|
Post by socrates on Jul 20, 2006 22:03:53 GMT -5
Posted by halva on Today at 1:17am "Socrates and Lou must be wondering how much point there is to posting in forums like Real Climate, where there is such a mania for denial-based technocratic postings and for a ridiculous nuclear-power vs geoengineering discussion." The only point was that we may have opened up a few eyes. We were classy about it. We weren't talking nonsense. We got their attention. Now they have to look up at the skies or look at pictures, videos, they need to investigate. The psy-op is at the most basic level. The war pigs message to the masses is if it isn't on tv, then it isn't real. America is a stupid place. When I was in Ireland, the tv had tons of shows on global warming and other big issues. This was 20 years ago. Now there is the emerging consensus that the economic structure of the world is beating on the planet and its atmosphere. "Secondly, the geoengineering debate is much more pertinent and explosive than the officially encouraged climate change debate, many of whose supporters argue that 'the debate' with anthropogenic climate change deniers 'is over' but nevertheless always make it possible for the debate that 'is over' to continue. Anything to induce cognitive dissonance, and thus apathy and inertia, in the public. Compare the geoengineering debate Real Climate with the Pollyanna mentalities of THIS kind of climate change debate: www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp " That website is full of it compared to RealClimate. It comes across as pure fakery, manufactured propaganda. This following link will get you right to their climate change section. It's just more of that Reynold's like bullcrap. www.opendemocracy.net/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=179There's a lot of nonsense on the net. The worst is when you have chemtrail posters putting up good material, but then there's something foolish about them that hurts their credibility. If global warming is real, yet the war pigs don't want to restructure the economy for the better of the people and the planet, then it would appear that geo-engineering will need to be revealed to the general population and soon. The weather is out of control. I am no scientist so I don't know how much of this is due to chemtrails or industry. I get the feeling that the chemtrails are messing up nature. Yet, their ultimate conundrum is that once geo-engineering is revealed as the solution, people will finally be able to put two and two together and say hey wait a minute, the skies HAVE been looking funny all these years.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Jul 20, 2006 23:04:37 GMT -5
I think that the chemtrails/geoengineering issue has to be taken to ecological organizations campaigning on climate change, (Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, perhaps). This is not an easy thing to propose, because they are resistant. They don't want to talk about the subject, particularly publicly. This reluctance is increased by the fact that, as you say, many "chemmies" are foolish. But if those of us who are not foolish can get our act together, the "gatekeeper" ecologists are not strong enough or clever enough to keep us out. They are the system's weakest link.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 3, 2006 8:51:59 GMT -5
An article on chemtrails in the August-September number of Hellenic "Nexus": www.nexushellas.gr
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 8, 2006 2:20:21 GMT -5
Here is a charming climate-change contrarian take on Paul Crutzen: Global Warming: The nutty professor www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_464778.html Monday, August 7, 2006 Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, should -- to put it as tactfully as possible -- work on the hole in his head. Mr. Crutzen has dreamed up an "escape route" from global warming that only Al Gore could love. Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, is so "grossly disappointed" by man's seeming indifference to the junk science that blames humans for the Earth's temperature changes that he proposes to artificially cool the global climate. He hopes to release particles of sulphur into the upper atmosphere -- using high-altitude balloons or heavy artillery shells -- to reflect sunlight and heat back into space, according to The Independent in the U.K. That geo-engineering would increase the reflectance ("albedo") of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect, he says. The controversial proposal supposedly is being taken seriously by scientists because Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research. And, after all, he did receive a Nobel Prize. But then again, so did former President Jimmy Carter. And if that doesn't work, he believes giant reflecting mirrors in space, or laying reflecting film in deserts, or floating white plastic islands in the ocean mimicking the reflective effect of sea ice might work. Which brings us to this question: If global warming is part of this orb's natural cycle, what global havoc might Professor Cruzen's proposals wreak?
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Aug 10, 2006 7:17:50 GMT -5
Hey,the human race is predominently stupid so...............I think,all the Air Force has to do is tell basic "joe schmo" that this is for our own good and people will accept it,they wont think twice about whether it makes you sick in the long run(or short run,as we KNOW) people are lax and they just don't care, they have been programmed to ACCEPT the quick fix without thinking about long term.Which I think the head world leaders already know that is why they could care less how much you and I who know,actually do know and don't care how loud we yell,because soon the basic population of the world will look at you and I and say that "we are so stupid complaining about the chemtrails the goverment has been doing it to HELP all along.Good thing they didn't listen to us anti chemtrailers"I know they will make us look like the stupid bad people to the basic sheeple of the world. Faster and Fatter that is the New world. chicky
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 11, 2006 5:44:57 GMT -5
We cannot fight the air force. But we can fight the kinds of politicians that are behind contributions like "The Nutty Professor". They are the ones that are keeping this insane situation going. Defeat them and you have new politicians, from whom the air force is constitutionally obliged to take orders. There is a comprehensive new article on Crutzen at Air Apparent.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 11, 2006 14:25:22 GMT -5
Halva, thanks for the link to Air Apparent. That's a nice website. Personally, I haven't seen much "chemtrail" activity lately. I want this story out in the open yesterday. It is disheartening to have nearly everyone I talk to about this not see what we are on about. 9/11 "inside job" theorists get time on C-Span, while "chemtrails" doesn't even get the air time provided for shows on topics such as Big Foot. Would it have hurt PBS's Nova to mention "chemtrails" on their global dimming report? Why haven't more tv stations come out with segments like Paul Moyer's? If "chemtrails" are such an outrageous hoax, why isn't the general population allowed to have this in their collective consciousness? I think this is because "they" don't want citizens even near this topic. "They" believe that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, then it really didn't happen.
