Archive for the ‘climate change’ tag
I Love The Smell of Pepper Spray in the Morning
John Michael Greer
A whiff of pepper spray rising from a suburban big box store, a breathtakingly absurd comment by an American politician, a breathtakingly cynical statement from a Canadian minister: three scraps of data sent whirling down the wind unnoticed by most of today’s disinformation society, which are also three clues to the exceptionally unwelcome future the industrial world is making for itself. Let’s take them one at a time, in reverse order.
On Monday, as a new round of climate change talks got under way in Durban, Canadian environment minister Peter Kent confirmed earlier media reports that Canada will refuse to accept any further cuts in its carbon dioxide output under the Kyoto treaty. Since Canada is one of only two countries on Earth that uses more energy per capita than the United States—an impressive feat, really, when you think about it—you might be tempted to believe that there was room for some modest cuts, but that notion is nowhere in Kent’s view of the universe. Those same media reports claimed that Canada was preparing to extract itself from the Kyoto treaty altogether; Kent dodged that question, but as Bob Dylan sang a good long time ago, you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
The week before, in a debate among candidates for the GOP’s presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich responded to a question about oil supplies by insisting that the United States could easily increase its oil production by four million barrels a day next year, if only those dratted environmentalists in the other party weren’t getting in the way. This absurd claim was quickly and efficiently refuteded by several peak oil writers—Art Berman’s essay over on the Oil Drum is a good example—but outside the peak oil blogosphere, nobody blinked. Never mind that the entire United States only produces 5.9 million barrels a day, that it took twenty years for the Alaska North Slope fields (peak production, 2 million barrels per day) to go from discovery to maximum output, or that the United States has been explored for oil more thoroughly than any other piece of real estate on the planet; the pundits and the public alike nodded and went on to the next question, as though a serious contender for the position of most powerful human being on the planet hadn’t just gone on record claiming that two plus two is whatever you want it to be.
All of which brings us inevitably to a Los Angeles suburb on Thanksgiving, where a woman seems to have peppersprayed her fellow shoppers to get a video game console to put under her Christmas tree.
To be fair, the situation seems to have been a bit more complex than that sounds at first hearing. If you’re still thinking of Thanksgiving Day in America in terms of lavish turkey dinners and visits from relatives, think again. Nowadays it serves mostly to mark the beginning of the year’s big shopping season, and stores on the cutting edge of American marketing open their doors Thanksgiving night to give shoppers their first shot at whatever overpriced gewgaws the media has decreed will be the hot item this year. The store where the pepper spray incident happened was one of these. There, the mob that formed, waiting for the sale to start, turned unruly; there was apparently shoving and shouting, and then the pepper spray came out. According to witnesses, the woman who used it incapacitated enough of the competition to get to one of the video game consoles that were the center of the agitation, hurried off with it to a checkstand, bought the console and got away. Twenty people, some of them children, needed treatment by medics at the scene.
A fair amount of self-important clucking in the American media followed the incident, though I don’t think anyone quite had the bad taste to point out that at least this year nobody was trampled to death by mobs of shoppers—yes, this happens every few years. Stephen Colbert, as usual, landed one in the bull’s-eye by pointing out that the incident would make a great video game. He’s right enough that I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Black Friday, in which shoppers punch, spray, stab, and shoot each other to get choice gifts for Christmas, turns out to be the hot new video game sensation next year, and no doubt inspires pepper sprayings and tramplings of its own.
What all these three news stories have in common is that they display an attitude—it could as well be described as a belief, or even a religion—that treats the satisfaction of short term cravings for material goods as the only thing that really matters. The shopper with her pepper spray, the politician with his absurd claim, and the government with its blind disregard for national survival, each acted as though getting the stuff is all that matters, and any obstacle in the way—whether the obstacle was other shoppers, the laws of physics and geology, or the fate of Canada’s future generations—was an irrelevance to be brushed aside by any available means.
In recent years, there’s been a fair amount of intellectual effort devoted to the attempt to prove that this is inevitably how human beings will act, and this effort has had an influence well beyond the borders of, say, cognitive neuroscience. Glance over anything the peak oil blogosphere has to say about the absurdity of today’s public policies on energy, the environment, or the economy, for example, and it’s a safe bet that somebody will post a comment insisting that this is how human beings always behave. In point of historical fact, though, this is far from true. The popularity of the monastic life across so many cultures and centuries is hard to square with such claims; it has not been uncommon for anything up to ten per cent of the population of some countries and times to embrace lives of poverty, celibacy and discipline in a monastic setting. Clearly, whatever drives push our species in the direction of the satisfaction of short term cravings are not quite as omnipotent as they’ve been made out to be.
More to the point, those of us who had the chance to get to know people of the generation that came of age in the Great Depression have a solid counterexample to mind. A great many Americans who lived through that long ordeal came out of the experience with a set of attitudes toward material goods that were radically different from the ones we’ve just been discussing. They were, to judge by the examples I had the chance to know, as materialistic as any other American generation has ever been, but the shadow of 1929 lay permanently across any notion that pursuing short term gains at the cost of long term disaster could possibly be a good idea. It’s not accidental that the gutting of regulations on banks that made the current economic debacle possible did not happen until the generation that had witnessed 1929 had passed from public life—nor that it was the generation of the Baby Boom, the first to grow up after depression and war had definitively given way to Pax Americana, that first put today’s culture of short term satisfaction into overdrive.
