What Al Gore Didn't Mention in 'Inconvenient Truth

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

The meat industry is one of the most destructive ecological industries
on the planet. The raising and slaughtering of pigs, cows, sheep,
turkeys and chickens not only utilizes vast areas of land and vast
quantities of water, but it is a greater contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
than the automobile industry.

The seafood industry is literally plundering the ocean of life and some
fifty percent of fish caught from the oceans is fed to cows, pigs,
sheep, chickens etc in the form of fish meal. It also takes about fifty
fish caught from the sea to raise one farm raised salmon.

We have turned the domestic cow into the largest marine predator on the
planet. The hundreds of millions of cows grazing the land and farting
methane consume more tonnage of fish than all the world's sharks,
dolphins and seals combined. Domestic housecats consume more fish,
especially tuna, than all the world's seals.

So why is it that all the world's large environmental and
conservation groups are not campaigning against the meat industry? Why did Al
Gore's film Inconvenient Truth not mention the inconvenient truth that
the slaughter industry creates more greenhouse gases than the automobile
industry?

The Greenpeace ships serve meat and fish to their crews everyday. The
World Wildlife Fund does not say a word about the threat that meat
eating poses for the survival of wildlife, the habitat destroyed, the wild
competitors for land eliminated, or the predators destroyed to save
their precious livestock. .

When I was a Sierra Club director for three years, everyone looked
amused when I brought up the issue of vegetarianism. At each of our Board
meeting dinners, the Directors were served meat and only after much
prodding and complaining did the couple of vegetarian directors manage to
get a vegetarian option. At our meeting in Montana we were served
Buffalo and antelope, lobsters in Boston, crabs in Charleston, steak in
Albuquerque etc. But what else can we expect from a “conservation�?? group
that endorses trophy hunting.

As far as I know and I may be wrong, but my organization, the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society is the only conservation organization in the
world that endorses and practises vegetarianism. My ships do not serve
meat or fish ever, nor do we serve dairy products. We've had a
strictly vegan menu for years and no one has died of scurvy or malnutrition.

The price we pay for this is to be accused by other conservation
organizations of being animal rights. Like it's a bad word. They say
it with the same disdain that Americans used to utter the word
communist in the Fifties.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not an animal rights
organization. We are exclusively involved in interventions against illegal
activities that threaten and exploit marine wildlife and habitat. We are
involved in ocean wildlife conservation activities.

Yet because we operate our ships as vegan vessels, other groups, and
now the media dismiss us as an animal rights organization.

Now first of all I don't see being accused of as an animal rights
organization to be an insult. PETA was co-founded by one of my
crew-members and many of my volunteers come from the animal rights movement. But
it is not accurate to refer to Sea Shepherd as animal rights when our
organization pushes a strict conservation enforcement policy.

And secondly we do not promote veganism on our ships because of animal
rights. We promote veganism as a means of practising what we preach
which is ocean conservation.

There is not enough fish in the world's oceans to feed 6.6 billion
human beings and another 10 billion domestic animals. That is why all the
world's commercial fisheries are collapsing. That is why whales,
seals, dolphins and seabirds are starving. The sand eel for example, the
primary source of food for the comical and beautiful puffin is being
wiped out by Danish fishermen solely to provide fish meal to Danish factory
farmed chickens.

This is a solid conservation connection between eating meat and the
destruction of life in our oceans.

In a world fast losing resources of fresh water, it is sheer lunacy to
have hundreds of millions of cows consuming over 1,000 gallons of water
for every pound of beef produced.

And the pig farms in North Carolina produce so much waste that it has
contaminated the entire ground water reserves of the entire state. North
Carolinians drink pig [censored] with their water but its okay they say, they
just neutralize it with chemicals like chlorine.

Most people don't want to see where their meat comes from. They also
don't want to know what the impact of their meat has on the ecology.
They would rather just deny the whole thing and pretend that meat is
something that comes in packages from the store.

But because there is this underlying guilt always present, it manifests
itself as anger and ridicule towards people who live the most
environmentally positive life styles on the planet – the vegans and the
vegetarians.

This is demonstrated through constant marginalization especially in the
media. Any organization, like Sea Shepherd for example, that points out
the ecological contradictions of eating meat is immediately dismissed
as some wacko animal rights organization.

I did not set the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society up as an animal
rights organization and we have never promoted animal rights in the
organization. What we have promoted and what we do is oceanic wildlife and
habitat conservation work.

And the truth is that you can't practise solid and constructive
conservation work without promoting veganism and/or vegetarianism as
something that promotes the conservation of resources.

A few years ago I attended a dinner meeting of the American Oceans
Campaign hosted by Ted Danson. He opened the dinner by saying that the
choice he had to make was between fish and chicken for the dinner, and what
was the point of saving fish if you can't eat them?

Guest speaker, Oceanographer Sylvia Earle put Ted in his place by
saying she did not think that he was being very funny. She said that she
considered fish to be her friends and she did not believe in eating her
friends. So neither Sylvia nor I ate dinner that night.

I met Sylvia again at another meeting, this time of Conservation
International held at some ritzy resort in the Dominican Republic. Harrison
Ford was there and the buzz was what could be done to save the oceans. I
was invited as an advisor. I sat on a barstool in an open beachfront
dining plaza as the conservationists approached tables literally
bending from the weight of fish and exotic seafood including caviar. I
looked at Sylvia Earle and she just shook her head and rolled her eyes.

The problem is that people like Carl Pope, the Executive Director of
the Sierra Club, or the heads of Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund,
Conservation International and many other big groups just refuse to accept
that their eating habits may be just as much a part of the problem as all
those things they are trying to oppose.

I remember one Greenpeacer defending his meat eating by saying that he
was a carnivore and that predators have their place and he was
proud to be one.

Now the word predator in relationship to human beings has a rather
scary connotation having nothing to do with eating habits, but for any
human being to describe themselves as a carnivore is just plain ridiculous.

Humans are not and have never been carnivores. A lion is a carnivore as
is a wolf, as is a tiger, or a shark. Carnivores eat live animals. They
stalk them, they run them down, they pounce, they kill, and they eat,
blood dripping, meat at body temperature. Nature, brutal red in tooth
and claw.

I've never met a human that can do that. Yes we found ways to run
down animals and kill them. In fact we've come to be rather efficient at
the killing part. But we can't eat the prey until we cut it up and
cook it and that usually involves some time between kill and eating. It
could be an hour or it could be years.

You see our meat eating habits are more closely related to the vulture,
the jackal or other carrion eaters. This means that we can't be
described as carnivores. We are better described as necrovores or eaters of
rotting flesh.

Consider that some of the beef that people eat has been dead for months
and in some cases for years. Dead and hanging in freezers, full of
uritic acid and bacteria. It's a corpse in a state of decomposition. Not
much that can be said to be noble about eating a cadaver.

But a little dose of denial allows us to bite into that Big Mac or cut
into that prime rib.

But that one 16 ounce cut of prime rib is equal to a thousand gallons
of fresh water, a few acres of grass, a few fish, a quarter acre of corn
etc. What's the point of taking a shorter shower to conserve water as
Greenpeace is preaching if you can sit down and consume a 1000 gallons
of water at a single meal?

And that single cut of meat would have cost as much in vegetable
resources equivalent to what could be fed to an entire African village for a
week.