I agree with you that our best hope is to have good people in charge of government policy. Yet, with widespread election fraud and a mass media providing mostly propaganda and "limited hangouts", how can we keep hope alive? Do you ever see this story breaking out into the main stream? KNBC is just one local station in a gigantic country. Unfortunately, the Moyer report is just a drop in the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 12, 2006 0:22:12 GMT -5
The way to keep hope alive is to be oriented to reality-based information sources. Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" hasn't taken up chemtrails. Perhaps it should. Global Research is a little closer to the agenda. There seem to be so many networks in the US.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 12, 2006 18:03:51 GMT -5
The way to keep hope alive is to be oriented to reality-based information sources. Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" hasn't taken up chemtrails. Perhaps it should. Global Research is a little closer to the agenda. There seem to be so many networks in the US. I used to go to Ruppert. I'll admit I've checked out many of the way out there alternative media like WRH, Rense, Prison Planet, etc.. Rigorous Intuition seems to cover chemtrails ok, but as I've seen written before on the net, Rense and PrisonPlanet have distorted the story, just like with CTC. With Rense, you could get a nice read by yourself, yet the next day you'd get a story on chemtrails being for population culling and the return of America with exotic wildlife. I stopped reading Ruppert after he seemed to go out of his way to get into Gary Webb's death in a strange way. He is an advocate of Peak Oil, which is a similar topic like global warming in that they are set up in the Arianna fifty-fifty lie scenario. I am a dumbass in some ways. Sometimes I just have to say I don't friggin' know. This is the huge psy-op. The goal is a continuation of the brainwashing that takes place in education. We are being trained to believe we just don't know, that we must allow experts or "deciders" implement their patriarchy. I think with the internet we must be vigilant with our critical thinking. As long as we stay based in reality, we should do fine and eventually figure out great truths. Yeah, we have a lot of networks in America, but most of it is for leisure time vegetation or for manipulating the audience in pursuit of revenue. Everything is ultimately a product. I miss good tv and newspapers. Hey Halva, there's a website called unknown news. They have a section called dialogue. It'd be fun to see them respond to yourself in dialogue form. I haven't seen anything on chemtrails there, but I may have missed it. Before you say I should do it, you are much more qualified for such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 13, 2006 0:09:57 GMT -5
I stopped reading Ruppert after he seemed to go out of his way to get into Gary Webb's death in a strange way. I missed out on this. Have you got a link to it? Some people never forgave Ruppert for semi-dropping 9/11 after the 2004 elections and concentrating more on Peak Oil. I think it was a wise move from the viewpoint of long-term survivability. Other collaborators of his tried to get him involved in the computerised voting scam problem, but he wisely steered clear of it. It is a problem, but there is something perverse about allowing one's energies to be sidetracked into an issue like that rather than just using the total prostitution of the voting system as evidence for the necessity of an alternative. (Something which admittedly Ruppert does not clearly do, preferring to ride on the coat-tails of Cynthia McKinney, which - OK - is his choice. She doubtless deserves to be in Congress more than other politicans do.) The voting scam issue is a perfect issue for people with a certain mentality, who have their place in the scheme of things. But they're never going to lead a revolution or radical reform movement. I don't know. The energy issue generally is a good way of connecting with more mainstream politics. Better than voting fraud. Ruppert is an unattractive person in some ways and certainly no genius. I don't see him as THE leader. But if he is willing to subordinate his ego to being part of a team - and he seems to, certainly more than Rense, etc. - then I am willing to see him as being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. When I finish the article on Crutzen I am writing I'll put it up there, if you like. Here in Greece I find that the people of the magazine Nexus may be good collaborators. Nexus is a magazine that started in Queensland, Australia, but it has spread to some other countries including the US and Greece.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 13, 2006 12:49:52 GMT -5
There's tons of stuff on it if you search engine it out. Perhaps I am in over my head with this one. Basically, Ruppert was ripped mad at anyone saying Webb had been murdered when to him it was clearly a suicide. This about coincided with him saying it was time to forget about pursuing 9/11 truth after he was one of the ones screaming about it for so long.
I think you have enormous credibility because you do stay rooted in reality. I have tried to draw my brother-in-law into this idea of aerosol operations. When we have concrete proof like the Crutzen crap, it gives us instant credibility. This is what I mean: The US had plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before they had any fake justification to do so. Now when we mention things such as Teller and Crutzen at places like RealClimate, reality based people are closer to putting two and two together. Otherwise, what is one curious about "chemtrails" gonna find on the internet? They're gonna find a lot of nonsense on cloudbusting machines, ufos, natural water vapour, and how we are being turned into mutants, which makes it easier for those even remotely curious about our blatherings to write us off as having clouditis.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 15, 2006 23:21:37 GMT -5
When I speak of the fifty-fifty lie, I am not thinking that both sides are always wrong. I think the fifty-fifty lie is a rabbit hole in itself. It is a fake trolling tactic called astroturfing, where the objective is to create the illusion of a grassroots movement. So at Arianna's you have paid trolls filling those pages with global warming is a hoax this, democrats are pro terrorism that, liberals are moonbats this, Cindy Sheehan is a communist traitor that. Consequently due to the paid trolling no discussions ever get too elevated. The noise is ratcheted up and decent open-minded people leave in droves.
So to sum this up, as regards to Halva versus J. Reynolds for example, the fake side knows they cannot out debate the honest side. Thus, they try to frame it into a fifty-fifty lie of you know what?....There's nothing to see here, move along. There might be an aerosol program already started since 1997, there might have been a change in the jet fuel combined with added Chinese pollution and African dust.