The behavior of a society, in other words, has at least as much to do with its recent experience of the world as it does with the deeper but more diffuse influence of the biological drives its members share with the rest of the species. Ironically, Gingrich’s response in the presidential debate pointed this up, though I suspect he himself will be the last person on the planet to realize this. He insisted that just as the United States was able to crush the Axis powers in the Second World War, a mobilization on a similar scale guided by the same optimism and can-do attitude could overwhelm any conceivable petroleum shortage and crash the price of oil. It’s a common metaphor—how many times have people in the peak oil scene, for example, called for a new Manhattan Project?—but in the present context it’s hopelessly misleading.
The Second World War, if anything, is a textbook case in what happens when optimism and a can-do attitude runs up against the hard facts of thermodynamics. All things considered, the Axis powers had better generalship, more disciplined military forces, and a much keener grasp of the possibilities of mechanized warfare than the Allies had at first, and Germany, at least, was ahead of the Allies in advanced military technology all the way through the war. What they did not have was secure access to fuel—and lacking that, they lost. Russia’s Baku oilfields and the immense US petroleum deposits in Texas and elsewhere more than made up the difference, providing the Allies with practically limitless supplies of energy, and thus of troops, weapons, mobility, and everything else that makes for victory in war. Having those things, they won.
It’s all the more ironic in that a similar struggle had a similar result on Gingrich’s home turf a century and a half ago. No one can possibly accuse the Confederacy of a shortage of optimism or can-do attitude, and the chief Confederate generals were incomparably better than their Union rivals. What those same Union generals finally figured out, though, was that the North’s larger population and vastly greater economic base meant that generalship didn’t matter; the North simply had to force the South into one meatgrinder battle after another, because even if the Union losses were larger, they could be replaced and the South’s could not. Appomattox followed in due order.
One of the points that needs to be drawn from these examples, and the many others like them, is that optimism and a can-do attitude are in large part effects rather than causes; or, to put matters a little differently, they are relevant to certain circumstances and not to others. In the twentieth century, a nation with abundant supplies of coal, oil, and iron ore could well afford boundless optimism, and got along better with boundless optimism than without it, because the resource base was there to back up that optimism and give it muscles—and, when necessary, teeth. A nation that lacks such resources but still sets out to act on the basis of boundless optimism, on the other hand, risks ending up in roughly the same condition as the American South in 1865 or Germany and Japan in 1945. Such a nation needs to foster entirely different qualities than the ones just mentioned: circumspection, patience, and a keen sense of the downside risks of any opportunity come to mind. Equipped with these, it’s possible for a nation with few resources to distract, dissuade, and ultimately outlast its potential enemies. That’s the secret of Switzerland’s survival, to cite one example among many.
The wild card in these calculations comes into play when shifts in technology, on the one hand, or the depletion of nonrenewable resources on the other, changes the status of a nation faster than its internal cultural shifts can adapt. Britain’s history is a case in point. Britain’s empire happened to come of age just as the Industrial Revolution was dawning, and coal—of which Britain had huge and easily accessible deposits—was the essential fuel of that revolution, powering the steam engines and (in the form of coke) the iron and steel foundries that were essential to economic and military power in the 18th and 19th centuries. With the dawn of the 20th century, though, petroleum—far more energy-rich than even the best anthracite coal, and irreplaceable as fuel for gasoline and diesel engines, which were busy putting coal-fired steam power out of business—elbowed coal out of the way. Britain had next to no petroleum supplies of her own, since the offshore drilling techniques that made the North Sea fields accessible were still decades in the future.
The result was a tremendous new range of vulnerabilities that next to nobody noticed in time. Twice in twenty-five years, accordingly, Britain blundered into a land war in Europe and found itself abruptly scrambling for survival. In both cases, it had to turn to its erstwhile colony, the United States, to bail it out, and the price tag on those bailouts finally included Britain’s empire and its status as a major world power. (There were several other countries just as eager as we were to buy Britain’s empire and status, but—well, basically, we peppersprayed them and left the store with our prize.) Optimism and a can-do attitude counted for very little, for example, when German submarines could throw a noose around the British islands that Britain alone couldn’t break.
The end of the age of petroleum promises another set of upsets on the same scale, but this time it’s not because some more convenient and concentrated resource has suddenly come on the scene. It’s because the world’s production of conventional petroleum peaked in 2005 and has been declining ever since. A desperate scramble to fill the resulting gap with what appear on the charts as “other liquids”—ethanol, biodiesel, tar sand extracts, you name it, if it can be poured into a fuel tank and burnt, it gets counted—has filled in the gap, at least for now, but all these “other liquids” require much more energy to produce than ordinary petroleum does, and of course those energy inputs aren’t accounted for in the totals. Thus, on paper, we’ve been chugging along a bumpy plateau for six years now, while in the real world—because of the rising energy inputs demanded by the “other liquids”—the supply of fuel available to do anything other than produce more fuel has been steadily sliding.