The problem is that we choose to see our contradictions when it is
convenient for us to see them and when it is not we simply go into a state
of suspended disbelief and we eat that steak anyway because, hey we
like the taste of rotting flesh in the evening.

Have you ever thought why it is that with a person, it’s an abortion
but when it comes to a chicken, it's an omelette?

Does anyone really know what's in a hot dog? We do know that the
government health department allows for an acceptable percentage of bug
parts, rodent droppings and other assorted filth to go into the mix.

And now tuna fish comes with a health warming saying it should not be
eaten by pregnant women or small children because of high levels of
mercury. Does that mean mercury is good for adults and non-pregnant women?
What are they telling us here?

Eating meat and fish is not only bad for the environment it's also
unhealthy. Yet even when it comes to our own health we slip into denial
mode and order the whopper.

The bottom line is that to be a conservationist and an
environmentalist, you must practise and promote vegetarianism or better yet veganism.

It is the lifestyle that leaves the shallowest ecological footprint,
uses fewer resources and produces less greenhouse gas emissions, it's
healthier and it means you're not a hypocrite.

In fact a vegan driving a hummer would be contributing less greenhouse
gas carbon emissions than a meat eater riding a bicycle.

May be freely distributed, reproduced and published with permission of
the writer.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977-
Co-Founder - The Greenpeace Foundation (1972)
Co-Founder - Greenpeace International (1979)
Director of the Sierra Club USA (2003-2006)
Director - The Farley Mowat Institute
Director - www.harpseals.org

_____________________________

This interview was transcribed from video as the interviewee expressed a wish to remain anonymous ('Henry Deacon' is a pseudonym, prompted by his similarity to the likeable and creative polymath on the Eureka TV series). Certain details have been deleted and/or amended in order to ensure that his identity remains concealed, and the transcript has been �cleaned??? of most expressed natural hesitations and the like. Meanwhile, it is most important to note that none of the factual information disclosed has been altered or amended in any way. Henry�s name and employment details are known and verified and we were able to meet with him personally more than once. He was understandably a little nervous but definitely wanted to talk with us. In conversation, he sometimes responded with silence and meaningful glances or enigmatic smiles rather than words. He was entirely disarming, in a very quiet way, and was not always certain about what he should or shouldn't say. At times, however, he took great pleasure in revealing the truth about some key matter in a way that could not be traced back to him. One or two supplementary details were provided by e-mail after the interview.

The most important piece of additional information comes at the very end of the transcript, where Henry confirms Dan Burisch's testimony.

Readers are welcome to distribute this freely with the proviso that no part of it must be altered or deleted. Unaltered extracts can be quoted if the context is made clear. We consider this interview to be extremely important and in our opinion the information revealed should be made widely known. _____________________________

Please tell us a little bit about yourself � as much as you feel you can.

I�m a current employee of one of the three letter agencies [he plays a little word game with us until we guess the right agency, which he then confirms]. I�m probably taking quite a risk by speaking to you like this, though I don't intend to reveal any information that in my judgment is both classified and specific to national security. I�ve been involved in many projects with many different agencies over many years.

To jump right in at the deep end, I believe I was a walk-in around eighth grade. I have memories of coming from another planet, and these are all mixed up, all mingled with human boyhood memories. It's very weird, and hard to explain what it feels like. I�ve never had any problems intuitively accessing complex scientific information and I've often found myself understanding complex systems with no detailed briefing or training. I work essentially with systems. I don't mean to be arrogant, but I do know a great deal of advanced information, scientific and otherwise. I just seem to know it. I can�t say more than that right now.

Can you give even any clues about which agency you work for?

No, not on public record. I just can't afford that.

What information do you feel you have that�s important for the world to know?

There�s so much that it�s hard to know where to start.

I knew about 9/11 two years before the event, for instance. Not in specific terms, but certainly in general ones. It was talked about, an event like that, something that would change the game, let's say.

I know that there�s a planned war between the US and China scheduled for late 2008. This is also geopolitical and not concerned with Black Ops as such. These were both just events that I got to hear about in passing. I have no detailed information about them.

You mean that China and the US are working together to stage a war?

The Pentagon started the planning in 1998. You have to understand that China and the US are hand in glove with everything. This war is a joint op between the US and China. Most wars are set up that way and have been for a while.

You want something else that�s just unpleasant to hear? I also heard from someone who was serving in a unit that worked with missiles deployed for testing in the Pacific and the Far East. The missiles were shipped to the test location in very tightly sealed containers, very secure, hermetically sealed. After the tests, the container would be shipped back, sealed the same way, but empty, supposedly empty. On one occasion, this guy was present when a container was opened. It wasn't empty. It was filled with bags of white powder.

Cocaine?

I leave you to draw your own conclusions. I doubt it was sugar. Let me just say that, hypothetically speaking, and let just me say that to protect myself, if such a plan was in operation, it makes perfect logistical sense as it�s a totally secure way to get around all security, customs, international boundaries and ports, and all those checks. It�s perfect, like the way guns and ammunition used to cross borders in diplomatic bags going between consulates. This happens all the time.

Would you call yourself a physicist?

Yes. I cover other specialties as well, but yes, I�m a physicist. And I specialize in systems. Livermore is a good place to be, everyone's very professional there. They don�t, you know, they don�t play games there.

What can you say about the current state of physics in the military-industrial complex?

It�s dozens of years ahead of mainstream physics which is published in journals in the public domain. There are projects dealing with subjects beyond the belief or experience, beyond the imagination, of many public domain physicists.

Can you give us any examples?

[long pause]

There's a project called Shiva Nova at Livermore which uses arrays of giant lasers. These are huge lasers, huge capacitors, many terawatts of energy, in a building built on giant springs [extends his arms to show the size], all focused on a tiny tiny point. This creates a fusion reaction which replicates certain conditions for nuclear weapons testing. It�s like a nuke test in lab conditions, and there's very powerful data collection focused on that point where all the energy is focused.

The problem is that all extremely high-energy events like this create rips in the fabric of spacetime. This was observed back in the early Hiroshima and Nagasaki events, and you can even see it in the old movies. Look for what looks like an expanding energy sphere, and I can send you a link to show you. The problem with creating rips in spacetime, whether they're big or little, is that things get in that you don�t want to be there.

Things get in?

Things get in. Things that we all know about that are discussed on the net a lot. Beings, and influences, and all kinds of weird stuff, and I can tell you they�ve created big problems.

What kind of problems?

[pause]

The problem of their presence and then what happens next. The other problem is that if you�re creating rips in spacetime you�re messing with time itself, whether you mean to or not. There have been attempts to fix that, and it all results in a complicated overlay of time loops. Some ETs are trying to help, and others, others are not. When predicting futures, we can only talk about probable and possible futures. This is all extremely complex and very highly classified. Basically, it�s just a huge mess. We've opened Pandora�s Box, starting with the Manhattan Project, and we haven't yet found a way to deal with the consequences.

The problem of multiple timelines sounds like the information reported by Dan Burisch... can you comment on that?

[shakes head] I don�t know about any of that.

OK. We�ll send you the links so that you can see the interviews. But what you�re saying also corroborates the information reported by "Mr X" on the Camelot website. Have you seen or read those interviews?

No, what does he say?

"Mr X" is an archivist who for a six-month period had the opportunity to work with classified documents, films, photos and artifacts back in the mid-80s when he was working on a special project with a defense contractor. He says that he read that the principal reason for the ETs' interest in us was because of nuclear testing and the general threat of nuclear weapons.

