Whistleblower, 9 year Air Force Veteran, shares the truth about weather modification

Whistleblower, 9 year Air Force Veteran, shares the truth about weather modification.

Share this everywhere for the people who keep saying it's a big conspiracy pic.twitter.com/8l5k1YoE7n

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) October 6, 2024

Here is a link to Kristen Meghan Kelly's Facebook page.

METEOROLOGICST: "This is nothing short of astronomical ... This is now the 4th strongest hurricane ever recorded by pressure on this side of the world....This hurricane is nearing the mathematical limit of what Earth's atmosphere over this ocean water can produce ..."

8PM EDT: This is nothing short of astronomical. I am at a loss for words to meteorologically describe you the storms small eye and intensity. 897mb pressure with 180 MPH max sustained winds and gusts 200+ MPH. This is now the 4th strongest hurricane ever recorded by pressure on… pic.twitter.com/QFdqFYFI7o

— Noah Bergren (@NbergWX) October 8, 2024

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Weather Manipulation Claims Backed by Science — Must Read Deep Dive into History of Weather Manipulation — Shocking Facts Revealed!

 

After Representative Greene tweeted a simple and accurate statement last week regarding weather manipulation, the mainstream media went on autopilot mode, calling her an “unhinged conspiracy theorist”.

Yes they can control the weather.

It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done.

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) October 4, 2024

HOWEVER,

Geoengineering, or weather modification, is real. Read about the US Government’s “Five Year Geoengineering Study Plan” here. Read the USDA’s report on cloud seeding here. Read a White House statement here.

Yes, the government is actively modifying the weather. They tell the media it is to “combat climate change”. Wouldn’t it be appropriate for a journalist to ask the obvious question, “Is it safe?”

According to environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr. the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates has “hijacked geoengineering” and Gates is funding these projects around the world.

“They aggravate the problem then sell us the solution,” said Kennedy. “The solution that they want is more social controls. Geoengineering is a threat that the environmental community needs to know about and the rest of us needs to know about.”      

The general public needs to be start learning about weather modification rather than blindly trust the government and corporations to their own devices when it comes to their use of these powerful technologies.

There is little to no public oversight or discourse on the subject matter. While these tools can be used for good, they can also be used for nefarious purposes and have been misused in the past.    

For example, during Vietnam War, the US Government reportedly used cloud seeding in their secret Operation Popeye to amplify treacherous monsoons in Vietnam and devastate roads with flooding.

Project Cirrus of 1947 attempted to modify a hurricane off the coast of Florida only to artificially redirect it to demolish parts of Georgia. As technologies develop rapidly, the sky is the limit on how potentially helpful OR dangerous weather modification can become.

As of last April when the latest data was released, there are 42 regular cloud seeding projects across the U.S. with another 200 stations opening up by next season (that should have happened already).

Insurance companies invest in cloud seeding for obvious reasons- to attempt to manipulate storms to avoid heavy payouts to insured customers.

Private companies also cloud seed- that can be contracted to do jobs for the government or for any private person or organization that can afford their services. This literally includes a company in England that sells pricey cloud seeding services to wealthy couples to ensure fair weather on their wedding day.         

Stakeholders can be Big Agriculture companies that need more water to multiply their crops, superpowers like China that are have publicly stated half their nation’s weather will be modified by the year 2025, nations interested in using weather as weapons of war, coastline or tourist centric municipalities that depend on good weather, ski resorts that need snow…they participate in this and the sky is the limit.

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.

AND THEN THERE'S THIS: 

Guess the government didn’t anticipate Alexa saying the quiet part out loud @ChuckCallesto @catturd2 @LauraLoomer @wendyp4545 @GuntherEagleman @DC_Draino @TaraBull808 @TiffMoodNukes @RealCandaceO @dom_lucre @DonnaBarford @AmericaPapaBear pic.twitter.com/ou6cMkhNuy

— anna. (@annakg19) October 3, 2024

When The Going Gets Weird, The Weird Turn Pro

A lot of pros out there doing unbelievable work. Almost like Alchemy in reverse.