I think there is a program going on due to the following:
1) Reynolds rudely goes way over the top and is excessively involved in a topic he supposedly doesn't believe in. 2) There is next to no coverage on the strange looking composition of the skies for almost ten years now except for mostly on the internet. 3) Other so-called mysteries like ufos and ghosts get tons of tv coverage. 4) All of a sudden reports come out that explain that aircraft emissions are related to global warming, e.g. Nova's Global Dimming report. 5) Crutzen comes out with his geo-engineering ideas. 6)And there's plenty of other stuff
I think the paid program to sully the internet as tinfoil nuttiness has backfired. People have the innate ability to shut off a source if it is too ridiculous. If they would only shut down the geo-engineering going on, then they could sulk back and start getting those solar panels and wind farms moving. If they continue with this nonsense, I predict that it will be exposed. Their only chance to get away with this is to stop now, and even if they do, it will be exposed eventually anyway.
The fifty-fifty lie also helps to cover up election fraud. If the illusion of an evenly divided, bitter nation of conservatives and liberals is enabled, then it is easier to get away with fudging election results. Of course, it is hard to cover up exit polls, that 33% approval rating for the Chimpster, and all the illegal activities going on.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 16, 2006 7:41:26 GMT -5
Given that it is taboo (and probably objectively dangerous for some well-meaning people, given the threat of litigation) to reveal that aerosol spraying programmes are not merely proposals, the only way to level the playing field and give our side comparable tools to those in the hands of our opponents is to demand that it be made illegal to question the connection between climate change and human activity.
Many mainstream scientists and others, even if not daring enough to give active support to such a demand, would sympathise, and would not oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 16, 2006 12:13:36 GMT -5
There is the law that says you can't falsely cry fire in a crowded theatre nor can we make false claims under oath. My problem with your suggestion is that it is a slippery slope. Who is to decide what is truth or truthiness? The world would also truly become a prison planet if everyone was charged for making false statements.
The key to us Americans I think is that once we are aware of a situation we tend to do the right thing. Case in point is apartheid and S. Africa. For a long time most of us hadn't a clue about what was going on there and how the US was supporting the apartheid regime economically. Then Teddy Kennedy went down there. The news started reporting about the situation there. Then there was a groundswell of support here for apartheid to end. Shanty towns were built all over US campuses. Public opinion shifted in support of divesting from the S. African economy until it became liberated. Of course, the RepubliCONS under Ronald Reagan continued to argue for "constructive engagement", i.e., the best way to help the South Africans would be to stay involved with their economy. Yet, as Americans were shown graphic footage of apartheid realities along with pleas from oppressed Africans themselves for divestment, the fake debate ended.
There are glimmers of hope for truth emerging. Last night CNN actually was giving airtime to Brits who don't buy into the latest "terrorist activity". CNN's Lou Dobbs and Olbermann from MSNBC also have come out with hard hitting reports questioning the credibility of the official 9/11 report and the influence of politics on the timing of such terrorism stories, respectively.
I think we need to outlaw space weapons and geo-engineering like Kucinich attempted to do. I think this is where the playing field could be leveled. If it's made illegal, then folks can start litigation and disclosure. I also think that until there is no one above the law, confusion will continue its reign. I can't believe Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales et al are still in power. When you have mounting constitutional crises where the criminals are the police, it is very difficult to remain hopeful. The November elections here will either bring us exciting new hopes for true justice or an escalation of the despair and cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 17, 2006 0:06:09 GMT -5
Obviously we need more information on how and why Kucinich was prevailed upon to back off. Why doesn't someone ask him? Does he still think the strategy he was pursuing was correct? If so, why doesn't he try again? If he doesn't, get him to explain why he doesn't. Let him talk in Aesopian language if he must, but if we are going to bring Kucinich into this, let him come in as a PERSON, not just as a name.
When you have people like Crutzen coming forward with the positions he has made public, the question is, what do you do with him? Call him a mad scientist, along with contrarians, or make a proposal that will strengthen him and weaken them?
If Americans can't do it, let Europeans take the lead. After all, we have laws in some of our countries banning questions about the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz. We can show the world how to close the mouths of these demagogues.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 17, 2006 15:49:55 GMT -5
Posted by Halva: "Obviously we need more information on how and why Kucinich was prevailed upon to back off. Why doesn't someone ask him? Does he still think the strategy he was pursuing was correct? If so, why doesn't he try again? If he doesn't, get him to explain why he doesn't. Let him talk in Aesopian language if he must, but if we are going to bring Kucinich into this, let him come in as a PERSON, not just as a name." This website believes he backed off because he doesn't want to be seen as a tinfoil lefty. users.ev1.net/~seektress/kucin1.htm"When you have people like Crutzen coming forward with the positions he has made public, the question is, what do you do with him? Call him a mad scientist, along with contrarians, or make a proposal that will strengthen him and weaken them?" I would have to go with a third option. For one, I agree with your policy of ignoring contrarians if they refuse to address issues brought up by others. Debunking to me isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, to me too many debunkers are closed-minded and are either paid to troll the internet and elsewhere or are victims of their own tunnel vision. So I think it is ok to call him a mad scientist without advocating that man-made climate change is a hoax. To me, the fake debunkers AND Crutzen are both wrong and are simply diversions from real solutions to our climate problems. "If Americans can't do it, let Europeans take the lead. After all, we have laws in some of our countries banning questions about the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz. We can show the world how to close the mouths of these demagogues." On behalf of all Americans I ask Europeans to Please Help Us!!!!!!! We are being oppressed here in a most Orwellian way. Free speech and guns are as American as apple pie. There is simply no way we can prevent the machine from distorting reality. For example, today one would hope to be seeing extensive news coverage on the judge saying that Shrub's wiretapping is unconstitutional. In contrast we are being given the OJ treatment with Jon Benet Ramsey. Of course that is news also. However, it is being presented around the clock as if it is the biggest story since the JFK assassination.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 17, 2006 23:30:53 GMT -5
Yahoo has been publicising that judge's ruling on wiretapping.