That sounds about right. Except only one or two ET groups are concerned about nuclear weapons, not all of them.

OK. What else can you tell us about the timeline problem?

Just that it�s unresolved. The risk is, you see, that each time we try to fix it, it adds to the problem. It just gets worse all the time.

Are the aliens � or some of the aliens � time travelers? Dan Burisch states this.

Yes.

Do you know about the Montauk Project?

That caused a huge problem, and generated a... created a 40-year loop.

I don�t know about Al Bielek. I believe some of his information is suspect. But something like that definitely did happen, the Philadelphia Experiment, too. John Neumann was very involved in all of that.

And Tesla, and Einstein?

Don�t know. But Neumann... [nods head]

Montauk was real?

Yes. That was a real mess. They created a time split we�re still unable to mend. Now, understand this also relates to Project Rainbow, the Stargates� they were also working on that there. But some of the Montauk reports on the net are unconvincing to me. I�ve seen some of the photos of the equipment they�re supposed to have used, and it�s junk, just a pile of junk.

[Bill] I�ve always had a problem with the idea of time portals because I don�t see how or why they�d stay with the planet at a certain location as it moves through space. If a portal was created in spacetime, you�d expect it to be left behind somewhere very quickly as the earth rotates, and moves round in its orbit, and the solar system itself is orbiting the galaxy in a huge cycle. I mean, everything�s in motion, all the time, and this is well known. Can you explain this?

No, I can�t... but I know what you mean, and the portals do stay in specific locations, kind of anchored to this planet. That does happen that way. Why they don�t get left behind or just kind of float off somewhere, I have no idea. Maybe they�re gravitationally anchored in some way. Your guess is as good as mine.

One of the portals connects to Mars, and it�s a stable connection, no matter where Earth and Mars are in their orbits. We have a base there established in the early sixties. Actually, we have a number of bases.

So we�ve explored Mars already.

Sure, a long time ago. Have you seen Alternative Three?

Yes.

That had some truth to it. The Mars landing video was all a spoof, and other parts of it were as well, but there�s truth there.

What else do you know as a physicist working on these projects?

OK. This may interest you if you have a physics background. You know what signal non-locality is, right? When two particles in different parts of the universe can apparently communicate with each other simultaneously, no matter what the distance. Communications devices have been made for communicating across vast distances and also locally using a methodology that�s impossible to eavesdrop on, because there's nothing traveling between the two devices that can be intercepted. It�s impossible to crack or codebreak or eavesdrop because no signal travels anywhere, so there�s no signal to be intercepted or decoded. It just doesn�t work like that.

The beauty of it is that the devices are actually so simple to build. You can create two chaotic circuits, on a couple of small breadboards using cheap components which anyone can buy, and they communicate with each other in this way. You can build these if you know how.

Are there any other applications besides communication?

[pause] Yes.

What else can you tell us about this?

That�s it. Oh, I should say that I didn�t realize at first that you were also the guy who created the Serpo website. Let me just say that it wasn�t called by that name. And I doubt that the travel took nine months. That's not how they traveled there.

Oh, you mean the travel was instantaneous?

[pause] I don�t think they traveled the way they say they did on the Serpo website. Maybe there were other programs. There may have been many. But travel across large distances is best done using portals. Anything else is really... it's just inefficient.

You mean they used Stargates?

I guess you could call them that, yes. I also suspect the system isn�t Zeta Reticuli. It sounds to me like Alpha Centauri. I think you mentioned this on the site.

Do you have a reason for saying that?

Well, Zeta 1 and 2 are a long way apart from one another. Alpha Centauri and Promixa Centauri are close together. Alpha Centauri has a solar system very much like ours, but it's older. The planets are in stable orbits. There are three inhabited planets, the second, third and fourth. No, wait, the fifth, I think. Second, third and fifth.

That�s astonishing� you knew this professionally? I mean, you came across this in the course of your work?

Yes. This is known. It�s comparatively easy to get there, less than five light years away, and that�s, you know, it's right next door to us. The� people� there are very human-like. They're not Grays, they�re like us. The human form is very common in the universe.

[Bill] Is one of the planets desert-like? That�s what I saw in the photo I described. Two setting suns, over a desert landscape. It really blew me away. [See this article on the Serpo website]

Yes, it is. A desert planet.

That sounds kind of familiar...

OK, that technology wasn't developed by us. We were given it, or it was taken from a craft we acquired. I didn't work on that.

[looks at us without answering, slight enigmatic smile]

There's a Los Alamos website I'll send you, and then you can search there under �gravity shielding??? and things like that. It�s all there.

[Note: the website is http://lanl.arxiv.org.]

Now, it may have been an error that it�s in the public domain. You might want to advise people to archive the pages they find there before they�re taken off the web once this gets out, if it does. But right now you can see it with your own eyes.

It�s hard to know what else to say.

Look up the movie Wavelength. It�s based on a totally true story. Have you seen it? It's based on an incident that took place at Hunter Liggett. This is a hot one.

90 miles south-south-east of Monterey, California. My primary station at the time was Fort Ord.

I was working there back in the early 70s, when I was in the military, and I was working under CDCEC, which is Combat Developments Command Experimentation Command. You can go look that up.

We were doing testing of all kinds of devices, and we lived out in the field there. We wore laser protection goggles a lot of the time and we had our eyes dialated routinely to check our retinas for burns. Some of the cattle in the fields even wore modified goggles! This was the most bizarre sight you could ever imagine.

Well, one day something happened while we were testing. A disk came into the area and it was hovering, it hovered right directly in front of us, out in a field. So [pause] we shot the ****ing thing down.

[shaking head] We should never have done it. It wasn't me personally, but the group did. Between us we had all this gizmo weaponry and I guess they panicked and thought they were in a movie or something. The disk was disabled and it was captured, and so were the occupants, and I saw these very briefly. They were small child-like humanoids, with no hair. And they had small eyes, not large almond-shaped eyes. I don�t think anyone knows about this. As far as I know it�s not on the internet.

Most of the other witnesses ended up in Vietnam and many were killed. I may be the only living witness to what happened... I don�t know. The rest of the story is in a sci-fi movie called Wavelength, which was released in the early '80s. I�d never heard of it until I ran into it years later, in Arizona. Did I just say this? [laughs, for the first time] When I saw the video, I was expecting some, you know, light entertainment with a beer or two, but I mean, my mouth just hung wide open. The beginning of the film just completely clearly and accurately describes the incident, and the film is very close to the rest of the story, including the use of an abandoned Nike base in Southern California to store them. Go find it. It�s all basically true. I was just amazed when I saw it. The person who wrote it must have been there, or knew someone who was there. But I don�t know who. I had a genuine alien photo once. I showed it to someone, a woman, a very talented woman, who was a microbiologist working for one of the agencies. It scared the s*** out of her. I couldn�t believe it. She just didn�t want to deal with it at all. And I�d say that just suggests that the public, even scientists aren�t ready for this information to be released. And this person was really smart. It didn�t stop her from freaking out, just not wanting to know. She was just, you know, totally spooked.

I don�t know. I may still have it somewhere, and if I can find it, I�ll forward it to you.

It showed a small being with dark skin, kind of black and wrinkled. He was a sole survivor of an incident. But he died shortly afterwards. He had a suit that was self-healing, ah... self-repairing. It was a kind of fabric, or something, that would actually repair itself. And he had an artifact with him that was some kind of remote control device, and that was taken away from him.