Hawaiian Governor Says, “The World Has To Apologize” Because "We Turned Our Backs On Global Warming"

Dr. Jessica Rose Explains The Flawed Modeling Used To Justify Lockdowns Worldwide And Reveals The Severe Underreporting of VAERS Data

Dr. Jessica Rose testifies for the National Citizen's Inquiry in Canada.

Dr. Jessica Rose's testimony is a bombshell! She exposes the flawed modelling used to justify COVID-19 lockdowns worldwide and reveals the severe underreporting of VAERS data. Her insights on the possible consequences of mRNA injections and their interaction with proteins in the body are alarming. Dr. Rose emphasizes the need for further research on the concerning findings emerging as a result of vaccination. Her testimony highlights the urgency of reevaluating current COVID-19 policies and ensuring public safety.

The other day, I was speaking with MR about COVID, and the possibility that the whole of the COVID event is a giant "Psyop", created by the Intelligence Community. 

The apparent release of the COVID virus - whether it was accidental or on purpose - is one issue.

The massive negative effects of the COVID vaccine are a second issue.

And the initiation of the lockdowns is third issue. 

The suppression of other treatments is a fourth issue

The seeming manipulation of the statistics on COVID deaths, and hospitalizations, is a fifth issue.

Now, for me personally, the initiation of the lockdowns, and the suppression of other treatments - initially the mockery and disappearance of Hydroxychloroquine as a medication Doctors could and would prescribe as multi-use anti-viral - transformed me into a "conspiracy theorist". 

In other words, I very quickly came to doubt the COVID narrative. 

I doubted the COVID narrative, to such an extreme, that I was willing to bet my life on it.

For instance, 

1) I never stopped going to the office, though I could have worked from home.  

2) I never stopped walking into restaurants and ordering food, and waiting for it to be handed to me.

3) I never stopped meeting with groups of people (whether they were prayer meetings or just informal meeting at work).

4) I never stopped shaking hands, or hugging people.

5) I never wore a mask unless I was asked to do so.

Throughout the period of the lockdown,

I did not get COVID

No one I met with died. 

None of the people I met with got more than mildly ill with COVID

It would have been downright mystifying, had I simply not believed any of the nonsense in the first place.

About a month or so after the vaccines were made available, one of the people with whom I met periodically did die.

He was a Emergency Room Nurse, in his early 40's - who took the vaccine. 

He had been in prime physical shape. He looked to be the picture of health, the man every other man wanted to look like.

DEAD!

No, he did not die of COVID. His heart just stopped.

So, yeah,  I sat out the the lockdowns, and so did a lot of the people I knew.

(((Now, there was one negative physical effect of the lockdowns themselves. And that has been on my memory. I seem to have forgotten the names and faces of every single person I met with during that time. 

Call it a kind of temporary amnesia, or blackout. 

Now that is truly mystifying. I mean, it couldn't have been caused by COVID, since I didn't have COVID. 

And it couldn't have been caused by the vaccine, because I didn't have the vaccine.

So, it had to have been the lockdowns that caused it.

I mean, I know that time seemed to dilate, and get lost during the lockdown. It seemed to go by more quickly, and less quickly at the same time.  

I always figured it was because of the relative lack of interaction with other human beings.

It's like driving through the desert by yourself. The landscape all looks the same, and you kind of just drift off and time passes, and then you come back, and you think, what happened? I just drove 40 miles, and I don't remember any of it.

And I guess that, after the lockdowns, so much time having passed in that relative isolation, I just lost all sense of time, and I even forgot all the people that I did see during that time period.

I with I could remember who they were. I do remember they were nice ... and sane.

How sad, huh?)))

Anyway, back to the subject: The COVID event being a Psyop, planned and carried out by the Intelligence Community.

I propose that the COVID Psyop is for the purposes of experimenting on THE HERDING OF PEOPLE. 

Yes, the herding of people. Just like how people herd cattle. This Psyop is meant to herd people.