I think more useful than calling people like Crutzen mad scientists would be getting them to debate the anti-airtravel lobby that is claiming that contrails have a net warming effect. One side or both sides of this debate must be subordinating scientific facts to political expediency. (Actually it's not a debate because the representatives of the two sides never acknowledge each other's existence.)
The chances of Europeans coming to the aid of unfortunate America would be greater if people like Ruppert and Chossudovsky were Europeans rather than Americans.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 19, 2006 10:28:44 GMT -5
Here is someone in Europe who might be a leader. He seems to be having communication problems at the moment. His website is offline. WH Hitting a nerve Craig Murray August 17, 2006 urlsnip.com/618573 I appear to have hit a nerve with my call for a sceptical view of the alleged "bigger than 9/11" plot. Over 50,000 people so far have read the item on my own blog, and it has been quoted and reposted all over the web. In the UK, at least, the more serious wing of the mainstream media is beginning to catch up with the idea that all is not well here. Still, after eight days of detention, nobody has been charged with any crime. For there to be no clear evidence yet on something that was "imminent" and "Mass murder on an unbelievable scale" is, to say the least, rather peculiar. The 24th person, who was arrested amid much fanfare yesterday, has been quietly released without charge today. Breaking news, another "suspect" has just been released too. The drip, drip of information to the media from the security services has rather dried-up. The last item of any significance was that they had found a handgun and a rifle - neither of which could have been in any use in the alleged plot. If you were smuggling undetectable liquid explosive onto a plane, you would be unlikely to give the game away by tucking a rifle into your hand baggage. As with the murder some years ago of the uncle of the suspect held in Pakistan, it remains a possibility that there could be some criminal activity here involving a few of the suspects, which is not terrorist linked. As the Police immediately told the press about the guns, it is a reasonable deduction that it remains true that they still have found no bombs or detonators, or they would have told us, particularly as they haven't charged anyone yet. They must be getting pretty desperate to announce some actual evidence by now. This brings us to one particuarly sinister aspect of the allegations - that the bombs were to be made on the plane. The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, is nonsense. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No. The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs. Let me fess up here. I have just checked, and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. So the authorities could announce - as they have whispered to the media in this case - that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it? This has a peculiar resonance for me. I spoke at the annual Stop the War conference a couple of months ago. I referred to the famous ricin plot. For those outside the UK, this generated the same degree of hype here two years ago. It was alleged that a flat in North London inhabited by Muslims was a "Ricin" factory, manufacturing the deadly toxin which could kill "hundreds of thousands of people". Police tipped off the authorities that traces of ricin had been discovered. In the end, all those accused were found not guilty by the court. The "traces of ricin" were revealed to be the atmospheric norm. The "intelligence" on that plot had been extracted under torture in Algeria - another echo here, as the "intelligence" in this current case has almost certainly been extracted under torture in Pakistan. Another police tip-off to the media was that the intelligence said that the ricin had been stored in plastic jars, and they had indeed found plastic jars containing a suspicious substance. It turned out the containers in question were two Brylcreem tubs. What was in them? In the first, paper clips. In the second, Brylcreem. I told the story in my speech, and concluded with a ringing "So we must congratulate the government for saving us from a dastardly Islamic plot to take over the World using hair styling products." I fear the government may have taken me seriously! I do not discount the possibility that there is a germ of something behind the current alleged plot. Will it be anything like the hype? No. The hype scarcely lowers. On the flagship ten o'clock news last night, the BBC reported breathlessly on the United flight diverted from Washington to Boston last night, and its fighter escort. We had very earnest besuited security experts terrifying us about the dangers. The extraordinary thing was that, by this stage, we knew definitely that this was a 60 year old woman with claustrophobia, who had a few loose matches and some Vaseline intensive care hand lotion in the bottom of her handbag. The facts reported were totally at odds with the whole manner of the "be terrified" report and the analysis being built on it. But that didn't stop them. It has, of course, worked. When did you last see Iraq on the news? Where is Liebermann's defeat now on the news agenda? A blog like this is much too small a player to affect the public mood. What it can do is tap into it. The extraordinary response to these posts shows that there is a very significant section of the public not prepared to buy more Bush/Blair propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 19, 2006 12:58:05 GMT -5
There are so many things going on that it becomes very difficult to know what is smoke and mirrors and what is the real deal. Thankfully Olbermann has been exposing the terror scare reports as the politics they are. While Rabbit holes are problematic, I see memory holes as being even worse. E.G., one can waste months on end waiting for Karl Rove to be indicted for outing a covert intelligience officer. One can see that no one has really faced justice over the Valerie Plame case. However, this will not be falling into any memory hole as have our collective memories of how the skies used to look.
We cannot say the same thing as regards to fake terror reports. These tend to make the news cycle then disappear. When I was working at a mortgage place a few years ago and the rates started to climb, we would wonder if another box of ricin crispies would show up and the rates would lower. T-bonds are seen as safe haven money. When confidence in the economy lowers, bonds usually do better and rates go down. After a while though with all the fake scares, it seemed that the markets stopped reacting to such reports and simply waited for Greenspan to open his yap.