The problem we face right now is that it’s only been a few short years since world petroleum production was expanding, and next to nobody has begun to think through the implications of the shift. Neither the United States nor anybody else has the vast supplies of energy and other raw materials that would be needed to back up the confident, brash optimism of an earlier day, and yet we still cling to the notion that those attitudes are the appropriate response to any crisis, because that’s the approach we know. Patience, prudence, hard realism, the cold-eyed assessment of potential risks—those are foreign concepts to the leaders and the populace alike in most of the world’s industrial nations, and especially so here in America, where the cult of enthusiastic optimism has been welded solidy in place since before the birth of the Republic. It has always worked before, and most Americans at every point on the socioeconomic spectrum are firmly convinced that it will work again.
But it will not work again, because the resources that would allow it to work again no longer exist.
That is why, dear reader, if you happen to live for another few decades, and have the chance to look back from that vantage point on the years just ahead of us, you are likely to see those years littered with the scraps of any number of grandiose plans meant to overcome the rising spiral of crises taking shape around us right now. None of them will have worked, because none of them will deal with the driving force behind that spiral of crisis—the hard fact that we’ve exhausted most of the easily extracted, highly concentrated energy sources on this planet, and are going to have to downscale our expectations and our collective sense of entitlement to fit within the narrower and more burdensome limits that dependence on renewable energy sources will impose on us. Quite the contrary; every one of these projects will start from the assumption that optimism and a can-do attitude can overcome those limits—and the tighter the limits press and the more obvious it becomes that the limits aren’t budging, the more passionate the claims that one more heroic effort will defeat them once and for all.
Those claims will come from every point on the political spectrum, and will wrap themselves in every conceivable scrap of rhetoric that comes to hand. Before all this is over, I expect to see people who now call themselves environmentalists advocating for the stripmining of our national parks—in an environmentally sensitive manner, to be sure. We’ve already seen erstwhile environmentalists such as Stewart Brand and George Monbiot championing nuclear power; how poisoning the biosphere with radioactive waste makes more sense than flooding the atmosphere with carbon dioxide may well puzzle you as much as it does me, but straining at greenhouse gnats and swallowing nuclear camels is apparently a job requirement in their field these days.
What neither the pundits nor the politicians nor ordinary people are willing to consider, in turn, is the one option that offers a meaningful way forward: learning the old and necessary lesson that our desires need to be held within the bounds that the universe provides for us, and that long term goals and values need to trump short term cravings, especially where material goods are concerned. We can no longer afford the sort of attitude that insists that it’s okay to pepperspray our fellow shoppers to get that brand new video game console, or pepperspray the laws of physics and geology to get that extra four million barrels a day of oil (or, more precisely, to get the presidency by pretending we can get that extra four million barrels a day of oil), or pepperspray Canada’s grandchildren to get the right set of pretty figures on the national balance of trade and federal budget. Still, for the foreseeable future, pepperspray will be popular in the corridors of power and the corner tavern alike, and it will take a certain number of unnecessary disasters before that ends and people in the industrial world begin to come to terms with the new reality.
This, finally, is why I’ve spent the last year and a half passing on what I learned, decades ago, of the do-it-yourself green wizardry of the Seventies, and why I’ve supplemented that over the last two months with some of the basic elements of magic—the art and science of causing change in consciousness in accordance with will—which I also began to learn in the Seventies, and which had rather more than a nodding acquaintance in those days with the movements focused on appropriate technology, organic gardening, and the rest of it. During the years immediately ahead of us, unless I’m very much mistaken, the political, economic, and cultural institutions of the industrial world can be counted on to do just about anything other than a meaningful response to the crisis of our age, and any meaningful response that does happen is going to have to come from individuals, families, and community groups.
During those same years, I suspect, every available effort will be made to convince as many people as possible that the nonsolutions on offer are actually meaningful responses, and the things that might actually help—using less, conserving more, and downscaling our burden on the planet—are unthinkable. That’s the sort of thing that happens when the world changes, and structures and institutions adapted to an old reality turn out to be hopelessly unworkable in the new one. Next week we’ll talk about what might follow that period, and wrap up the discussion of green wizardry and magic alike for the time being.
Those of my readers who enjoy modern dance and are interested in supporting what, as far as I know, is the world’s first peak oil-related dance performance may be interested to know that choreographer Valerie Green and her dance troupe, Dance Entropy, are seeking sponsors and donors for their upcoming piece Rise and Fall, which is based in part on my book The Long Descent. It’s a worthy cause, and certainly has more to recommend it than dodging pepper spray in a big box store. . .
May 8, 2011 – SALMON, Idaho — A record number of big-game animals perished this winter in parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from a harsh season of unusually heavy snows and sustained cold in the Northern Rockies, state wildlife managers say. “Elk, deer and moose — those animals are having a pretty tough time,” said Wyoming Game and Fish biologist Doug Brimeyer. Snow and frigid temperatures in pockets of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming arrived earlier and lingered longer than usual, extending the time that wildlife were forced to forage on low reserves for scarce food, leading more of them to starve. Based on aerial surveys of big-game herds and signals from radio-collared animals, experts are documenting high mortality among offspring of mule deer, white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope. This comes as big-game animals enter the last stretch of a period from mid-March through early May that is considered critical for survival. Wildlife managers estimate die-offs in the tens of thousands across thousands of square miles that span prairie in northeastern Montana, the upper Snake River basin in Idaho near Yellowstone National Park and the high country of northwestern Wyoming near the exclusive resort of Jackson. Brimeyer said the estimated death rate doubled among deer fawns in the Jackson area this year, rising to 60 percent or more from 30 percent. He said many thousands more elk have crowded the feeding grounds of the National Elk Refuge near Jackson, yet another sign of the toll winter is exacting. The trend also is pronounced in a wildlife management area near McCall in the mountains of central Idaho, where the estimated mortality rate among mule deer fawns is 90 percent this winter, compared with an average annual rate of 20 percent. –MSNBC
by Michael Edwards
On a secluded estate in England, a small group from the elite UK think-tank, The Royal Society, are openly discussing control over the planet’s weather. The Orwellian nature of the discussion is stunning, as this select group seemingly wrings their hands over how to delegate the proper authority to research such godlike power. They begin by asking a rhetorical question, “Who decides?”