Admittedly, there is not a lot of evidence to support this idea. But the evidence there is is primarily the following:

1) mRNA vaccine technology had been created as a kind of shell, which could house various types of mRNA technology, and was waiting to be tested on humans. 

2) Event 201 which took place in November of 2019. This was a Pandemic simulation, and medical strategy session, centered on an unnamed Coronavirus. You can see portions of it here, here, here, and here. Just to be clear, this took place before we knew about COVID. Coincidence? I guess so.

3) When the lockdowns happened, the Department of Defense/NSC ran the lockdowns and COVID response in general. The following video is worthwhile, the whole way through, but watch at the 8 minute mark, for the beginning of the discussion on how the DOD/NSC is involved. 

Here is an Org Chart:

From Wikipedia:

The National Security Council was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. It was created because policymakers felt that the diplomacy of the State Department was no longer adequate to contain the Soviet Union, in light of the tension between the Soviet Union and the United States.^[1] The intent was to ensure coordination and concurrence among the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and other instruments of national security policy such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), also created in the National Security Act. In 2004, the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was created, taking over the responsibilities previously held by the head of CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, as a cabinet-level position to oversee and coordinate activities of the Intelligence Community^[2]

And here is the video on the subject:

4) The lockdowns made no sense as a response to a pandemic. What initially began with a seedling of reason ("two weeks to flatten the curve", or in other words, to make sure the healthcare system didn't get overwhelmed) quickly revealed itself to be an endless, 24-hour a day fear-inducing Psyop Experiment to see what the government could get people to do. Wear a mask to choke off your breathing? Be afraid of your own family members? Feel guilt and fear that you will kill your grandma, so you don't visit her, EVEN AS SHE'S DYING? Tell on your neighbors when they don't cooperate? Allow the government to track all your movements? Have contact tracers call you and tell you about your behavior, and ask you questions about your personal behavior? 

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES TO EVERYTHING.

Apparently, humans will do just about anything if they are afraid, and/or deputized to do so by Papa Government.

5) The elimination of other pharmaceutical and medical interventions to treat COVID meant that a) the COVID crisis could be prolonged, and b) the experimental gene therapy "vaccines" were the only solution. THE ONLY SOLUTION! THERE WAS NO OTHER SOLUTION, GOD DAMN IT! Once again, will people accept medical information that makes no sense, as a pretext to take experimental therapies? They sure will. Will people take experimental therapies even if those therapies kill people? Yes. Will people encourage their loved ones to take these therapies, even when the don't want to? Yes. Will a population in general  put up with governmental extortion - through threat of losing their livelihood - in order to get them to take an experimental gene therapy vaccines?  Yes, yes, yes, they will, will, will.  

As I said, there really isn't much evidence of my side of this argument.

So, really, what we're left with is: We can view all of the above as a reasonable response to the COVID illness (pandemic), or we can look at all it's parts, and wonder to ourselves, WERE THEY JUST FUCKING WITH US TO SEE WHAT WE WOULD DO?

And, if so, did we pass the test?

Yeah, we sure did. 

We are a herd, and we will be herded.

And why would they want to herd us? 

Fifteen minute cities? 

Mass migration (replacement of legacy populations who might still believe in the old-fashioned notion of Human Rights)?

Culling? 

What the fuck do I know? I'm an idiot, as is evidenced by my personal response to the COVID pandemic and lockdowns.

I am an untrustworthy narrator, for sure.

Carbon Dioxide Levels, You Say?

Looks to me as if the United States is not the problem!

Click directly on the image to embiggen:

John Holdren, Obama's Science Advisor, Says We'd Be Going Into An Ice Age If It Weren't For Global Warming

“We know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the main cause of the warming of the earth’s climate that has been measured over the past few decades. The warming is unequivocal.

“While the climate of the earth has changed over the millennia as a result of natural factors – principally changes in the tilt and orientation of the earth’s axis and rotation, and in the shape of its orbit around the sun – those changes occur far too gradually to have noticeable effects over a period of mere decades. In their current phases, moreover, they would be gradually cooling the earth – taking us to another ice age – if they weren’t being more than offset by human-caused warming.”