The anthrax scare could be a smoking gun. When that first came out it was plastered on the news. Yet, when it was discovered that the stuff came from a US military site, it was hello to the memory hole for that and hello to the rabbit holes of Joe Wilson exposing his own wife and today's fake concerns for JonBenet. If that girl or the other one in Aruba were caught up in some sick sex ring, then fine, bring it on. However, I don't see anything of major importance coming out of this media saturation. These are simply blatant in your face rabbit holes.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 20, 2006 5:11:50 GMT -5
I admit that Craig Murray's conciliatory stance towards his "constructive" critics is not inspiring. ('Yes, Marmaduke, you are right. Islamic fundamentalism IS a problem, BUT......)
Chemtrails make it impossible for us to be like that towards "constructive" climate change contrarians.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 22, 2006 9:51:27 GMT -5
NUTTY PROFESSORS? W. Hall
(The proposal referred to is presented in Paul Crutzen’s “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulphur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma”)
Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, should -- to put it as tactfully as possible -- work on the hole in his head.
Mr. Crutzen has dreamed up an "escape route" from global warming that only Al Gore could love. Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, is so “grossly disappointed” by man's seeming indifference to the junk science that blames humans for the Earth's temperature changes that he proposes to artificially cool the global climate.
He hopes to release particles of sulphur into the upper atmosphere -- using high-altitude balloons or heavy artillery shells -- to reflect sunlight and heat back into space, according to The Independent in the U.K.
That geo-engineering would increase the reflectance ("albedo") of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect, he says.
The controversial proposal supposedly is being taken seriously by scientists because Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research. And, after all, he did receive a Nobel Prize. But then again, so did former President Jimmy Carter.
And if that doesn't work, he believes giant reflecting mirrors in space, or laying reflecting film in deserts, or floating white plastic islands in the ocean mimicking the reflective effect of sea ice might work.
Which brings us to this question: If global warming is part of this orb's natural cycle, what global havoc might Professor Crutzen's proposals wreak?
(Editorial in Pittsburgh Tribune Review, August 7th 2006)
A confused question from an anthropogenic climate change “sceptic”.
There is another question that could equally well be asked: what would be the effect of acknowledgement that proposals like those made by Professor Crutzen are not just proposals? What if geoengineering programmes similar to those he has advocated are actually under implementation?
What if the “policy dilemma” he sees arising out of the fact that sulphate particles, soot and other forms of man-made and natural air pollution partially counteract global warming from greenhouse gases - means that governments - or one government, on behalf of other governments - have/has already decided to go ahead and fight one form of pollution (carbon dioxide) with another (sulphur dioxide)? On a global scale!
There is nothing new about such ideas. As far back as 1992 the National Academy of Science’s report “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” was saying that “the most effective global warming mitigation would be spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere by utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft”. The NAS Report argued that “aircraft could be used to maintain a cloud of dust in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.” It reckoned that “emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates… would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2.” If it were to be acknowledged that measures of such desperation are part of our contemporary reality, one result would surely be a total evaporation of public sympathy for the arguments of the “sceptics”. They would either have to start demanding that the outrageous and unjustifiable geoengineering practices be stopped, or they would be forced to concede that their categorization of global warming as a “non-problem” had been mistaken.
But it does not seem likely that we are going to see any such cornering of the sceptics. James Hansen, on behalf of mainstream climate science, has confessed that “we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. ..We have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. … We often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and the politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn’t really help.” This is the advice of a scientist advocating not more but less politics.
On the other hand British Government scientific advisor Sir David King has described the climate change debate as a “pseudo-debate”. He asks: “Why does the debate on climate change continue to be reported?” “Part of the answer,” he says “is in the nature of the media itself, which likes to present two sides of a story.”
The media does NOT present the two sides of the geoengineering story. In media discourse one side of the geoengineering debate is never reported, or is reported only to be ridiculed. It is the side that consists of “conspiracy theorists”, who must on no account ever be taken seriously.
There is an either/or relationship between climate change “sceptics” and geoengineering “conspiracy theorists”. Scientific debate on climate change can have either one or the other as the interlocutor, as the “other viewpoint”. It cannot have both.
Paul Crutzen says in his “Albedo Enhancement” article that a large-scale climate modification programme of the kind he proposes could not be implemented without prior establishment of trust between scientists and the general public. This implies either an expectation of future success in persuading “sceptics” of the soundness of his “solution” (to a problem they do not recognize), or it means something rather vaguer: that he is a scientist who believes in the necessity of working with, rather than against, the public. And in this connection it should be acknowledged that he does quite clearly state in his article that “the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulphur release experiment would not need to take place.” He deplores the fact that attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions have been unsuccessful. He cites statistics indicating that while stabilization of CO2 would require a 60-80% reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, such emissions from 2000 to 2002 actually increased by 2%.
“Anthropogenically enhanced sulphate particle concentrations cool the planet, offsetting an uncertain fraction of the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. But this fortunate coincidence is ‘bought’ at a substantial price. According to World Health Organization figures, the pollution particles lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths worldwide.” .. “Through acid precipitation and deposition, sulphates also cause various kinds of ecological damage.”
Crutzen bases his case for the sulphate spraying programme on the argument that “if sizeable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not happen and temperatures rise rapidly, then climate engineering such as represented here is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects.”
This could be interpreted as a warning that if society cannot free itself from the mentality that has led to the failure he describes, Crutzen can see no alternative to proceeding with implementation of his programme.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 22, 2006 9:55:28 GMT -5
The feasibility of “trust”
How possible is it for one who believes aerosol seeding programmes to be not just drawing-board recommendations but a well entrenched planetary-scale reality, to “trust” a scientist who conforms to the official line of denying any such possibility? Or in any case ignoring it.