[pause]

No.

You know everything, don't you?

I mean, it�s just so incredibly complicated. It�s so complex it�s possible that no one person has all the information. Most of the agencies don�t know what the other agencies know and everything is heavily compartmentalized right up the wazoo. No-one talks to anyone else about this stuff. Sometimes entire projects are duplicated at the cost of God knows how many billions because the existence of the other project is unknown, it�s kept from them. I mean, I�m a scientist, and scientists sometimes have one arm tied behind their backs because they can't communicate freely. In fact, they can�t communicate at all [laughs]. And there are dozens, hundreds of classified projects, I mean major ones. It�s just a total mess. Look, there are many groups of ETs, and besides our own ancestors are mixed in there. There are time loops upon time loops, and it�s all a mess. You�d need an IQ of 190 to figure it all out.

Not that I remember. It's not familiar to me.

I did see your interview with John Lear, talking about the moon photos and the way they�re airbrushed. NASA does that all the time. He�s quite a character, by the way. I�d like to meet him one day.

What few people know is that radar reports for the National Weather Service are also airbrushed, so that certain radar images aren�t released. I don�t mean airbrushed as in by hand. The radar images are electronically filtered using software. Some of these radar traces are huge. In addition, the weather radar won�t record traces that are moving faster than a certain high speed, a couple of thousand miles an hour. But there are still traces which need to be removed.

Sure. They�re often optically invisible, but usually show up on radar. They�re also visible in ultraviolet... I don�t think this is generally known by people.

Right. [long pause]

The situation with time loops is that there are a large number of parallel timelines, lots of branches. There are no paradoxes. [draws a diagram] If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, that�s the grandfather paradox everyone talks about, there�s no paradox. When you go back and change the past, it creates a different timeline, which is a new branch of the original one. On that timeline, you�d not be born and wouldn�t exist, so that aspect of the paradox is true. Do you see? But on this timeline, which you�re on here and now, you do exist, and continue to do so. There�s no paradox. It�s simple� do you see? You�re dealing with different branches of a kind of time tree. No principles get violated. All future events are possibilities, not certainties. That�s kind of pretty important, an important... distinction. That's really all I can say about that.

OK. Chemtrails were developed by Edward Teller and are basically the seeding of thousands of tons of microparticles of aluminum on the upper atmosphere to try to increase the albedo of the planet, the reflectivity of the planet, because of global warming. Now, gold microparticles, real gold, were used once in a similar situation on another planet, but I guess they had lots of gold, and we used aluminum instead. Global warming is partly because of the greenhouse effect, and that certainly makes things worse, but most of it is because of increased solar activity. Solar activity is the real problem.

Scientifically, it�s just a total gamble. Not nearly enough is understood. It may work, or maybe it won't. It could easily make things worse. There may also be health side-effects, weather side-effects, God knows what. It affects the whole planet and here you have a unilateral, non-democratic decision, unconnected with the political or democratic process, to launch a huge technological special project that affects everyone on earth. If that�s not controversial, I don�t know what is. The solution is to keep it secret. It�s the usual kneejerk solution, too.

I don�t know.

[pause]

Yes, there are weather wars. The Air Force will own the weather within two years.

Read The Report from Iron Mountain. Much of that is true. I was working with a group down in [ ______ ]. They called us in and passed out a report. The weird thing is that it wasn�t even connected with what we were working on, and it came just right out of the blue, out of nowhere, and none of us were expecting it. The guy said, and I�ll never forget it because it struck me as just wrong: �There are the wolves and there are the sheep, and we are the wolves.??? Then they told us to go and read the report, and that was that.

There wasn�t any choice, and there still isn�t. The way they see it is there are too many people, and, you know, they're right. That's true. So they figure they need to eliminate them and they're planning solutions to this. I happen to think it doesn�t have to be that way. Apart from what I�ve mentioned so far about the spacetime problems, the problem is overpopulation. It�s as simple as that. There are programs to reduce global population for everyone�s benefit. Believe it or not, the intent there is positive. It was put together by Kennedy way back then. The RAND Corporation was involved, and one of the Rockefellers, I forget which one, probably Laurance, I think.

Basically, yes. Artificial viruses that have been deployed using a number of means and are hard to detect or identify and nearly impossible to cure. Medical people in the public domain can't identify what's happening.

Very mixed. [pause]

As an individual flesh-and-blood human being, I�m appalled. And as a scientist trained to look at things from a high vantage point, a high overview, I have to say that I can understand the thinking.

You have to understand that I�m not defending or condoning this. It�s just a comment from an abstract scientific perspective. But the problems we face on this planet are so huge that very few people have the training or experience to view it all, to see it all in the same field of vision.

My situation was different, and I got a chance to see a lot of things because of the nature of my work. Most people don�t see it all. But I've worked with many agencies, and I have the big picture.

Do you know that it�s legal to test biological and chemical agents against US citizens? It�s legal. You know, all that has to be done is to get the approval of the mayor of the city, or his equivalent in any area. Or some representative official. No-one knows this, but it can be checked out. Go look it up. It�s all carefully hidden away in the law somewhere, but it�s all in the public domain. It's all there.

Look, I don�t want to shock anyone, but I�m not optimistic. The problems facing us as a race on this planet are huge. I don't believe most civilians are ready and able to comprehend and deal with the sheer scale and complexity of it all. They have enough trouble managing their everyday lives, and these problems are on a completely different level. Overpopulation is really the biggest issue. Everything else facing us is connected with this.

You see, I can understand the military taking matters into their own hands. If there was full disclosure of all the problems, and all the proposed solutions, do you really think it would help any of us? I suggest the answer is probably not. It would just complicate matters further.

But deep down I do feel that everyone should know these things, or else I would not be talking with you. The essential message I want to leave with is that I do actually hope and want to believe that we as a people can handle all this, but sometimes I wake up in the morning and doubt it, but deep down I want people to know the important things that have been kept from us all. But sometimes I do wonder. You don�t know what I haven't told you.

On 27 September, three weeks after the initial meetings, and after we had strongly urged him to view the three part Dan Burisch video interview on the Project Camelot website, we received the following e-mail. It is quoted verbatim and in its entirety.

Dan Burisch is telling the whole truth.

I confirm this.

timelines and all

best wishes

Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climategate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.

But Professor Jones said he had not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

Ford CEO: Global warming real
By Bryce G. Hoffman
Detroit News

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5735660

Dearborn, Mich. - In one of the strongest statements on climate change ever made by a U.S. auto industry executive, Ford Motor Co. chief executive Alan Mulally said Monday that global warming is real, man-made and caused in part by the auto emissions.

"The vast majority of data indicates that the temperature has increased, and I believe the correlation and the analysis says that is mainly because of the greenhouse gases keeping the heat in. You can just plot it with the Industrial Revolution and the use of all of our resources," he said.

Mulally made the comments during a telephone press conference called to announce the promotion of Susan Cischke, Ford's vice president of environmental and safety engineering, to the newly created post of senior vice president in charge of sustainability, environment and safety engineering. The move, Mulally said, was meant to underscore the importance of this issue to Ford's corporate strategy.

"It's about sustainability, it's about mobility, it's about safety, it's about (being) stewards of our environment," he said.

Also Monday, General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said the U.S. government needs to take a Manhattan Project-like approach to creating a national energy policy, bringing the best minds in the country to bear on the issue of energy sustainability and independence.