By the way, if this seems slightly insane to you, well that's at least in part because John Holdren is insane:

Holdren has authored numerous books and journal articles with his mentors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the infamous doomsayers who predicted overpopulation would force most of the world's population to perish during the 1980s "great die-off." 

Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).  

Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment. 

Compulsory Abortion for American Women
The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force. 

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"
Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army. 

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added). 

Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash, declaiming, "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations."

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)

Global Warming, Anyone?

(Photo by The Merry Widow)

Yet another snowstorm is headed our way later today and close on the heels of the last one, from which we have not fully recovered. Digging out from under last week's two-plus feet has been difficult, particularly as nighttime lows have dropped well into the teens.

The weather forecasters are saying we will get 10-20 inches on top of the mess we've already got.

[...]

If any person even mentions global warming to me, I'm going to react in a most unladylike manner.

Read the entire post at Always On Watch.

MEET WILLIAM CONNELLEY, THE CHARLES JOHNSON OF GLOBAL WARMING

From the Astute Bloggers:

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity.

When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.

When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings.

In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement

More on Michael Connolley:

Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period.

In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

Lord Monckton Beaten Up By Police In Copenhagen

From Weasel Zipperx:

Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.

In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”

SPPI: Is the European police state going global?

WHY OBAMA IS A DISASTER SO FAR, AND WHY PEOPLE KNOW IT:‏

From Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger:

OBAMA HAS MISPLACED PRIORITIES:

Obama is working harder on AGW/CO2 and Obamacare than unemployment and Iran/WW4.

AND OBAMA IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN THESE TWO AREAS EITHER.

OBAMA:

• WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
• IN RECORD TIME.
• AND AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME, TOO.

THE NEXT ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS THAT THREATENS LIFE ON EARTH: CO2? AGW? NITROGEN? NO: H2O!

From some guy named Pastorius at the Astute Bloggers:


M. Simon at Power and Control has discovered a group of scientists vying to be the leaders of the next "Crisis" movement:

An international group of scientists say there is an immediate need for a global assessment of the nitrogen cycle and its impact on climate.

On a planetary scale, human activities, especially fertiliser application, have more than doubled the amount of reactive nitrogen in circulation on land. This massive alteration of the nitrogen cycle affects climate, food security, energy security, human health and ecosystem health. The long-term consequences of these changes are yet to be fully realised, but the human impact on the nitrogen cycle has so far been largely missed in international environmental assessments.

Nitrogen's role in climate change will be highlighted at an event on 7 December at the COP-15 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Event organisers will be calling for a new assessment of nitrogen and climate, which will identify innovative nitrogen management strategies for global climate change mitigation and associated co-benefits to society.

Dr Cheryl Palm, the chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI), which is organising the event, said "Nitrogen and climate interactions are not yet adequately included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment process.

This maneuver is not going to work, in my opinion, because it is not just the CO2 Global Warming model that is currently being discredited, but it is the very notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming itself which is unravelling.

The public will no longer trust "Climate Change" scientists.

The public will no longer buy any Climate Change argument.

People have a visceral hatred for Chicken Little bullshit. And, they do not want to be taken in again and again by the same "sky is falling" routine.

However, that does NOT mean the public will not buy another line of Chicken Little b.s.

We have seen this time and time again.

The reason the public will buy into crisis scenarios again and again is,

1) crisis gets our adrenalin rushing, and that is pleasurable for humans

2) crisis gives us a sense of purpose, especially when we are told we can do something about the crisis IF WE TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW!

And, politicians know it because they have played on our passions over and over.

So, what will the next crisis be?

Water.

WE''RE RUNNING OUT OF WATER, AND IF WE DO NOT TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION ALL LIFE WILL BE OBLITERATED, AND THE EARTH ITSELF WILL HANG IN THE BALANCE:

Will Water Footprints be the Next "Energy Star"?