To start with, in replying to this, it may be worth speculating on the possible reasons for the more or less unanimous support given by scientists, including the most immediately implicated scientists, to the official story.. One of the relevant considerations is legality, the basic parameters for which were laid down a decade ago by, among others, Dan Bodansky:
“Climate engineering proposals, including those aimed at screening out sunlight by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to create cloud condensation nuclei and hence more clouds, by injecting dust into the stratosphere to screen out sunlight, by launching reflective balloons into the stratosphere, or by space mirrors or screens to act as a constant shield from the sun, possess such problematic features as the fact that this activity is intentional (and thus attracts greater scrutiny), has global effects, involves high uncertainties (with an indeterminate risk of something going wrong), and non-uniform effects (winners and losers result). These features of geoengineering raise several governance issues. The fact that geoengineering is an intentional activity with global effects raises the issue of who should decide whether to proceed. Should all countries be able to participate in decision making since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts? Also, how should liability and compensation for damages be addressed?
Schemes to inject dust or release balloons into the atmosphere are the most problematic of the geoengineering proposals in terms of existing international law because the atmosphere above a country, including the stratosphere, is part of its air space. Nations have claimed this area and acted on their claims (e.g., by shooting down aircraft).
Geoengineering proposals involving the atmosphere thus could be viewed as an infringement and incursion on national territory.
Although existing international legal norms are generally permissive, they are unlikely to be a reliable guide to how the international community will react if geoengineering schemes are seriously proposed. Instead, there is likely to be a great deal of resistance. Absent some crisis, there will probably be a drive for the regulation of these activities, and perhaps for their prohibition, because it is very difficult to discern what the inadvertent consequences of such proposals might be.
The ultimate obstacles to geoengineering may not be technical or economic, but political.
If the ultimate obstacles to geoengineering activity are political, however indefensible or defensible the stance might otherwise be, it is quite logical for a scientist persuaded of the necessity of geoengineering to wait for the relevant political obstacles to be removed by politicians rather than pre-emptively meddled with by scientists. Crutzen’s whole approach in his article can be seen as a way of giving a nudge to politicians, to solve, belatedly – IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER – the scientific problem he outlines.
But who are the politicians that can solve the problem? Certainly not any politicians obliged, like it or not, to share the political arena with climate change contrarians. And with their their media support base.
The role of Edward Teller
Though acknowledging in his paper his scientific debt to researchers at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory - “so far the only ones who have modeled the stratospheric albedo modification scheme” - Crutzen does not appear similarly to recognize, and may not even have thought very much about, how deeply the politics of his stratospheric geoengineering proposal were similarly influenced by Livermore, and above all by the late Edward Teller, for many years its director.
Teller sets his own distinctive political seal on the stratospheric particulate seeding project in his popular article “Sunscreen for Planet Earth”.
“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it’s resolved scientifically.” As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I’m entertained by the high political theater that the nation's politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation--America--can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist—”
Teller here situates himself unequivocally among the “sceptics”. This makes him very different from Crutzen. But not content with categorizing climate change as a possible non-problem, Teller also puts himself forward as the man to solve the non-problem.
“Contemporary technology offers considerably more realistic options for addressing any global warming effect than politicians and environmental activists are considering. Some of these may be far less burdensome than even a system of market-allocated emissions permits (i.e. Kyoto, W.H.). One particularly attractive approach involves diminishing slightly – by about 1 percent – the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface in order to counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases.”
“As the National Academy of Sciences commented a few years ago in a landmark report: ‘Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented.’ …But for some reason, this option isn’t as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.
If the politics of global warming require that ‘something must be done’ while we still don't know whether anything really needs to be done--let alone what exactly--let us play to our uniquely American strengths in innovation and technology to offset any global warming by the least costly means possible. While scientists continue research into any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways to offset any possible ill effects. Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?” Teller even injects into the very subtitle of his piece the same trickiness that pervades the text as a whole: “GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS. HEREWITH A SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. (IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THAT IS.)”
We see that Teller is not merely one of the pioneers of the stratospheric seeding idea ridiculed by one of his fellow contrarians at the beginning of this article. He is quite possibly also the architect of the whole conflictual scenario that we still see being enacted before us in 2006, three years after Teller’s death. But for which his – in American party-political terms – opponent Paul Crutzen has now been manoeuvred into the position where he, and by extension presumably Al Gore, must be the stool pigeons...
This certainly represents progress over the heyday of the superpower arms race between the US and the USSR, in which Teller was, again, a leading protagonist. In the nuclear warfare psychodramas of those days it was Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon, Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan, not liberal democratic figures, that were cast as the madmen, or accomplices of madmen.
Admittedly, the inversion may well not be something deliberately planned. It may be just a side-effect of decisions to make weather and climate the business of military-oriented institutions such as the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, with the resulting extension into what were once civilian domains of the habits of secrecy and deception characteristic of military research, and above all of nuclear weapons development. Doubtless the conception of legality as an “optional extra” that we have suggested as an explanation for scientists’ apparent evasiveness over geoengineering reflects an expansion of such military assumptions and behaviour.
But the imposition of politically paralyzing contradiction is a Teller trademark, seen before at virtually every stage of his career, and certainly in the period of the Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) anti-missile shield campaigning immediately preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The double-bind that Teller had devised at that time was presented to the then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by Ronald Reagan at the 1986 Reykjavik Summit. It took the form of an unexpected willingness to consider an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on total nuclear disarmament of the two superpowers. Support, in other words, for Gorbachev’s stated objective of bringing about universal nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. The only precondition attached to an American agreement on total abolition of the United States’ nuclear arsenal was that Gorbachev should, in return, accept the legitimacy of the United States’ Star Wars anti-missile shield.
