Is a “false flag” eco-attack somewhere in the offing? — MB
The scientist who popularized the theory that the Earth is a single organism this week told the UK Guardian humans are too stupid to understand the threat of global warming.
He also said that only a very dramatic event — such as catastrophic flooding, which would surely take thousands of lives — may be necessary to get people’s attention:
“He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level.
‘That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion,” he said. “Or a return of the dust bowl in the mid-west.’”
They’re at it again: Scientists, mad and otherwise, are discussing aerial spraying this afternoon:
Will such approaches actually work? Who will control the thermostat for the Earth? What other environmental consequences might arise and where would the effects be the greatest? We propose to hold a symposium that examines these and other issues, linking closely to the overall theme of the 2009 Annual Meeting: Ecological Knowledge and a Global Sustainable Society.
The U.S. Department of Energy is looking for some out-of-the-box thinking on weather modeling, particularly at the local level.
It may be the first step by the government to effect regional climactic changes.
Note the language (my emphasis, below) in this grant announcement. “High risk, high pay-off” is what Darpa is typically looking for, for technologies it hopes to rush onto the battlefield.
High risk, high pay-off research ideas that explore innovative new directions are encouraged; they should clearly describe how the proposed ideas have the potential to lead to breakthroughs in modeling of climate at ultra-high spatial resolutions.
Chemtrails arewill be real. Policymakers and scientists last week were brainstorming earth changes.
A proposed "geoengineering" Flettner vessel that would move about on the world's oceans, spraying salt into the air, to make clouds more reflective. Image: The Royal Society
Climate change scientists last week met to discuss how high altitude military jets might spray sulfur into the stratosphere, to “geoengineer” climate changes.
Read this excerpt, below. Note my emphasis on the last sentence. This is one of the reasons why Alan Watt is always on about the Club of Rome.
Richard Turco of UCLA estimated that injecting enough sulfur in the stratosphere to properly geoengineer the climate would require 3000 aircraft sorties per day, and cost $50-$100 billion per year. Model results he presented showed a large amount of uncertainty as to what might happen, and he cautioned that there was “no guarantee of success, and failure would be catastrophic”.
A. Robrock of Rutgers disagreed with Dr. Turco, and estimated that the cost of injecting the required amount of sulfur into the stratosphere would by less that $5 billion per year, provided the U.S. military would let scientists use 167 of the existing fleet of 522 F15C Eagle jets to do the job. After all, he reasoned, why wouldn’t the military want to use their aircraft to confront our enemy global warming?
Hurricane 4 Gustav is shaping up like another Katrina, and so is Tropical Storm Hanna, to the East.
AccuWeather.com – Weather News Headlines – Weather News
Gustav’s extremely dangerous impacts will stem from storm tides reaching at least 9-12 feet above normal and winds potentially of Category 3 status, or at least 111 mph, near the site of landfall. It is along the Louisiana coast, with its many canals, inlets and bays, that these winds and storm tides would wreak the most serious havoc while reaching farthest inland. And widespread flooding rainfall of 6-12 inches together with isolated tornadoes will substantially extend the storm’s impact inland.
No mystery: Alan Watt says the “twilight zones” of air particles around clouds are what the government has been spraying into the air for years.
Alan Watt, in his May 25 audio blurb, slams Live Science (link below) for what he described as an article that parrots government sources.
Watt’s listeners will also appreciate this about Live Science: the science news website is funded in part by Venrock, which got its start in 1969 as the venture capital arm of the Rockefeller family. And although I have not uncovered any glaring conflicts of interest in its science coverage, Live Science and its sister site, Space.com, are backed by several other venture capital firms with large stakes in the tech and biotech sectors.
May 25, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb (i.e. Educational Talk) “The Power of Particle Propaganda” (from NASA) – “Nuking Your Brain is Safe for You” (from British Boffins) – “Laptops, Gonads, Going, Going, Gone!” (Orwellian Clip followed by Song: “The Great American Novel” by Larry Norman) ***Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – May 25, 2007 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)***LISTEN / DOWNLOAD
Plans within plans: Lowell Wood (a.k.a. “Dr. Evil”), with his mentor, Edward Teller. Recent reports suggest that the scientists’ weather warfare proposals are gaining traction.
Recent reports in the Wall Street Journal (see excerpt and link, below) and elsewhere point to the threat posed by a group of physicists, led by one “Dr. Evil,” who want to use aircraft to disperse specially engineered particles to block out the sun.
The reports, based on an article in the Spring 2007 Wilson Quarterly, supports claims by Alan Watt that weather modification experiments (marked by chemtrails and sudden weather changes) have long been underway.
The author of the WQ piece, James R. Fleming, describes the “troubling motif of militarization in the history of weather and climate control.”
Fleming quotes Dr. Evil (Pentagon physicist Lowell Wood, who gets a kick out of the nickname) as saying the time has come for “an intelligent elimination of undesired heat from the biosphere by technical ways and means,” rather than changes in fuel consumption and public policy.
Wood was a protégé of the late nuke scientist Edward Teller, who proposed similar climate control measures before he died in 2003.
Climate engineering has become a popular topic among a group of scientists who are skeptical of the potential other environmental remedies, from carbon taxes to alternative energy, James R. Fleming, a professor of science, technology and society at Colby College, writes in the Wilson Quarterly’s spring issue. But the potential fixes being discussed reflect an overconfidence in technology, Mr. Fleming says, as well as an ignorance of the history of failed efforts to control the weather.
One idea put forth by a physicist involved in climate-control discussions would involve bombarding the Arctic stratosphere with specially engineered particles to deflect the sun’s rays, thereby lowering temperatures.