In a candid AP story, the entire agenda is laid bare as we are treated to a session that is “generally off the record.” This is the grand rollout to be sure: from research to implementation, they announce much of what is already provably in the works, as well as the road toward a future of unthinkable control by an inner circle of ideologues with the task to “save the planet.”
History is full of these great “experts” who have taken on the burden of saving the rest of us. Elites throughout the ages have insisted that the common man or woman is simply not up to the task . . . if left to our own devices, we might just destroy the place. So, let’s first recap how these elite thinkers have done so far based on the key indicators of human prosperity.
Peace: The “peace process” is apparently a long one. Since the War To End All Wars, there has been a steady string of significant wars, protracted conflicts, or “kinetic actions.” The central planners have failed fantastically when it comes to peace, and there is no sign of this trend reversing, as it openly has been announced that a Nobel Peace Prize can be given to the leader of the free world who has extended and declared warsthat are unconstitutional and morallyreprehensible. Rather, events are demonstrably leading straight to World War III. It seems like we would be better off without the humanitarian aid offered by such peaceniks.
Freedom: The Map of Freedom shows most of the global population living under some form of authoritarian control, especially when North America is evaluated honestly. Just about all of the rest lives under Democracy, which is nothing more than the soft version where two wolves and a sheep meet to decide what is for dinner. This is the globalist model, which prefers centralized controland a curtailing of individual freedom by mafia or mob rule, resulting in the sucking of all wealth and power toward a top ruling class. As Louis Brandeis, former Supreme Court Justice said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Countries with a true free market of ideas and commerceare few and far between.
Economy: The model of centralized elite banking management has been an abject failure.
All central banks in history that have used fiat money — most of which financed both sides of wars– have failed in that they have bankrupted their nations and only have enriched those in control. The current exposure of the U.S. Federal Reserve is finally reaching a crescendo, but our managers are already a step ahead discussing the endgame of a one-world currency to solve the inadequacies of the past. I think we have had enough examples of their central planning skills.
Health: Between the EPA, FDA, and USDA — just to cite U.S. agencies — our elite researchers, scientists, and policy makers have been responsible for millions of deaths, conservatively. And it is only getting worse, as this global health tyrannyaims to criminalize the food and supplements that are actually proven to extend our lives. The key poisons theyenableinclude: mercury, aspartame, MSG, (most) vaccines, and GMO’s; all proven to reduce cognition, bodily health, and life expectancy.
Environment: Fukushima is only the latest in a long history of corporate/government mismanagement with global consequences.Experts claiming to show the benefits and safety of their advice continuously bombard us. Yet,our planet has now endured multiple nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, fracking-induced earthquakes, and global fallout from wars using depleted uranium — all of which have contaminated Earth and poisoned future generations beyond imagining. The only success these elites can document is the mass killing by dictatorslike Genghis Khan, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin who eliminated a conservative total of over 100 million people, thus reducing CO2. Well done if you are a nihilist.
With such a track record of desolation for all but the top directors, we had best pay attention to their own words about what direction they have in store for us next.
Most alarming about this semi-clandestine meeting is that the very premise upon which they base this need for global orchestration — Global Warming– has been thoroughly debunked by any climatologist not beholden to a government sponsored think tank or agency. Their famously cited Plan B for inevitable climate change is nothing more than a wish list for those who wish to de-industrialize productive nations and consolidate control through wealth redistribution. Not a good way to start saving people.
With lies as the basis for what is to follow, we continue along our Orwellian path set forth by “scientists and scholars” toward a comprehensive new vision for the future which was framed by this elite roundtable normally hidden from public view, but brought to us by the Associated Propaganda news agency:
Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.
Science: “If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist,”
– Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo.
Well, we can give points for honesty here, but are we really to believe that this “experimentation” has not already begun? Their own words and observable facts prove otherwise. The top contender for geoengineering on a planetary scale, according to the panel, is “stratospheric aerosol particles.” In what sounds a whole lot like tin-foil hat conspiracy Chemtrails, these “particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices.” The current evidence for such activity has already been exhaustively documented by researchers and popularized by films such as “What In The World Are They Spraying?”. The panel actually calls this technique Sun Radiation Management (SRM). The problem with management is that managers are then necessary, and the ones that have been appointed should not be to our liking.
Law: “These scenarios create winners and losers . . . Who is going to decide?”John Shepherd of Britain’s Southhampton University, lead author of a 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering.
The think tank warns that a “coalition of scientifically capable nations” should set world direction — led of course by the U.S. and Britain, two of the most egregious abusers of the planet — “perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others . . . ” But when in doubt just invoke the U.N to convince the masses that, “Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth’s atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.” The United Nations; world police force and repository of incremental global control.