Ford has drawn fire in the past for reneging on environmental promises, like then-CEO Bill Ford Jr.'s pledge to build 250,000 hybrids annually by 2010. Ford retracted that commitment less than a year later.

A Policy Statement of the American Meteorological Society as adopted by the Council on 5 January 1992

Contents

Introduction
Status of planned weather modification
Status of inadvertent weather modification
Environmental and societal imapacts of weather modification
Recommendations

There is growing evidence that glaciogenic seeding (the use of ice-forming materials) can, under certain weather conditions, successfully modify supercooled fog, some orographic stratus clouds, and some convective clouds. Recent research results, utilizing both in situ and remote measurements in summer and winter field programs provide dramatic though limited evidence of success in modifying shallow cold orographic clouds and single-cell convective clouds. Field studies are beginning to define the frequencies with which responsive clouds occur within specific meteorological regimes.
Successful treatment of any suitable cloud requires that sufficient quantities of appropriate seeding materials must enter the cloud in a timely, well-targeted fashion. As the need for stringent spatial and temporal targeting has been established, it has become apparent that problems with seeding plume delivery in many early experiments may in part account for the failure of such programs to produce significant results.
a. Fog and stratus removal
Operations employing glaciogenic seeding to dissipate supercooled fog and low stratus have become routine at some airports. The ability to admit more solar radiation to reduce heating requirements through the dissipation of such clouds and fogs appears promising.
The dissipation of warm (nonsupercooled) fogs can often be accomplished by more expensive thermal techniques, but this has proven cost effective at only a few major airports. More reliable and economical warm-fog dissipation techniques have not yet been established.
b. Precipitation increase
There is considerable evidence that, under certain conditions, precipitation from supercooled orographic clouds can be increased with existing techniques. Statistical analyses of precipitation records from some long-term projects indicate that seasonal increases on the order of 10% have been realized. The cause and effect relationships have not been fully documented; however, the potential for increases of this magnitude is supported by field measurements and numerical model simulations. Both show that SLW exists in amounts sufficient to produce the observed precipitation increases and could be tapped if proper seeding technologies were applied. The processes culminating in increased precipitation have recently been directly observed during seeding experiments conducted over limited spatial and temporal domains. While such observations further support statistical analyses, they have to date been of limited scope, and thus the economic impact of the increases cannot be assessed.
Recent experiments continue to suggest that precipitation from single-cell and multicell convective clouds may be increased, decreased, and/or redistributed. The response variability is not fully understood, but appears to be linked to variations in targeting, cloud selection criteria, and assessment methods.
Heavy glaciogenic seeding of some warm-based convective clouds (bases about +10°C or warmer) can stimulate updrafts through added latent heat release (a dynamic effect), and consequently increase precipitation. However, convincing evidence that such seeding can increase rainfall over economically significant areas is not yet available.
Seeding to enhance coalescence or affect other warm-rain processes within clouds having summit temperatures warmer than about 0°C has produced statistically acceptable evidence of accelerated precipitation formation within clouds, but evidence of rainfall change at the ground has not been attained.
Although some present precipitation augmentation efforts are reportedly successful, more consistent results would probably be obtained if some basic improvements in seeding methodology were made. Transport of seeding materials continues to be uncertain, both spatially and temporally. Improved delivery techniques and better understanding of the subsequent transport and dispersion of the seeding materials are needed. Current research using gaseous tracers such as sulfur hexafluoride is addressing these problems.
There are indications that precipitation changes, either increases or decreases, can also occur at some distance beyond intended target areas. Improved quantification of these extended (extra-area) effects is needed to satisfy public concerns and assess hydrologic impacts.
Precipitation augmentation programs are unlikely to achieve higher scientific credibility until more complete understanding of the physical processes responsible for any modification effect is established and linked by direct observation to the specific methodology employed. Continued research emphasizing in situ measurements, atmospheric tracers, a variety of remote sensing techniques, and multidimensional numerical cloud models that employ sophisticated microphysics offer improved prospects that this can be accomplished.
c. Hail suppression
The efficacy of projects intended to mitigate the severity of hailstorms remains indeterminate. Statistical assessments of certain operational projects indicate successful reduction of crop hail damage, but scientific establishment of cause and effect are incomplete. Results of various operational and experimental projects provide a range of outcomes. Some suggest decreases in hailfall, but others have produced inconclusive results, and some suggest increases. Given the diversity of conceptual models, cloud seeding criteria, seeding agents, delivery techniques, assessment methods, and the storms themselves, this is not unexpected. It is a direct reflection of storm complexity as well as the spatial and temporal variability of hail.
Statistical evaluations using hail characteristics (i.e., kinetic energy, hailstone size, and area of hailfall) have often yielded inconclusive or inconsistent results. Historic trends in crop hail damage have been used to evaluate many operational programs, but these data can be unreliable and so must be used cautiously.
Our understanding of hailstorms is not yet sufficient to allow confident prediction of the effects of seeding individual storms, and the most appropriate seeding methodology has not been determined. The possibility of increasing or decreasing both hail and rain in some circumstances is recognized, but numerical cloud models have recently affirmed that the desirable outcome, that is, a decrease in hail and an increase in rain, is possible.
Hail results in significant economic losses worldwide; thus, research on hail suppression continues. As with precipitation augmentation efforts, increased in situ observations, remote sensing (e.g., multiparameter radar), and numerical cloud modeling capabilities continue to improve our understanding of hailstorms as a foundation for more effective scientific endeavors to suppress hail.
d. Severe storms mitigation
There is no generally accepted conceptual model for modifying tropical disturbances. Hurricane modification experiments of the 1950s and 1960s were inconclusive. Although strong interest continued into the 1970s, no organized research effort was undertaken, and few studies have been devoted to this subject for the past 20 years.
No sound physical hypotheses exist for the modification of tornadoes, or of damaging winds in general, and no scientific experimentation has been conducted. Experiments have been carried out to suppress lightning but have not yet yielded methods sufficiently developed for application.
 

The physical processes and specific conditions under which it is possible to increase, decrease, or relocate precipitation should be fully defined. The degree of change possible must be quantified to establish whether economic benefits can be realized. The use of untested weather modification techniques during severe droughts, as a means of increasing precipitation, is not recommended. Opportunities to increase precipitation are typically minimal during droughts and only well-tested techniques should be considered, realizing that only limited precipitation augmentation will probably result. 

Hail suppression concepts should be reexamined, refined, tested, and (if necessary) modified to determine whether conditions exist under which hail can be suppressed.
The extent of impacts produced by inadvertent weather modification requires improved definition. Further atmospheric studies are needed of cities of varying types and in different physical settings to better understand and predict local and regional-scale weather influences from ever-growing urbanization, and to investigate the potential larger-scale atmospheric influences of major transportation corridors and extensive irrigation areas.The extent of impacts produced by inadvertent weather modification requires improved definition. Further atmospheric studies are needed of cities of varying types and in different physical settings to better understand and predict local and regional-scale weather influences from ever-growing urbanization, and to investigate the potential larger-scale atmospheric influences of major transportation corridors and extensive irrigation areas.

Scientists doubt climate change

December 21, 2007

By S.A. Miller - More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

The IPCC has about 2,500 members.

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071221/NATION/844993096&SearchID=73303243836665

In February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming.

The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.

This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.