Like their cousin the carbon footprint, water footprints are one of the latest methods scientists and policy makers are using to assess humanity's impact on the planet. And now businesses are starting to use water footprinting as well.

A water footprint measures the total amount of water it takes for a company to manufacture and transport a product, or for a city, country, or business to operate.

Calculating water footprints can help businesses and communities better understand and prepare for the impacts of global water scarcity, according to experts.

Exceptionally water-intensive products and food items include beef, coffee, and cotton. For example 2 pounds (1 kilogram) of beef requires 4,227 gallons (16,000 liters) of water to produce, once you consider the water needed to grow feed and process the meat, according to WFN. Likewise, 776 gallons (2,900 liters) of water is needed to make a cotton shirt.

Applying a standard to water footprinting is crucial, said Stuart Orr, WWFs freshwater-footprint manager. That's because the complex ecological analysis, which involves identifying and measuring multiple water inputs, is "confusing everybody right now," he said.

But, footprinting represents the best tool for reducing water demand in already severely water-stressed countries that will have to support some 3 billion people by 2025.

"We cant screw this up," he added. "There is no Plan B with water. Lets be clear about that."

The U.S. has the biggest water footprint per capita, at 766,098 gallons (2.9 million liters) per person each year, according to WFN.

Of course, the United States, the world's most successful country, is the biggest abuser. Of course. Because Capitalism is the problem, you see. Therefore, Capitalism will have to be attacked, and destroyed, or else we will run out of water, everyone and everything will die, and earth itself ... well, you get the drill.

And all of this rests on the completely unscientific, false assumption that once you use the water it disappears.

Water does not disappear. It changes form. When you cook, water evaporates ... and then comes back down to earth in the form of rainfall, dew, etc.

When you irrigate crops, water evaporate and/or get transferred into the plants, where it is stored, and consequently ends up in the digestive systems of human beings and animals.

When you drink water, or ingest anything which has water in it - which is everything - it goes through your system, and comes out as urine which contains, get this, WATER.

Which then evaporates, and comes down in the form of rainfall, dew, etc.

And, of course, this "we're running out of water and we must do something about it right now" scenario also rests on the assumption that we will develop no new technology which will help us harvest water.

No new Desalination technology.

No new Cloud Seeding technology.

Why does this need to be explained? Because Chicken Little demands it with his asinine ranting:



So yes, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATER, AND IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, ALL LIFE WILL BE OBLITERATED, AND THE EARTH, ITSELF, WILL HANG IN THE BALANCE.

So the government must intervene and enact socialist/fascist legislation to make sure you no longer drink coffee, eat beef, or where cotton t-shirts.

You heard it her first, folks.

Check back somewhere down the road, and you will find us bragging about having scooped the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Hadley Water Research Unit, The Federal Government of the United States, Instapundit, etc., by years and years.

Hilarious Story of the Day: FACT: HYDROGEN CARS WORSE FOR CO2

From the Astute Bloggers:

Copenhagen Commune just purchased a set of Hydrogen powered cars to increase their political correctness quotient during the COP a good feeling 15 conference...the problem is they emit 150% MORE CO2 than a comprable hydrocarbon powered vehicle does. (338 vs. 134 g/km)

Global Warming And Confirmation Bias

From the Belmont Club:

None of the scientists who have “come out” as climate skeptics allege a massive conspiracy by scientists, any more than there is a massive liberal conspiracy in Hollywood. What you have is a self-emergent, self-organizing bias. I hope I can illustrate it briefly.

I work in academic science (check my IP address if you wish). Scientists are, in general, uncompromising idealists for objective, physical truth. But occasionally, politics encroaches. Most of my work is funded by DoE, DoD, ONR, and a few big companies. We get the grants, because we are simply the best in the field. But we don’t work in isolation. We work as part of a department, which has equipment, lab space, and maintenance staff, IT, et cetera. We have a system for the strict partition of unclassified/classified research through collaboration with government labs. The department had set a research policy and infrastructure goal to attract defense funding, and it worked.