Politics:”One of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use.” –Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh referring to weather modification.
If the weather can truly be controlled, then one can surmise that we are entering a future of weather wars. And, yet, this already has been addressed in key white papers such as Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather By 2025. Perhaps the real concern is similar to that of all WMDs — to be sure that only the ruling elite can use them, while anyone who opposes or retaliates is marked with the cattle brand ofterrorist.
Philosophy:”There’s the ‘slippery slope’ view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it’s OK to think about things you shouldn’t be thinking about.” —Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University’s geoengineering program.
The philosophy of“thinking the unthinkable” always has been trumpeted as a necessary contingency plan to protect the masses from lone nuts and rogue governments when, in reality, it is the justification for what already has been engineered by psychopaths and sociopaths in positions of power within dominant governments and by their think-tank minions. It is their hatred for the masses and subsequent policies that lead to what normal people call unthinkable scenarios.
Conclusion: “I’m queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research,” –Clive Hamilton, Australian economist-ethicist. It takes a lot morethan a few billion dollars to orchestrate weather control, just as flight-school flunkies with box cutters, or a white supremacist in Oklahoma with a store-bought truck bomb cannot orchestrate large-scale terrorism.For arealmessiah complex with money to back it, one needs a government sponsor. This is misdirection right from the playbook . . . andthatshould make us queasy.
Naturally, “All discussions lead to the central theme of how to oversee research.” There it is: more control. This control is hidden by our overseers in their “worry” that this new capability will lead to a Geoengineering Industrial Complex. It is a pathetic echo of Eisenhower’s famous speech warning of a Military Industrial Complex. This is not a worry at all, as we are getting the message straight from The Four Horsemen’s mouth. These days such worries are not issued as a dire broadcast of the threat to individual liberty; they are sibilant whispers to a mainstream media peddling the message that only the eradication of individual liberty can save us all.
Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered – Congress Exceeds Billions To Spray Population Like Roaches
Recently, the question has been asked, What In the World Are They Spraying? The documentary with the same name answers many of those questions. The question the world is now asking is “Who in the World Is Spraying Us?”
The World is Now Demanding Answers and Accountability . . .
As an introduction to this article, we will first cover information to familiarize the uninformed readers as to the core facts and information so that a more complete understanding is possible, given this complex issue.
In the report Sen. Johnny Isakson was interviewed on the subject of chemtrails saying quote:
“That is a theory that some people have, but there is no evidence this is happening. This is not happening.”
It looks as if members of the government’s upper echelon and even members of the Senate will go to extreme lengths to suppress this vital information from reaching the American people.
Not to mention they signed off on the multi-billion dollar per year budgets in an economic crisis, with little to no transparency to the public.
In regards to aerosol spraying into the earth’s atmosphere, a recent update to data assembled by The Carnicom Institute reveals the chemicals used and their respective levels of concentration. The toxic levels that are being used in these aerosols goes beyond shocking – it would appear that these levels are indeed criminal by EPA Standards.
An Updated Look at Aerosol Toxins – Part 1
By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri –
Copyright © 2011 – All Rights Reserved
February 3, 2011
(Excerpt from Report)
A new preliminary draft report by ArizonaSkyWatch shows dramatic increases in heavy metals that simply do not belong in our air. NOTE: The level of Manganese is so shockingly high that ArizonaSkyWatch also included additional information about it (see below). This report will be posted online shortly.
This is only a preliminary overview of Arizona Air Particulates.
2010 Air Particulates
These figures indicate how many times they are over the allowable toxic limit:
Interestingly enough, Monsanto has just released an Aluminum Resistant Seed which isGenetically Modified to tolerate Aluminum in high levels in the soil. Is this a coincidence, or do they know something?
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” – Henry Kissinger
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Richard Haass– Club of Rome
Another famous quote;
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. – Thomas Jefferson
LINKS FOR CURRENT SOURCES
The Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) exists to accelerate the innovative development and evaluation of science and technology to address carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental consequences. The non-profit research fund focuses on early-stage innovative research where relatively small and timely grants can significantly advance understanding, especially of the viability and scalability of proposals to address global warming.
Funded research projects are intended to produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles in recognized professional scientific and technical journals. Any intellectual property that may be generated in the course of such research resides with the researchers or their institutions.
Grants for research are provided to the University of Calgary from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds.
The activities of the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research fall outside the scope of activities of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. FICER is not a Foundation project and has no relationship with it.
The fund has supported research in a wide range of areas. Some examples include:
• understanding carbon dioxide emissions associated with international trade in goods and services;
• developing technologies to capture carbon dioxide out of the air; and
• climate modeling to understand possible environmental consequences of solar radiation management.
Report On GeoEngineering
A select group of diabolic oligarch globalists and their puppet cronies embedded within the United States government are now involved in what some would say are crimes against humanity. These tyrants will stop at nothing to usher their hush, hush global aerosol agenda into full swing.
According to a report prepared for the Air Force titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the WeatherBy 2025” the U.S. Air Force wants to fully control the weather on earth by the year 2025.
Far surpassing even the most horrific act of terror (real or staged), posing as literal gods, these globalists will stop at nothing to control the world by not only controlling the fraudulent banking systems but by owning the weather through a process (blanket term) calledGeoengineering.