The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

In truth, the theory was not new; Dr Svensmark's team had proposed it a decade earlier, while the idea of a cosmic ray influence on weather dates back to 1959 and US researcher Edward Ney.

The bigger question is whether it amounts to a theory of global warming at all.

Small change

Over the course of the Earth's history, the main factor driving changes in its climate has been that the amount of energy from the Sun varies, either because of wobbles in the Earth's orbit or because the Sun's power output changes.

Most noticeably, it changes with the 11-year solar cycle, first identified in the mid-1800s by astronomers who noticed periodic variations in the number of sunspots.

If it varied enough, it could change the Earth's surface temperature markedly. So is it?

"Across the solar cycle, the Sun's energy output varies only by about 0.1%," says Sami Solanki from the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

"When you look across much longer timescales, you also see changes only of about 0.1%. So just considering directly variations in energy coming from the Sun, this is not enough to explain the climatic changes we have seen and are seeing now."

This is why scientists have been investigating mechanisms which could amplify the changes in solar output, scaling up the 0.1% variation into an effect that could explain the temperature rise of almost half a degree Celsius that we have seen at the Earth's surface in just the last few decades.

One is Joanna Haigh from Imperial College, London, UK. She realised that although the Sun's overall energy output changes by 0.1%, it changes much more in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.

"The changes in the UV are much larger, between 1% and 10%," she says.

"And that primarily has an impact in the stratosphere (the upper atmosphere) - UV is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere and also produces ozone, and this warms the air."

Using computer models of climate, Dr Haigh's team showed that warming in the stratosphere could change the way energy is distributed across the troposphere, the lower atmosphere, changing wind and weather patterns. But not by much.

"We found it might raise temperatures by a maximum of half to one Celsius in certain regions," she says. "But in terms of an impact on the global average temperature, it's small, maybe about 0.2C."

Which is not enough to explain the warming that has occurred since the late 1970s.

Crash test

Henrik Svensmark and his collaborators at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC) believe the missing link between small solar variations and large temperature changes on Earth are cosmic rays.

"I think the Sun is the major driver of climate change," he says, "and the reason I'm saying that is that if you look at historical temperature data and then solar activity and cosmic ray activity, it actually fits very beautifully.

"If CO2 is a very important climate driver then you would expect to see its effect on all timescales; and for example when you look at the last 500 million years, or the last 10,000 years, the correlation between changes in CO2 and climate are very poor."

When hugely energetic galactic cosmic rays - actually particles - crash into the top of the atmosphere, they set in train a sequence of events which leads to the production of ions in the lower atmosphere.

The theory is that this encourages the growth of tiny aerosol particles around which water vapour can condense, eventually aiding the formation of clouds.

And the link to the Sun? It is because cosmic rays are partially deflected by the solar wind, the stream of charged particles rushing away from the Sun, and the magnetic field it carries. A weaker solar wind means more cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, hence more clouds and a cooler Earth.

Maximum power

The theory makes some intuitive sense because over the last century the Sun has been unusually active - which means fewer cosmic rays, and a warmer climate on Earth.

"We reconstructed solar activity going back 11,000 years," relates Sami Solanki.

"And across this period, the level of activity we are seeing now is very high - we coined the term 'grand maximum' to describe it. We still have the 11-year modulation on top of the long-term trend, but on average the Sun has been brighter and the cosmic ray flux lower."

There is evidence too that cosmic rays and climate have been intertwined over timescales of millennia in the Earth's past.

And the theory received some experimental backing when in October 2006, Henrik Svensmark's team published laboratory research showing that as the concentration of negative ions rose in air, so did the concentration of particles which could eventually become condensation nuclei.

Other scientists, meanwhile, had started putting the idea to the test in the real world.

Seeing the light

In 1947, British meteorologists began deploying instruments in various sites across the country to measure sunlight.

Whether through foresight or luck, they included one feature which was to prove very useful; the capacity to measure the relative amounts of direct and diffuse light.

It is the difference between a sunny day, when light streams directly from above, and a cloudy day, when it seems to struggle in from everywhere, and photographers give up and go home.

Giles Harrison from Reading University realised that the UK Met Office's record of hourly readings from its sunlight stations could be used to plot the extent of cloud cover over a period going back more than 50 years; the larger the ratio of diffuse to direct light, the cloudier the skies.

By chance, cosmic rays have been recorded continuously over almost exactly the same period. So Dr Harrison's team compared the two records, looking for a correlation between more intense cosmic rays and more clouds.

"We concluded that there is an effect, but that it is small - 'small but significant' was how we described it," he recalls.

"It varied UK cloud cover only by about 2%, although we suggested it would have a larger effect on centennial timescales; and it's difficult to assess what effect this would have on global surface temperature."

He concludes it would be premature to lay global warming at the door of cosmic rays. Perhaps surprisingly, you will find no references to his work in The Chilling Stars.

Cosmic flaw

In July, Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory attempted a definitive answer to the question with what appeared to be a simple method. He simply looked at the changing cosmic ray activity over the last 30 years, and asked whether it could explain the rising temperatures.

His conclusion was that it could not. Since about 1985, he found, the cosmic ray count had been increasing, which should have led to a temperature fall if the theory is correct - instead, the Earth has been warming.

"This should settle the debate," he told me at the time.

It has not. Last month Dr Svensmark posted a paper on the DNSC website that claimed to be a comprehensive rebuttal.

"The argument that Mike Lockwood put forward was that they didn't see any solar signal in the surface temperature data," he says.

"And when you look at [temperatures in] the troposphere or the oceans, then you do see a solar signal, it's very clear."

Dr Lockwood disagrees; he says he has re-analysed the issue using atmospheric temperatures, and his previous conclusion stands. And he thinks the Svensmark team has been guilty of poor practice by not publishing their argument in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"Lots of people have been asking me how I respond to it; but how should I respond to something which is just posted on a research institute's website?" he asks.

"This isn't on, because the report title says it is a 'comprehensive rebuttal'; if it were that, then it would be his duty to publish it in a scientific journal and clean up the literature - that's how science filters out what is incorrect, and how it comes to a consensus view as to what is correct."

Droplets of doubt

This dispute presumably has some distance to run.

But Mike Lockwood's larger conclusion that current warming has nothing to do with solar changes is backed up by others - notably the IPCC, which concluded earlier this year that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of the Sun by a factor of about 13 to one.

Even though misguided journalists have sometimes mistaken his work as implying a solar cause to modern-day warming, Sami Solanki agrees with the IPCC verdict.

"Since 1970, the cosmic ray flux has not changed markedly while the global temperature has shown a rapid rise," he says. "And that lack of correlation is proof that the Sun doesn't cause the warming we are seeing now."

Even to prove that the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover matters in the real world needs a lot more work, observes Joanna Haigh.

"You need to demonstrate a whole long chain of events - that the atmosphere is ionised, then that the ionised particles act to nucleate the condensation of water vapour, then that you form droplets, and then that you get clouds; and you have to show it's important in comparison to other sources of nucleation.

"And that hasn't been demonstrated. Proponents of this mechanism have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence."

And Giles Harrison believes climate sceptics need to apply the same scepticism to the cosmic ray theory as they do to greenhouse warming - particularly those who say there are too many holes in our understanding of how clouds behave in the man-made greenhouse.

"There is some double-speak going on, as uncertainties apply to many aspects of clouds," he says.

"If clouds have to be understood better to understand greenhouse warming, then, as we have only an emerging understanding of the electrical aspects of aerosols and non-thunderstorm clouds, that is probably also true of any effect of cosmic rays on clouds."