The same is true in climate science. Universities and departments have set policies to attract climate science funding. Climate science centers don’t spontaneously spring into existence – they were created, in increasingly rapid numbers, to partake in the funding bonanza that is AGW. This by itself is not political – currently, universities are scrambling to set up “clean energy” and “sustainable technology” centers. Before it was bio-tech and nanotechnology. But because AGW-funding is politically motivated, departments have adroitly set their research goals to match the political goals of their funding sources. Just look at the mission statements of these climate research institutes – they don’t seek to investigate the scientific validity or soundness of AGW-theory, they assume that it is true, and seek to research the implications or consequences of it.

This filters through every level. Having created such a department, they must fill it with faculty that will carry out their mission statement. The department will hire professors who already believe in AGW and conduct research based on that premise. Those professors will hire students that will conduct their research without much fuss about AGW. And honestly, if you know anything about my generation, we will do or say whatever it is we think we’re supposed to do or say. There is no conspiracy, just a slightly cozy, unthinking myopia. Don’t rock the boat.

The former editor of the New Scientist, Nigel Calder, said it best – if you want funding to study the feeding habits of squirrels, you won’t get it. If you wants to study the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels, you will. And so in these subtle ways, there is a gravitational pull towards the AGW monolith.

I think it the most damning evidence for this soft tyranny is in the work of climate scientists whose scientific integrity has led them to publish results that clearly contradict basic assumptions in AGW modeling. Yet, in their papers, they are very careful to skirt around the issue, keeping their heads down, describing their results in a way obfuscates the contradiction. They will describe their results as an individual case, with no greater implications, and issue reassuring boilerplate statements about how AGW is true anyways.

For the field as a whole, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s the unfortunate consequence of having a field totally dominated by politically-motivated, strings-attached money. In the case of the CRU email group, well, the emails speak for themselves. Call it whatever you want.

Sums Up Copenhagen Summit: Armed Response to 'Climategate' question

Climate Scientology, Islam, and Religious Fanaticism

CLIMATOLOGY AND POPULATION CONTROL ARE LINKED

UPDATED AT BOTTOM OF POST

Fanatics at the reins of power.

This essay by Andrew Bostom is a warning. Read Dr. William Happer's thoughts on the true goal of the Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists. And then, read Eric Hoffer's comments on fanatical orthodoxy and it's development in cultures, specifically in the culture of Islam.

This tells us everything to know on why we need to make sure the AGW people never gain a foothold on power. The Copenhagen Summit must not yield results, or we are all in deep trouble.

From Andrew Bostom:

William Happer on contemporary Climate Scientologists: “Disagreeing with them is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad.”

Eric Hoffer: “[A]bsolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”

The so-called “Climate Gate” e-mail scandal simply confirms fraudulent activity masquerading as (albeit stubbornly contested) pseudo-scientific “modeling errors” which I reviewed last Christmas (12/25/08)—a bitterly cold day.

Today (12/10/09) Paul Mulshine blogging at at the Star Ledger/NJ.com, includes these revealing extracts from an interview with Princeton University Physics Professor, and Director of Research at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1990-1993, William Happer. Dr. Happer’s conclusion is that a religious cult of Climate Scientologists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has evolved, whose fanaticism he characterizes thusly:

“Disagreeing with them is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad.”

And Happer’s apposite comparison recalls the late Eric Hoffer’s (d. 1983) observations on Islam from his seminal study of fanatical mass movements, The True Believer. Below is the full context of Dr. Happer’s remarks from the Mulshine interview, followed by Hoffer’s insights regarding Islamic fanaticism (from The True Believer), and his related thoughts from other writings.

From the Mulshine interview, of Princeton Professor William Happer:

…Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton who has spent a lifetime studying the interactions of radiation with gases, a primary force behind the greenhouse effect. I gave him a call the other day to ask his reaction to the those e-mails originating from the University of East Anglia in England.