According to globalist sponsored reports, our planet is in a constant state of threat and is being bombarded with radioactive solar rays increasing planetary temperatures due to human carbon emissions. However, vast bodies of research now show that that is not the case and that global warming is a another globalist myth, a ponzi scheme to collect a Carbon Tax worldwide, benefitting the very same group behind the curtain.
The myth the global warming “Carbon Tax” pushers have been spouting apparently can only be fixed by spraying deadly toxins in an aerosol particulate form into the earths atmosphere via large sprayer converted aircraft specifically assigned to perform Geoengineering tasks.
Aerosol sprays (slang: Chemtrails) are filled with a variety of chemical and metal compounds and are known to be very hazardous to human, plant, and animal health worldwide. This danger to plant and human and animal health has been documented in films such as “What In the World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy & G. Edward Griffin, who have also appeared on the Intel Hub Radio Show with Shepard Ambellas.
Ultimately, this issue was originally a matter for the EPA to rule over considering that they have the authority to sanction geoengineering activities under the National Environmental Policy ACT of 1969. However, documents such as the report to the chairman, Committee of Science and Technology, House of Representatives – “Climate Change” – Sept. 2010, U.S. Gov. Accountability Office which was submitted to all members of congress in 2010 attempt to put control into the hands of even a smaller group of people.
This report clearly is slanted and leans to take control away from the EPA along with other regulatory provisions such as; the Endangered Species ACT, and the Conformity Provision in the Clean Air ACT – total Geoengineering dis-info submitted to members of the Congress and other government branches alike.
ClickTo Enlarge PDF
The source of most of the dis-info is Obama’s White House Science Czar John P. Holdren. The following was written on USGCRP letterhead;
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, I am transmitting a copy of Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011. The report describes the activities and plans of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) established under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates scientific research on climate and global change and is supported by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. government. This Fiscal Year 2011 edition of Our Changing Planet highlights recent advances and progress made by participating agencies and includes budget information on each agency’s contribution.
This report describes a program in transition. In accordance with the GCRA, the USGCRP agencies requested guidance from the National Research Council on how to best meet the changing needs of the nation to understand climate change and respond to its impacts, and the NRC responded with a 2009 report entitled “Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change”. In accord with that report’s recommendations, the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment that will ensure that the science produced is maximally useful for decision makers at all scales. As described in the new edition of Our Changing Planet, the program going forward will place greater emphasis on impacts, vulnerabilities, and on understanding the options for adapting to the changing climate. The program will also continue its long-standing support for activities that contribute to a better understanding of the Earth system, including observations, research, and predictive modeling.
All of these focuses will be reflected in the USGCRP’s new strategic plan and its National Climate Assessment.
The USGCRP is committed to its mission to build a knowledge base that informs human responses to global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support. I appreciate the close cooperation of the participating agencies, and I look forward to working with the Congress in the continued development and implementation of this essential national program.
John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” – Our Changing Planet
Even more disturbing then that is the fact that your so called representatives have been approving yearly geoengineering budgets in the upwards of billions of dollars per year (as outlined in the document “Our Changing Planet – The US Global Change Research Program for the Fiscal Year of 2011, which is a supplement to the Presidents Budget for 2011, much of which is unaccounted for and not even included in the budget possible signifying even a more nefarious plot involving some black budget.
Back tracking to the year 2001, President elect George W. Bush established the (CCRI) Climate Change Research Initiative. A year later it was made public that the USGCRP or United States Global Change Research program and the CCRI both would become what is known as the (CCSP) Climate Change Science Program. Now, under the Obama Administration the legacy continues to move forward as the USGCRP.
A report entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” released in 2009, documents how the USGCRP divided the US into nine regions similar to FEMA regions. Also tucked into the report was the statement “A central finding of the report was that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced” – Source: Our Changing Planet.
The document goes on to mention the devastating effects of climate change, including the effect on crops, human health and livestock.
But the most startling fact in the document is the actual budget itself, a mere 2.7 billion for 2011 alone (not including many costs) 24% higher than 2010’s budget.
The Global Change Research ACT of 1990, SEC. 102, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences states;
a) ESTABLISHMENT.–The President, through the Council, shall establish a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Committee shall carry out Council functions under section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651) relating to global change research, for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts.
(b) MEMBERSHIP.–The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from–
1. the National Science Foundation;
2. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
3. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
4. the Environmental Protection Agency;
5. the Department of Energy;
6. the Department of State;
7. the Department of Defense;
8. the Department of the Interior;
9. the Department of Agriculture;
10. the Department of Transportation;
11. the Office of Management and Budget;
12. the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
13. the Council on Environmental Quality;
14. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; and
15. such other agencies and departments of the United States as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers appropriate.
Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department, wherever possible the head of the portion of that agency or department that is most relevant to the purpose of the title described in section 101(b).
(c) CHAIRPERSON.–The Chairman of the Council, in consultation with the Committee, biennially shall select one of the Committee members to serve as Chairperson. The Chairperson shall be knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the administration of scientific research programs, and shall be a representative of an agency that contributes substantially, in terms of scientific research capability and budget, to the Program.
(d) SUPPORT PERSONNEL.–An Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the
Committee, with the approval of the Committee. The Executive Secretary shall be a permanent employee of one of the agencies or departments represented on the Committee, and shall remain in the employ of such agency or department. The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to the Council for purposes of working on business of the Committee pursuant to section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651).