Dr Svensmark agrees it would be wrong for anyone to claim the case has been proved.

"If anyone said that there is proof that the Sun or greenhouse gases alone are responsible for the present-day warming, then that would be a wrong statement because we don't really have proofs as such in the natural sciences," he says.

Waned world

Two events loom on the horizon that might settle the issue once and for all; one shaped by human hands, one entirely natural.

At Cern, the giant European physics facility, an experiment called Cloud is being constructed which will research the notion that cosmic rays can stimulate the formation of droplets and clouds. There may be some results within three or four years.

By then, observations suggest that the Sun's output may have started to wane from its "grand maximum".

If it does, and if Henrik Svensmark is right, we should then see cosmic rays increase and global temperatures start to fall; if that happens, he can expect to see a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up to hand back the one they have just received.

But if the Sun wanes and temperatures on our planet continue to rise, as the vast majority of scientists in the field believe, the solar-cosmic ray concept of global warming can be laid to eternal rest.

And if humankind has done nothing to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions by then, it will be even harder to begin the task.

By John Coleman, January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies.

Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters.

By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis.

So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

To email John Coleman: " This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text51833 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " .

For more info on the global warming scam, check out: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner".

Source: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

Christopher Booker's Notebook

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 1:48am GMT 25/11/2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness

The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 -

which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.

Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).

But of course he is no longer his own master in such fantasy exercises. Few people have yet really taken on board the mind-blowing scale of all the "planet-saving" measures to which we are now committed by the European Union.

By 2020 we will have to generate 20 per cent of our electricity from "renewables". At present the figure is four per cent (most of it generated by hydro-electric schemes and methane gas from landfill).

As Whitehall officials privately briefed ministers in August, there is no way Britain can begin to meet such a fanciful target (even if the Government manages to ram through another 30,000 largely useless wind turbines).

Another EU directive commits us to deriving 10 per cent of our transport fuel from "biofuels" by 2020. This would take up pretty well all the farmland we currently use to grow food

(at a time when world grain prices have doubled in six months and we are already face a global food shortage).

Then by 2009, thanks to a mad gesture by Mr Blair and his EU colleagues last March, we also face the prospect of a total ban on incandescent light bulbs.

This compulsory switch to low-energy bulbs, apart from condemning us to live in uglier homes under eye-straining light, is in practice completely out of the question, because, according to our Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them.

This year will be remembered for two things.

First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.

Second, it was the year when the hysteria generated by all the bogus science behind this scare finally drove those who rule over us, including Gordon "Plastic Bags" Brown, wholly out of their wits.

Billions of MoD spending is off target

The great row over under-funding of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, led in the Lords by five former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, has so far missed a hugely important part of the story, although it was hinted at by General Sir Mike Jackson when he was interviewed on the Today programme.

Alas, John Humphrys failed to pick up the significance of Jackson's observation that "we may not have enough to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The problem with our defence spending in recent years is not that the Ministry of Defence has been starved of cash. On the contrary, it has been earmarking colossal sums for projects designed to equip us to fight imaginary wars in the future, as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force to which Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon committed us around 2000: £20 billion on the Navy's two giant carriers (with planes and infrastructure); £16 billion on FRES, a new family of vehicles for the Army; not to mention the £20 billion already committed to Eurofighters for the RAF.

It was the diversion of resources into planning for that imaginary future that took the eyes of the MoD and the then-Chief of the Defence Staff off the need to equip our forces adequately for the totally different type of insurgency war they have actually been having to fight.

The MoD is belatedly trying to make amends for this disastrous blunder, for instance equipping our troops with properly mine-protected Mastiffs, instead of the unprotected Snatch Land Rovers that have caused so many deaths. It may also help that enthusiasm for the EU's fantasy armed forces of the future has been on the wane.

But no one at the time shared that enthusiasm more obviously (or was happier to send those hopelessly inadequate Land Rovers to Iraq) than the officer who was then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

Schools minister neglects homework

Desmond Swayne, MP for New Forest West, tells me of a fearful problem affecting Hampshire schools, which have been told by the county education officer, Ian Beacham, that under new rules teachers must no longer drive pupils in mini-buses unless they have a full "passenger vehicle licence" - "a huge and expensive undertaking which entitles them to drive a coach or bus".

Threatening many extra-curricular activities, such as away sporting fixtures, this is causing such grief that Mr Swayne has asked in Parliament whether it is right that teachers should be forbidden to drive children in this way.

Schools minister Jim Knight didn't know the answer but said he would look into it. Harriet Harman, Leader of the House, suggested that Mr Swayne should move for a debate on the issue.

Had those ministers or Hampshire's education officer learned to use Google, they might have found in seconds that this is all a fuss about nothing. The two relevant EU directives on driving licences, 91/439 and 2003/59, make clear that teachers are exempted from the licensing requirements, as does a leaflet available at the click of a mouse on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency website.

But does it not say something about the way we now allow our laws to be made in Brussels that neither ministers nor a council official responsible for enforcing them appear to know what those laws say?

• On October 19, 1999 I reported here a remarkable "personal message" sent out to Britain's small businesses over the signature of Nick Montagu, then head of the Inland Revenue Board. He told them how "exciting and important" it was for him and his staff to be "at the forefront of implementing the new Labour Government's policy agenda".

How apt, in light of the mega-grief they are currently causing the Government, that eight years later our incompetent tax-gatherers appear to be playing such a significant part in New Labour's impending downfall.

 
Philip L. Hoag

As far-fetched as this subject may seem, leaders in the elite global establishment have intimated the existence of this technology and its capabilities. In 1970 Zbigniew Brzezinski published a book titled Between Two Ages. Brzezinski is one of the founding directors of the Trilateral Commission. In this book he said, "Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised…Technology of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm."

Further confirmation of the Western power elite’s interest in weather modification was revealed in an article which appeared in the September 12, 1989 edition of the Washington Post. This article reported on the 1989 Tokyo conference on global environment. The president of the World Bank, Barber Conable, who is also a Trilateral Commission member, gave a speech in which he outlined the long-range goals of the one world elite. In this speech he said, "while higher temperatures may cause ‘a number of natural disasters,’ they might also warm cold and unproductive lands in the north into productivity."

There is very good evidence that the one world group and the Soviets have been jointly involved in weather modification over the Northern Hemisphere since the early 1970s. In 1971 it was alleged that the U.S. and the Soviets started cooperating in secret weather modification projects. One such project was named POLEX, Polar Experiment of the Global Atmospheric Research Program, and another in 1973 was called AIDJEX, the Arctic Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment. It is purported that these experiments involved attempts to melt the polar ice cap. Other U.S. projects such as Nile Blue and Climate Dynamics involved the changing of the arctic ice pack. There was even an article in the December 16, 1980, edition of the New York Times discussing a joint U.S.-Soviet project involving the transmission of ELF waves from Antarctica designed "to interfere with the earth’s magnetic field."