“This has done a lot of damage to the reputation of science and the climate-science business in particular,” Hopper said. “I hope it is not transferred to all areas of science.”

The e-mails revealed what amounted to a political campaign to promote the notion of anthropogenic global warming. This didn’t surprise Happer. He served as the director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993. In that capacity, he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change.

Happer said he quickly realized the climate scientists were different from typical scientists. “They were a strange group of people, very politicized,” he said. “They would look at you and you could see them thinking, ‘What sort of answer does he want?’”

The answer the climate scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ended up giving has been immortalized in that notorious “hockey stick” graph. In testimony to Congress earlier this year, Happer described his initial reaction to that graph. “I could hardly believe my eyes,” he testified. “Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years, when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick.”

We all learned about the Medieval Warm Period in grammar school, Happer noted. That was a warming period during which Greenland was literally green, and the Vikings colonized and farmed it. As for the Little Ice Age, that describes a period around the turn of the 19th century when the Thames River in London regularly froze over in winter.

Whatever caused those huge fluctuations, it wasn’t carbon dioxide, he said. Solar activity and changing ocean currents provide much more persuasive explanations.

So why the emphasis on CO2? Simple. “If you want to get rid of CO2, you want to get rid of people,” he said. We humans are CO2 machines. Every breath you exhale has more than 100 times the carbon dioxide of the air you inhaled. And almost everything you do generates CO2 in one way or another.

In Happer’s opinion, the carbon-control movement is really a population-control movement. He traces it back through the “Population Bomb” movement of the late 1960s all the way to the 18th-century writings of Thomas Malthus.

Other scientists have said the same, but Happer says it the loudest. He terms the IPCC crowd a “religious cult” and says, “Disagreeing with them is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad.” As for the media, we’ve been guilty of putting our faith in the carbon cult as well, he said. “In spite of what you read in the papers, there has been no warming for 10 years,” said Happer.

Eric Hoffer, from The True Believer (pp. 107-108) on Islamic fanaticism, and its coercive imposition:

There is evidence that the coerced convert is often as fanatical in his adherence to the new faith as the persuaded convert, and sometimes even more so. It is not always true that

‘He who complies against his will is of his own opinion still.’ [Note: Or as per Koran 2:256, ‘There is no compulsion religion’—best understood as a statement of disappointed resignation, not an affirmation of “Islamic tolerance,”—an idea which the great Koranic scholar Rudy Paret left for us to learn] Islam imposed its faith by force, yet the coerced Muslims displayed a devotion to the new faith more ardent than that of the first Arabs engaged in the movement…Islam obtained from its coerced converts ‘a faith ever tending to grow stronger.’

Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. It comes when the movement is in full possession of power and can impose its faith by force as well as by persuasion.

Subsequently Hoffer would note (from, “Thoughts of Eric Hoffer, Including: ‘Absolute Faith Corrupts Absolutely,’” The New York Times Magazine, April 25, 1971, p. 24.),

There are similarities between absolute power and absolute faith: a demand for absolute obedience, a readiness to attempt the impossible, a bias for simple solutions—to cut the knot rather than unravel it, the viewing of compromise as surrender. Both absolute power and absolute faith are instruments of dehumanization. Hence, absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.

And in The Temper of Our Time (p. 124), Hoffer provided this assessment regarding the noble, but sober aspirations of decent, ordinary citizens of free societies, which are antithetical to the utopian yearnings of both Climate Scientology adherents, and fanatical votaries of Islam:

“Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.”


UPDATE:

SOPHIE'S CHOICE

As if on cue, an Environmentalist confirm exactly what William Happer says above:

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

Too bad the stupid bitch environmentalist has two children already. I guess she'll have to kill one.


UPDATED AGAIN:

But wait, there's more:

Population control called key to deal

China Daily COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

Read the rest here

CNN: Phil Jones Has "Literally Gone Underground" - Avoids Media Requests

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'

From the Telegraph:

The magical faraway tree: a larch in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, sampled by Dr Keith Briffa, has been called 'the most influential tree in the world'

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them.