(e) FUNCTIONS RELATIVE TO GLOBAL CHANGE.–The Council, through the Committee, shall be responsible for planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this responsibility, the Committee shall–
1. serve as the forum for developing the Plan and for overseeing its implementation;
2. improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities;
3. provide budgetary advice as specified in section 105;
4. work with academic, State, industry, and other groups conducting global change research, to
provide for periodic public and peer review of the Program;
5. cooperate with the Secretary of State in– (A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences on global change research in which the United States participates; and
(B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program;
6. consult with actual and potential users of the results of the Program to ensure that such results are useful in developing national and international policy responses to global change; and
7. report at least annually to the President and the Congress, through the Chairman of the Council, on Federal global change research priorities, policies, and programs.”
The following is a list of the members included in the Subcommittee on Global Change Research;
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
Made up of the following members:
Thomas Karl -Department of Commerce Chair
Thomas Armstrong – Department of the Interior Vice Chair, Adaptation Research
Mike Freilich – National Aeronautics and Space Administration Vice Chair, Integrated Observations
Timothy Killeen – National Science Foundation Vice Chair, Strategic Planning
William Breed -U.S. Agency for International Development
John Balbus – Department of Health and Human Services
William Hohenstein – Department of Agriculture
Jack Kaye – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chester Koblinsky – Department of Commerce
Linda Lawson – Department of Transportation
Leonard Hirsch – Smithsonian Institution
Anna Palmisano – Department of Energy
A description of the subcommittee on (p.2) Our Changing Planet Reads;
“The USGCRP is directed by the Subcommittee for Global Change Research (SGCR), which falls under the National Science and Technology Council. The SGCR comprises representatives from 13 departments and agencies and is led by a Chair from one of the participating agencies (currently from the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]). In order to align the program’s governance with the needs, Vice- Chairs have been identified for Strategic Planning, Integrated Observations, and Adaptation Research. Additional vice-chairs will be identified as needed. The program is supported by the USGCRP Integration and Coordination Office and conducts many of its activities through interagency working groups that plan and implement research and crosscutting activities, such as communications, decision support, and information and data concerns. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work closely with the SGCR, the Integration and Coordination Office, and the interagency working groups to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure that the program is aligned with national priorities, reflects agency planning, and meets the requirements of the GCRA. “
The Subcommittee in question has now supplied the President with a supplement to the fiscal budget for 2011, which was presented to members of congress in January of 2011 on behalf of the National Science and Technology Policy – Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, John P. Holdren.
The (USGCRP) brings together a total of 13 different agencies and merges them into one single agency program that has been in the works science 1988 or prior.
In 1990 the USGCRP received generous congressional support under (GCRA P.L. 101-606). It is no mystery that aerosol spraying operations have been ongoing since the early 1990’s. Prior to 1990 one could enjoy a true clear blue sky, a figment of the past in 2011 – where none are to be found.
Airship Proposed for Chemtrail Spraying
So just how deep does the geoengineering/terraforming rabbit hole go? The Intel Hubwas able to obtain a copy of the final report prepared by the University of Calgary under contract by Aurora Flight Sciences titled “Geoengineering cost analysis”. In the report there is smoking gun evidence of the entire geoengineering saga from the secret bases, to the payload, to what type of aircraft or “airship” will be the most cost effective to spread toxic particulates throughout the earths atmosphere. The final report also included budgets for different applications for aerosol dispersal within the atmosphere.
“Existing aircraft are evaluated based on cost of acquisition and operations. An in-depth new aircraft design study and cost analysis was conducted to determine the cost of developing and operating a dedicated geoengineering airplane type. Similarly, an airship design study and cost analysis was conducted. Finally a survey of non-aircraft systems was conducted to determine how their costs compare to aircraft and airships.
Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)
“Geoengineering may provide a means to create a time buffer against catastrophic cli- mate change while long-term emissions reduction actions take effect. One approach is to disperse sulfur compounds at high altitude to reduce the effective solar flux entering the atmosphere. This report will evaluate the means of delivering sufficient mass of this or similar material to affect climate change on a global scale. The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does notexamine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.6)
Operational Costs – Not Including Payload
The report mentions how payload costs are not included in the estimate nor are the base/facility costs and continues on (p.8) to say;
“This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft operations, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also examined….For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final report Yearly cost estimates from different dispersal methods ranged from over 1 billion dollars a year all the way up to rocket dispersed aerosol in the upper atmosphere at the cost of over 100 billion dollars per year.
GeoEngineering Research 2011
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” – Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.
Source: Intel Hub
- U.S. Geo-Engineering Budget Exceeds Billions
- UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club – Rady Ananda
- EPA meets with Chemtrail Activist
by Eric Blair, Activist Post – March 18th, 2011
Planet Earth has experienced a very noticeable up-tick in earthquake activity and intensity over the last five years. Leading up to the great Japan quake, we’ve witnessed the utter devastation from the 2004 Indian Ocean megathrust earthquake and tsunami, the catastrophic Haiti quake, an axis-moving Chile quake in 2010, massive and multiple quakes in New Zealand, and record earthquake swarms hitting Yellowstone and the New Madrid Fault line in middle America culminating with the worst earthquake in 35 years to hit the area, and many more.