Soviet Woodpecker System
The Soviet weather modification project is referred to as the Woodpecker system. It involves the transmissions of extreme low frequency (ELF) waves at about 10 hertz using Tesla transmitters in Angarsk and Khabarovsk in Siberia, Gomel, Sakhalin Island, Nikolayev in the Ukraine, Riga in Latvia and also a site 60 miles south of Havana in Cuba. To give you an idea of the magnitude of this system, the facility near Havana, Cuba, is said to be maintained and operated by a staff of 2,500 Soviet personnel.
These transmitters generate electromagnetic transmissions that produce an ELF scalar grid over the United States. This is done by transmitting these low frequency scalar waves in pairs so that they converge at a predetermined point on the earth’s surface and cause a disruption of the atmosphere. This technology can be used to alter the course of the jet stream and set up long- term weather blocks.

Long-term Weather Blocking
The long-lasting California drought in the 80s was caused by a massive ridge of high pressure 800 miles off the California coast which hovered for extended periods of time, blocking the usual flow of moist air coming in from the Pacific and pushing storms around to the north. Meteorologists who have analyzed this phenomena consider it to be one of the most unusual national patterns ever recorded, unique in the annals of weather recording. Such long-lasting centers of high pressure were unheard of until 1977. Evidence suggests that this was possibly caused by Woodpecker generated giant standing ELF waves which are transmitted by the Soviets intentionally to block the flow of normal weather patterns.
This phenomenon of long-lasting centers of high pressure is not limited to producing drought. In 1993 the Midwest region experienced severe flooding which was a result of the wettest period in this particular area since rainfall record keeping began in 1876. This flood was a result again of what meteorologists called a blocking pattern.
The normal weather systems usually move from west to east across the U.S., but during the ’93 flood the weather systems stalled for six weeks over the upper Midwest. A high pressure system over the eastern part of the United States was causing warm, moist air to move up from the Gulf of Mexico and dump moisture in the Midwest, where it met the jet stream. This weather pattern involved an unusual shift in the jet stream, which during the summer is usually weak and typically found much farther north in Canada.
This stationary high pressure front also blocked the path of cold Canadian air, resulting in record low temperatures in the Northwest. According to the September 1993 issue of Storm, The World Weather Magazine:
"It is extremely unusual for weather patterns to persist for so many weeks, bringing heavy rainfall to the same area almost on a daily basis… The reasons for the weather patterns to become fixed, as they did in June and July, 1993, are unclear."

GWEN
A system somewhat similar to the Soviet Woodpecker has been set up in the United States called the Ground Wave Emergency Network, or GWEN. This network was built under the guise, or possible dual use, of an emergency communication system that would not be interrupted by electromagnetic pulse during a nuclear war.
GWEN units are capable of altering the magnetic field within a 200- to 250-mile radius. The individual units themselves are made up of 300-foot tall towers which transmit radio waves through hundreds of bare copper wires which are each 300 feet in length. These wires are buried in the ground in a spoke pattern radiating out from the base of the tower. The wires interact with the earth like a thin-shelled conductor, radiating the radio wave energy for very long distances through the ground.
These units are located in Texas, Nevada, Maine, North Carolina, Maryland, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, California, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, New York, Alabama, Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana.
There is fairly significant evidence to suggest that these GWEN units in combination with the Soviet Woodpecker transmissions made a significant contribution to creating the extensive flooding in the Midwest in 1993.

It is interesting to note that the Russians are now openly marketing a small version of their weather engineering system called Elate, which can fine tune weather patterns over a 200-mile area. These units seem to have the same range as the individual GWEN unit. One of these Elate units operates at Moscow’s Bykovo Airport.

The threats of weather warfare, totalitarian government and famine dovetail together. As we saw in the famine which the Soviets artificially created in the Ukraine prior to World War II, famine is an effective means of subjugating a people. By controlling food, you can control people. Weather modification can affect food production and eventually the available supply. Starving resisters out is much more effective than having to track them down and shoot it out with them. If you have not surrendered your weapons, you don’t get a food ration coupon. Long-term food storage, well hidden, is the only insulation against famine and totalitarian oppression.

Tesla-Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons
An article in the spring 1993 edition of Orbis Magazine reported on another article which had appeared in the 1992 edition of a Russian magazine called Military Thought. This article, among other things, revealed Soviet involvement in the development of Tesla-scalar electromagnetic weapons: "…The current civil-military consensus also includes an image of future war based on the development and deployment of advanced conventional munitions, direct-energy weapons, space-based strike weapons and anti-ballistic missiles, and third-generation nuclear weapons."

With the debate focused on a warming Earth, the icy consequences of a cooler future have not been considered

By Lawrence Solomon

You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”

The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness — what alarms Dr. Chapman and others — may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn’t – and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not – we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome.

Sunspots have been well documented throughout human history, starting in the fourth century BC, with written descriptions by Gan De, a Chinese astronomer. In 1128, an English monk, John of Worcester, was the first person known to have drawn sunspots, and after the telescope’s arrival in the early 1600s, observations and drawings became commonplace, including by such luminaries as Galileo Galilei. Then, to the astonishment of astronomers, they saw the sunspots diminish and die out altogether.

This was the case during the Little Ice Age, a period starting in the 15th or 16th century and lasting centuries, says NASA’s Goddard Space Centre, which links the absence of sunspots to the cold that then descended on Earth. During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a time known as the Maunder Minimum (named after English astronomer Edward Maunder), astronomers saw only about 50 sunspots over a 30-year period, less than one half of 1% of the sunspots that would normally have been expected. Other Minimums — times of low sunspot activity — also corresponded to times of unusual cold.

The consequences of the Little Ice Age, because they occurred in relatively recent times, have come down to us through literature and the arts as well as from historians and scientists, government and business records. When Shakespeare wrote of “lawn as white as driven snow,” he had first-hand experience – Europe was bitterly cold in his day, a sharp contrast to the very warm weather that preceded his birth. During the Little Ice Age, the River Thames froze over, the Dutch developed the ice skate and the great artists of the day learned to love a new genre: the winter landscape.

In what had been a warm Europe , adaptations were not all happy: Growing seasons in England and Continental Europe generally became short and unreliable, which led to shortages and famine. These hardships were nothing compared to the more northerly countries: Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finland’s population fell by one-third, Iceland’s by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities. The cold in North America spread so far south that, in the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.

In the same way that the Earth shivered when sunspots disappeared, the Earth warmed when sunspot activity became pronounced. The warm period about 1000 years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period — a time of bounty in which grapes grew in England and Greenland was colonized — also was a time of high sunspot activity, called the Medieval Maximum. Since 1900, Earth has experienced what astronomers call “the Modern Maximum” — the 20th century has again been a time of high sunspot activity.

But the 1900s are gone, along with the high temperatures that accompanied them. The last 10 years have seen no increase in temperatures — they reached a plateau and then remained there — and the last year saw a precipitous decline. How much lower and for how long the temperatures will fall, if at all, no one yet knows — the science is far from settled on what drives climate.
But many are watching the sun for answers, and for good reason. Several renowned scientists have been predicting for some time that the world could enter a period of cooling right around now, with consequences that could be dire. “The next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do,” believes Dr. Chapman. “There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.”

We are now at the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, so named because it is the 24th consecutive cycle that astronomers have listed, starting with the first cycle that began in March, 1755, and ended in June, 1766. Each cycle lasts an average of approximately 11 years; each is marked by sunspots that first erupt in the mid latitudes of the sun, and then, over the course of the 11 years, erupt progressively toward the sun’s equator; each is marked by a change in the polarity of the sun’s hemispheres; each changes the temperature on Earth in ways that humans don’t fully understand, but cannot in all honesty deny.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Atmosphere

Water Resources

Oceans

Soil

Forests

Living Species

Population

Warning