Gorbachev’s response was that if nuclear missiles were to be abolished there could be no justification for supporting a programme whose purpose was to shoot them down. But for the international political establishment and its media this meant that it was the conservatism of the Soviets that had prevented a epoch-making political breakthrough at Reykjavik. Teller was one of the few members, possibly the only member, of the American power elite with whom Gorbachev never agreed to shake hands.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 22, 2006 10:01:50 GMT -5
What is there to discuss?
What common basis is there for discussion, between climate scientists of goodwill and “civil society”? If – as it seems – there are no grounds for expectation that any scientist of importance is going to acknowledge that spraying of massive amounts of sulphate or some other form of poisonous aerosol into the atmosphere is anything more than a hypothetical future possibility, an “insurance policy”, to quote NAS president Ralph J. Cicerone, “if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussion like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels and coastal flooding,” what demands can be made of climate scientists that might help to inspire the “trust” that Paul Curtzen says he wants to see?.
One measure that might help be would be a demonstration by climate scientists that they are capable of standing up to the ‘sceptics’: refusing to debate them on the media for example, (unless perhaps the ‘sceptics’ in question are of the sincere - and politically clueless - type that are also protesting about “chemtrails”).
Another step that might lead in the direction of “trust” would be by our raising the demand that questioning whether climate change is connected to human activity should be made illegal, (rather in the way that it is currently illegal in some otherwise civilized countries to question whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz!) This would be against freedom of speech, just as it is against freedom of speech to compromise scientists and subject them to regimes of quasi-military secrecy so that they feel unable to admit what they are doing, and/or what is being done, and so that they are reduced to sending out smoke-signals to “the politicians”. Our challenge to freedom of speech would be HONEST and OPEN. It would not be a sly, tricky, below-the-belt Edward-Teller type threat of the kind that is actually in force.. A legal ban on “climate change contrarianism” would at least level the playing field.. A muzzling capacity would be extended to both sides, not just to the contrarians.. The weapon of litigation would be as available for us to use against them as it is available now to the contrarians (and any other interested party) to employ against any geoengineering advocate tempted to throw in his lot with the “conspiracy theorists” and admit that, yes, geoengineering is not hypothetical. We, and our friends, are doing it, and proposing it! Sue us!
Sir David King is on record for saying that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. He is still confronted on that statement by aggressive journalists, even today when it has become known that he sees nuclear power as part of “the solution” rather than “the problem”. Let his perception be systematized. If climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism then climate change contrarians are the moral and political equivalent of terrorist sympathizers. Let them be treated as such!
Anti-aviation campaigners
One possible focus for discussion between civil society and climate scientists would be the current campaign launched by the European Union and some ecological groups (e.g. Friends of the Earth) against the environmental cost of aircraft emissions. This campaign has included some very militant sounding assertions, for example by Friends of the Earth International vice-chair Tony Juniper, who has said : “Aviation is a rogue sector and its environmental impact is out of control. Climate change is the most urgent challenge facing humanity and yet aviation policy is doing the exact opposite of what is needed.”
Certainly readers of the NAS report on “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” will agree that if “spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere by utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft” has actually been implemented as “the most effective global warming mitigation”, then it may be more than justified to describe aviation as a “rogue sector”. But this is not what Juniper, and other anti-aviation campaigners, mean. What they mean is in a way the precise opposite. It has to do not with the use of aviation emissions to mitigate global warming. It has to do with the role of aircraft emissions as net contributors to global warming. Anti-aviation campaigners are worried about aircraft as producers of greenhouse gases. They want to see aviation being included in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. They want to abolish tax exemptions on aviation fuel so as to put an end to the current unfair advantages of air travel over other more ecologically sustainable forms of transport such as railways.
The argumentation of anti-aviation campaigners nowhere intersects with, interacts with, or shows any consciousness of, the argumentation of geoengineering advocates. Geoengineering advocates and anti-aviation campaigners argue past each other, ignoring each other. And most importantly, they base their arguments on diametrically opposite conclusions about the effects of aircraft emissions.. Geoengineering advocates posit a net cooling effect; anti-aviation campaigners a net warming effect of aircraft “contrails” on the earth’s atmosphere.. In both cases these conclusions correspond to the needs of political agendas. Almost everything published in the mainstream media on the environmental effects of air travel is framed in a disingenuous tone that arouses suspicion. Which of the two sides of the non-debate between geoengineering advocates and anti-air-travel campaigners is more guilty of distorting scientific fact.? If anything the anti-aircraft campaigners seem more guilty, despite the fact that – or perhaps because of the fact that – their political objectives seem less unobjectionable, and even praiseworthy..
What is to one make of the following?
“The CO2 emitted from aircraft engines is not the only way that that aviation affects climate. Aircraft also affect climate through their contrails, the long trails of water vapour and ice that form in an aircraft’s wake and which can persist for several hours. Contrails trap heat in the atmosphere by reflecting infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. In 1999 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that contrails from the world fleet of 12,000 civil airliners contribute as much to global warming as the CO2 their engines pour out as they burn jet fuel.
But global air traffic is growing by around 3.5 per cent per year, and many of those extra flights are long-haul, high-altitude, contrail-forming journeys. So by 2050 contrails will be having a great deal more of an impact on global warming than the CO2 emissions from aircraft engines.
Contrails could be eliminated if aircraft reduced their altitude from about 33,000 feet to between 24,000 feet and 31,000 feet, depending on the weather.
But this would come at a price: lower altitude means denser air and higher air resistance, so planes have to burn more fuel. And this means more CO2 emissions, which would apparently negate any benefits from eliminating contrails.
But according to researchers at Imperial College, London, the idea may work after all. “It seems counterintuitive”, admits Robert Noland. But Noland and his colleagues have calculated that if planes flew low enough to leave no contrails behind, their fuel consumption would increase by only four percent, boosting CO2 emissions.”