The devastating effects on human civilization are on full display in the most recent 8.9 earthquake in Japan. The powerful quake and corresponding tsunami showed that not even a fully developed nation with the world’s third largest economy can withstand nature’s fury. This was also evident in the New Zealand quakes which continue to demolish the first-world city of Christchurch.
Evidence of increased tectonic activity aside, the great Japan quake of 2011 will go down as the event that finally woke up humanity from their slumber to recognize the potential damage quakes can and will cause. The huge quakes in Haiti and Chile last year indicated the power of such activity, but the effects of the nuclear meltdown happening in Japan will likely have global consequences that force society to challenge our conventional path.
This new awareness of our fragile existence in the face of such powerful forces of nature has brought about many theories as to why earthquake activity is increasing. Many will brush it off as natural occurrences without understanding that everything in nature is caused by something, whether or not it can be seen or measured. Indeed, we are witnessing many earth changes happening for the first time in modern history. And perhaps all of these anomalies are connected in some way, or at least compounding nature’s fury.
Here are five theories as to the cause of increased earthquake activity:
Solar and Lunar Activity: Meteorologist and astrophysicist Piers Corbyn claims a combination of solar activity and the extreme lunar cycle is the cause of the increased earthquakes. He’s not alone. On March 9th, NASA reported a powerful solar flare, an X1.5-class explosion from behemoth sunspot 1166 around 2323 UT, which they said would cause ‘global disturbances’. On March 10th, Space.com posed the question “Will March 19 ‘Supermoon’ Trigger Natural Disasters?” The very next day, the third largest earthquake ever recorded struck Japan. Many scientist have speculated the “Supermoon”, set for peak arrival tomorrow, is causing gravitational disturbances because it is the closest the celestial body has been to the Earth in 18 years.
As the magnetic pole continues to wander rapidly toward Russia, it has led to speculation that this might be leading to the record number of earthquakes seen in 2010, as well as the recent mega-quakes. According to proponents of this theory, pole shift is a geomagnetic event that exerts pressure on the Earth’s tectonic plates. As the pole wanders, the core and plates realign producing fluctuations and great upheaval until the crust can stabilize. The lights in the sky that have been recorded just prior to earthquakes may be evidence of the natural harmonic activity of the geomagnetic flux.
Geomagnetic Pole Shift/Wikimedia Image
Researchers into the potential for earthquake creation cite HAARP and its various counterpart arrays around the world as a principal theory for recent mega-quakes such as those in Haiti, Chile, and now Japan. HAARP is a billion watt microwave that bounces frequencies off the ionosphere. Admitted functions are for ground penetrating radar, which some believe is a dangerous application that involves using frequencies that can disrupt the Earth’s natural magnetic field. In fact, the Department of Defense gave a briefing on the subject while discussing weapons of mass destruction in 1997. As observable evidence of such atmospheric tampering, researchers point to the correlations between visual anomalies such as colorful light displays and a characteristic wave pattern with a “punch hole” evident in cloud formations associated with these recent mega-quakes.
Climate Change: Some climatologists believe that shifting ice caps can have an effect on tectonic activity because the massive weight of the ice is changing locations. Global warming alarmists have sought to pin the great Japan quake on the disappearing ice, however they seem to lose some credibility as polar ice is actually increasing according to U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System. Yet, it seems feasible that even shifting ice, which appears to be moving in the direction of the North Pole shift, may indeed affect the flotation of the earth’s outer crust. This could conceivably cause some tectonic movement and be partially related to some earthquake activity.
21st Century Wire
March 9, 2011
Listen to Patrick’s first appearance on Coast to Coast AM radio show with host George Noory. Coast to Coast AM is one of the biggest and best syndicated radio programs in the US and internationally. In this segment George Noory and Patrick discuss aspects of Facebook, cyber security, technology, climate change, the Magna Carta, the New World Order and events in Libya…
(six segment clips below)
Radio guest Patrick Henningsen is a writer, pr/communications consultant and Managing Editor at 21st Century Wire.
Opposing Views: Letters To A Heretic: An Email Conversation With Climate Change Sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson
World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson has been described as a ‘force-of-nature intellect’. He’s also one of the world’s foremost climate change sceptics. In this email exchange, our science editor, Steve Connor, asks the Princeton scholar why he’s one of the few true intellectuals to be so dismissive of the global-warming consensus
From: Steve Connor
To: Freeman Dyson
You are one of the most famous living scientists, credited as a visionary who has reshaped scientific thinking. Some have called you the “heir to Einstein”, yet you are also a “climate sceptic” who questions the consensus on global warming and its link with carbon dioxide emissions. Could we start by finding where we agree? I take it you accept for instance that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the planet (1); that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since direct measurements began several decades ago (2); and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past 800,000 years (3), if you take longer records into account, such as ice-core data.
Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer (4)? Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5). Climate scientists say there is no other reasonable explanation for the warming they insist is happening (6), which is why we need to consider doing something about it (7). What part of this do you accept and what do you reject?
From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor
First of all, please cut out the mention of Einstein. To compare me to Einstein is silly and annoying.
Answers to your questions are: yes (1), yes (2), yes (3), maybe (4), no (5), no (6), no (7).
There are six good reasons for saying no to the last three assertions. First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.
That will do for the first set of questions. Now it is your turn.