT.....

NOW I ASK YOU HONESTLY ED.........

WHATS THE REAL REASON YOU DON'T TRUST ME......?

COULD IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH ME ACTUALLY TAKING JAY ON......?

YOU KNOW THE DEBUNKER CODE OF HONOUR....THING......

YOU YOURSELF ARE DEBUNKER AND SO AM I...........

WHATS THE PROBLEM......?

IS JAY JAY SUPPOSE TO BE OFF LIMITS........?............

WELL NOT IN MY BOOKS.......

IN FACT IF YOU WERE TO DIG A BIT DEEPER.......YOU WOULD KNOW THAT HE IS A FRAUD.....

WMM

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Once again Reynolds is twisting the words of others to suit his personal agenda.

He is deliberately misquoting the words of others. He enjoys this.

What I said last night speaks for itself. I hope the person to whom it was directed (WMM) understands that I write exactly what I mean to say - nothing more and nothing less.

WMM, you are definitely on the right track. But of course you know this. Screw Reynolds. There will never be enough "proof" for him or those like him. You should know that by now. He is a fanatic and a gaslighter. He likes to play games with people's minds. Do you enjoy that sort of game?

As for why I keep "coming back here", I will do as I please in this regard. At this point I'm trying to convey some support to WMM and that's about it. I hope I've managed to do that as I'd like to wrap it up here.


THANK-YOU FOR THE CONTINUING SUPPORT IT IS APPRECIATED........

AND NOT GOING UN-NOTICED......

WMM

[halva]

I also support you WMM.

But your years of fellow-travelling with Reynolds and company are not a qualification.

[whitemajikman]

I also support you WMM.

But your years of fellow-travelling with Reynolds and company are not a qualification.

THANK-YOU WAYNE.....

AND I KNOW HOW IT LOOKS......

BUT WHAT YOU MUST CONSIDER IS THAT I KNOW EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK.......BECAUSE I HAVE DEBUNKED........ALONG SIDE SOME OF THE BEST........IN THE PAST.....

AND JAY KNOWS THAT RIGHT NOW I AM BEING CALM ,COOL AND COLLECTED......

I WILL NOT BEND AS EASILY AS MOST......BECAUSE I SEE RIGHT THROUGH JAY JAY......

I KNOW HIS TACTICS AND HIS PLOYS.......

BUT IF A TIME DOES COME.........THAT I DO LOSE MY TEMPER......

THEN JAY BETTER WATCH OUT........

BECAUSE IT WON'T BE PRETTY.........

AND THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IS BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE NO RULES......

AND IN THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT.......

I WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL.........

AND NO I WILL NOT HARM JAY PHYSICALLY......

BUT HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEAVE HIS HOUSE WITHOUT BEING RIDICULED........

AND HE MIGHT EVEN SPEND SOME TIME IN PRISON.........

BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT JAY JAY THINKS.......ABOUT ME........

I GET RESULTS..........

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Jay Jay......

your days are really numbered........

9.2 Weather Analysis and Modification System

Brief Description

A global network of sensors provides "weather warriors" with the means to monitor and accurately predict weather activities and their effects on military operations. A diverse set of weather modification tools allows manipulation of small-to-medium scale weather phenomena to enhance friendly force capabilities and degrade those of the adversary. Many of the sensors required for this system are assumed to be external (i.e., part of the global information management system (GIMS), discussed in System 8.1).


Capabilities

* Understanding and predicting local weather effects on military oper-ations
* Precipitation inducement or suppres-sion using particulate seeding or directed energy
* Fog generation/dissipation using directed energy techniques
* Storm triggering/enhancement using airborne cloud seeding
* High-power microwave (HPM) devices (ground-based) and iono-spheric mirrors for communications and radar enhancement/disruption
* Ionospheric charging for spacecraft disruption using crossed HPM beams

Enabling Technologies (MCTL)

* 2.6, Micromechanical Devices

* 4.1, Digital Processing
o 4.1.1, High-Performance Computing
* 4.2, Software
o 4.2.5, Data Fusion
o 4.2.9, Artificial Intelligence
* 4.3, Hybrid Computing
* 6.9 Other Sensors
* 11.2, High-Power RF Systems

White Papers

* G, Weather Modification

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b9_2.htm

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Weather Modification by Cloud Seeding-A Status Report 1989-1997

William R. Cotton
Colorado State University
Deptartment of Atmospheric Science
Fort Collins, CO 80523


* Introduction
* The Static Mode of Cloud Seeding
* The Dynamic Mode of Cloud Seeding
* Hygroscopic Seeding
* Weather Modification Funding
* Lessons Learned that the Global Climate Change Community Should Pay Attention To
o Hygroscopic Seeding and the CCN-Albedo Hypothesis
o The Importance of Natural Variability
o The Dangers of Overselling
o The Capricious Administration of Science and Technology
* Scientific Credibility and Advocacy
o Should Society Wait for Hard Scientific Evidence?
* Acknowledgments
* References
* About this document...

http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/gkss.html

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Notes:

* Improvements in forecasts will follow from better and faster computers, improved communications and more detailed atmospheric observations from satellites, UAVs, microchips and ground based remote sensing.
* Current techniques for small area, short term atmospheric modifications will become easier to implement and will have improved accuracy as to the predicted results.
* Modifications of storms of thunderstorm size and larger are unlikely because of the energy required, the unknown side effects, and possible treaty violations.
* Due to political environmental concerns, it is doubtful that the treaty will be weakened. It is more likely to be made more restrictive with the growth of population and water demands.
* As weapons and other systems become more sophisticated, the atmospheric environment will continue to be a major factor in the usefulness and operational effectiveness of these systems. For this reason it is imperative that atmospheric scientists be brought in at the beginning on any and all new proposed systems so as to avoid the costs of altering or abandoning the system at a later date.

http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/sld021.htm

WMM