Does this convoluted argumentation by anti-aviation writers reflect anything more than political determination to oppose the geoengineering approach to climate change without ever admitting that it exists or has ever been proposed? What is the scientific status of arguments (e.g. from NASA) that cirrus cloud cover generated from aircraft emissions are responsible for increasing average surface temperatures in the United States over a twenty-year period? Given that it is one of the key charges of the climate change “skeptics” that liberal activists in general and ecologists in particular distort science in the pursuit of unacknowledged political objectives, would not the head-on confrontational approach of “conspiracy theorists”, particularly if backed by agreed scientific facts, be a more effective response to these charges than a more “discreet” approach that relies on possible manipulation of scientific data?
The burden of proof
As a final point for empowerment of currently excluded “conspiracy theorists”, it is often argued that the burden of proof for any assertion that geoengineering programmes are something more than proposals lies on those who make the claim. “Agenti incumbit probatio” (the burden of proof rests on the accuser). There is a surface plausibility to this, but on more careful consideration it should become clear that there is not any self-evident single “accuser” in these controversies. . In their way all parties are accusers. Paul Crutzen is an accuser when he implies that because of “taboos” his sulphate seeding programme is not being given the serious consideration it deserves. His accusation enables “us” to request that he prove his programme is not being given such consideration. (What more serious consideration could there be than actual implementation?) Climate change contrarians are being accusers when they caricature the proposals of Crutzen as those of a “nutty professor”. Can they prove that Crutzen’s sulphate seeding proposals are disproportionate to the seriousness of the situation he is attempting to deal with?
All in all the argument here is for the adoption of an offensive stance, a concerted attempt to become “the other side” of the debate, displacing the “sceptics” as interlocutors with mainstream climate science. Can we successfully do this?
22nd August 2006
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 22, 2006 21:32:51 GMT -5
A Canadian scientist says that geo-engineering and shuttle launches are destroying the ozone. They are playing mad scientists to keep the temps down, and it isn't even working. It's only a matter of time before chemtrails are acknowledged as dangerously real. The real nuts are those who don't think the skies look different from before 1997. "Scientist Says Chemtrails, Shuttle Launches Endangering Earth by William Thomas Aug 7th 2006 Preface - Total article 3230 words. A Canadian atmospheric scientist warns that chemtrails, airliners and shuttle launches are weakening the stratosphere and destroying Earth's ozone layer--threatening all life on Earth....." www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Earths_Ozone_Layer.htmHalva, that's impressive writing you do. You make it easier to believe that something truly is going on, and that it has mostly to do with geo-engineering.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 22, 2006 21:49:36 GMT -5
I'll just admit I am not sure how much this is about geo-engineering. It just feels that way to me. Maybe they are so gung-ho to "control the weather" they are up to all sorts of other shenanigans. If it is for population culling then I guess all we can do is chant hare krishna. Will Thomas seems to think it doesn't have to do with that. I always wonder who are these people. Who is Michael Ruppert, Will Thomas, Wayne Hall, er, just saying it is obvious to me that there is an internet strategy to make everything look confusing and nutty. Teller, Crutzen, geez, those were/are real folks with power describing things that already appear to be occuring. I Must say the HAARP/Tesla stuff makes some sense to me too. I think the bottom line is we need no secrecy at all as to what is taking place in the skies.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 23, 2006 10:51:36 GMT -5
I must admit that I have been wondering just who Mike Ruppert is following his announcement that he has emigrated to Venezuela.
That is not strictly true. I feel I know who he is. He has just been tested to his limits and he is running out of steam. I hope that the team he has left behind can keep the show on the road.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 26, 2006 1:25:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm trying not to get too big into discussing these alternative internet personalities. The key is to tap into the truth. That's why Moyer's report hit the spot. It was from a "real" news organization. Check out these excerpts which I find mind blowing: From reason online (November 1997!!!) Climate Controls If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world. By Gregory Benford reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtmlexcerpts: Reflecting on Reflectivity ...Not all mitigation efforts need take place on land or sea. In fact, the most intuitive approach may be simply to reflect more sunlight back into space, before it can be emitted in heat radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide... ...A mere 0.5 percent change in Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, would solve the greenhouse problem completely... ...Sulfate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity. This could then be a local cooling, easier to monitor than carbon dioxide's global warming... ...As usual, there are human-centered concerns. The Environmental Protection Agency hammers away at particulate levels, blaming them for lung disorders. Luckily, high- altitude dust would come down mostly in raindrops, not making us cough... ...Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. These motes would also come down mostly in rain, not troubling the brow of the EPA... ...An added asset is that quietly running rich on airline fuel will attract little notice, doesn't even change sunsets, and is hard to muster a media-saturated demonstration against. But there are, as always, side effects. Dust or sulfuric acid would heat the stratosphere, too, with unknown impact. Some scientists suspect the ozone layer could be affected. If a widespread experiment showed this, we could turn off the effect within roughly a year as the dust settled down and got rained out....
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 27, 2006 11:35:07 GMT -5
Benford is incredible.
Socrates, there was somewhere that you were wanting me to post. Where was it again?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 27, 2006 14:53:26 GMT -5
"Socrates, there was somewhere that you were wanting me to post. Where was it again?" Posted by halva Hey chief, there is a website run by peaceful bloggers called Unknown News. They have a section called dialogue. One e-mails them and they respond, and it goes back and forth. I haven't noticed anything on "chemtrails" and was just curious how they might respond to someone like yourself. www.unknownnews.net/
|
|
|
Post by halva on Aug 27, 2006 23:34:26 GMT -5
|
|