This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted.

Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.

I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.

The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to demolishing.

If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more distinguished predecessor was right after all.

MORE FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, Totalitarianism, and The Destruction of Hope and Joy

("The Cooling of America" and "The Big Freeze" covers are from the 1970's. Scientists have been trying to convince us the world is coming to an end since I was a childhood. Why do you think that is?)



The AGW movement, and the Green Movement out of which it came, are Trojan Horses which are being used to introduce Socialist ideas into Western political systems.

Just for the record, the reason I don't believe Global Warming is going to kill us is because, at 46 years of age, I have been Chicken Littled by scientists far too many times.

During the course of my lifetime, I have been told

1) we were overpopulating the earth (it turns out all of our problems with food have to do with distribution, not shortages)

2) we would eat each other like rats in cages (I have yet to see evidence of mass cannibalism caused by overcrowding)

3) we were polluting ourselves to death (the USA is cleaner than when I was a kid, but the third world is more polluted, proving the solution to pollution is not less productivity but more Capitalism)

4) we were destroying all the forests and would run out of oxygen (the US is more forested now than in the 1800's)

5) we were going to choke the earth with plastics (I have yet to see the Earth huffing and puffing for its last breath)

6) we were going to run out of oil (I had several professors in college in the early 80's who promised me we would run out of oil by the early 1990's - we actually have MORE KNOWN RESERVES NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - AND IT IS ALL BUT A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL, BUT IS INSTEAD A NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE)

And now, these malevolent, insane scientists are telling us we are destroying the Earth with CO2, which they say causes Global Warming.

Why would anyone believe them, after all they've been wrong about?

AND, THE MOST AMAZING THING IS I HAVE NEVER HEARD AN APOLOGY FROM ANY SCIENTIST FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT.

Why do you think that is?

And note this, have you ever heard any apologies from the Left for having been wrong about Stalin, the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's strategy for destroying the Soviet Union, the idea that Reagan would start a nuclear war, etc.?

No, there are no apologies from the Scientists who have been wrong.

And, there are no apologies from the Leftists who were wrong about Communism and its death toll, nor about how to destroy the USSR.

And, why do you think these two groups refuse to apologize when they have terrorized us with their never-ending bullshit?

Because, the Leftists and the Scientists share the same goal, and that is they want to do away with consumption, capitalism, and ultimately, human beings in large numbers.

They hate life. And, they want to drag all of us down with them.

How it is that scientists make all these mistakes, terrorize us with predictions about the end of the world, and then refuse to apologize when they are proven wrong.

Additionally, we need to consider why it is that the answers scientists come up with to solve all these problems have always involved totalitarian government intervention.

For instance, Obama's Czar John Holdren prescribed forced abortions and mass sterilization to deal with the overpopulation "problem" (which has turned out to be a complete myth).

John Holdren has never taken his words back, nor has he apologized.

And, consider this, when people are constantly taught the world is coming to an end, how are they to plan for the future? How are they supposed to have hope?

And, if people believe our population is too high, why should they have children? Is not life less joyful, less full of love and hope, if we have less children?

And, if people believe consumerism inevitably leads to more Global Warming then, once again, why should people have children? After all, every child added to the world is yet another consumer, who will inevitably make the Earth even warmer.

If we are to take these scientists seriously, we must consider

1) what the psychological effect is on human beings who are told the world is ending (damages our ability to live with hope and joy)

and

2) what our society would look like if we actually decided to use the prescriptions of these insane totalitarian scientists ...

Imagine if we took their prescriptions for public policy. Most of you under the age of 35 probably would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.

If we do not consider these questions, then we are being complacent, and intellectually dishonest. Not just about science, but about the reality of the prescriptions, and about the reality of the mass psychological damage to human beings.

Do not be complacent about these questions, becaue they are fundamental questions which go right to the heart of the love, joy, and hope. They are questions which force us to consider whether we can even afford to enjoy life.

And that is at least as important as Global Warming.