People online can unknowingly find themselves in an echo-chamber, having their more fringe beliefs amplified and reinforced by a lack of exposure to conflicting views and evidence. That, coupled with the fact that anyone can publish anything online, has lead to a renaissance in conspiracy theories, pseudo-medical procedures, and general bad science. One of the more interesting conspiracy theories that seems to have grown in popularity over the last decade is the belief that the long-lasting white clouds left in the sky by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed on the population for nefarious reasons. The people who believe in this conspiracy theory call these lines in the sky ‘chemtrails’ and feel so strongly against them that they recently organised protests around the world. I decided to make a series of videos investigating the weird and wonderful world of chemtrails to hopefully shed some light on a conspiracy which most find hard to grasp.
Top 10 reasons Gore was wrong
As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.
People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:
While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”
Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…
Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony
1 – Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.
Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.
No North Pole warming for nearly 14 years! No South Pole warming for 37 years!
U.S. has had no warming for 18 years
South Pole sees no warming for 37 years. ‘For the whole of the satellite record, the South Polar region has had a negative trend. So much for a fingerprint of warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect being greater warming at the Poles!’
There has been zero trend for exactly half the record, (and for an increase in CO2 concentration of 37 ppm).
The Pause has lengthened again. For more than half the record the Southern Hemisphere has zero trend.
The Science is not Settled
By David Siegel via www.ClimateCurious.com
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 • Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 • Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
3 • There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 • New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
5 • CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
6 • There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
7 • Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
9 • No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.
10 • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
Also See: How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic (wattsupwiththat)
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
The Truth about CO2
Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.
They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.
The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.
The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”
By Marc V. via Listverse
As we’ve mentioned before, conspiracy theories can be found anywhere on the planet and can encompass just about any subject matter under the Sun. They are used to explain any mysterious event, albeit with a reasoning that can only be described as certifiably insane. Of course, the conspirators are almost always identified as belonging to a cabal of rich and powerful individuals, which brings us to the topic of depopulation. Overpopulation, exhaustion of natural resources, or evil designs are but a few of the reasons why depopulation conspiracy theories still occupy a special place in the minds of the paranoid.
10 • Pacte De Famine
Contrary to the popular notion that they are products of the American mind, depopulation conspiracy theories and their beginnings should actually be credited to the French, with their infamous Pacte de Famine (Famine Pact) in the late 18th century. During that period, a combination of unfavorable weather and relatively poor farming methods produced a severe food shortage across many regions of France, resulting in the raising of the prices of food and other basic commodities.
Due to this unfortunate event, many of the middle and lower classes—especially the peasants—believed that the aristocracy or some other shadowy group was secretly controlling the price of grains to control their burgeoning population. The paranoia led to the Flour War, a collective term for the series of riots and revolts that broke out in the affected areas. Incidentally, this atmosphere of fear and distrust helped to kick-start the French Revolution.
9 • The Human Genome Project Is A Eugenics Program
We’ve previously discussed the Human Genome Project and the innumerable benefits it has brought to the human race. However, such a massive, well-funded program is not without its controversies. For one, there is a conspiracy theory which says that the project is actually nothing more than a cover for eugenicists to develop better methods of exterminating those people whom they have deemed inferior and unfit for this planet.
According to this conspiracy, the end goal of the project is the identification and elimination of “bad genes” across the world. Mapping out the human genome would allow the supposed conspirators to build better diseases and other biological weapons to subtly sterilize and wipe out inferior races. Even drugs would be customized to eliminate the targeted groups around the globe. As to the identity of the conspirators, it’s anyone’s guess. Of course, the usual suspects would include the CIA, the military, the Illuminati, or any other “evil” group.
8 • Global Warming Is An Excuse To Depopulate The World
By itself, global warming is already a very controversial topic. Its very existence is a constant subject of heated debate between affirmers and deniers. As if that isn’t enough, a few crazies in the deniers’ camp have stated that the campaign to stop global warming is really just a ruse to implement a depopulation program.
According to them, the crusade to cut back on fossil fuels and substances harmful to the environment would actually mean decreasing large-scale food and energy production throughout the world. This man-made famine and poverty would then result in a worldwide genocide and the destruction of the global economy, making it easier for whoever is behind the scheme to implement a New World Order. They claim that the ban on DDTs has already resulted in the deaths of more than 100 million people, while the ban on CFCs is killing 40 million people annually.
Before i forget . . .
Because i’m a Mann-Made global warming skeptic and i hear the very anti-scientific phrase “settled science” ad nauseum, i see a lot of humor and irony in the following story regarding settled science suddenly being unsettled:
From the article:
Nineteen elements on the periodic table — including gold, cadmium, arsenic and aluminum — are getting their atomic weights adjusted.
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) announced that they’ve approved new weights for the elements thanks to more precise measurements and better calculations of the abundance of certain isotopes (atoms of an element with different numbers of neutrons).
Just when you thought all the science in the periodic chart was settled! Damn you atomic weight deniers!! Damn you!
Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)
An updated list of at least 293236383941 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
11) Pine aerosols
View original post 1,276 more words
By Anthony J. Sadar and JoAnn Truchan via Washington Times
Scientific practice is a bit off these days. It seems as if the promoters of man-made climate change only want one answer for the cause of every climate phenomenon. Among them:
The reason why thermometers are rising so quickly worldwide. The reason worldwide temperatures have leveled off in the past 17 years. The cause of the higher-than-average hurricane season in 2005. The cause of the lower-than-average hurricane season in 2013. The reason there has been so little snowfall in the U.S. and Europe. The reason there has been so much snowfall in the U.S. and Europe.
If climate science were a category on the popular game show “Jeopardy,” where the answer must be in the form of a question, there would be but one response allowed for the cause of all these contradictory events: “What is man-made climate change?”
Not every “unusual” atmospheric condition or event evokes the humans-are-responsible answer, however. Oftentimes, to attract unwary audiences, not-so-unusual but still unfamiliar events are exaggerated by purveyors of pernicious prognostications.
Take the “polar vortex” scare. This natural phenomenon was proffered as something new, something frightening, something produced by people living comfortably as a result of the use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Of course, it is none of that. This is verified by the Glossary of Meteorology, published by the American Meteorological Society in 1959, in which this well-known phenomenon was clearly defined, not hyped.
As the ancient Ecclesiastes writer observed, there really is “nothing new under the sun.”
Certainly, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practices the sort of science that gives the desired response first, then seeks the appropriate corresponding questions.
The IPCC defines its role as “to assess … the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” In other words, the IPCC assumes from the get-go the desired answer that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It is then the game of researchers, enticed with prized government grants, to find the evidence that always lead to that conclusion.
Ben Acheson excoriates industrial wind energy and ponders why the vast roll-out of huge turbines is still taking place.
With the negative impacts on the tourist industry, precious landscapes, communities and businesses, is it time that wind energy was chalked up as a loss?
The film-makers are available for other projects. To contact them, email: email@example.com
By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 22, 2014
Forty years ago global cooling was the alarmist du jour for scaring the hell out of everybody. “Science” was predicting drought, extended dry spells, floods, desolation, food shortages, devastating tornadoes, catastrophic famine, long freezes, temperature increases and even a reversion to the “little ice age” when the Thames was frozen so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. (source: the article featured below)
“Scientists” were wringing their hands, worried sick, because they saw “few signs that government leaders anywhere [that] are … prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food.”
The article ends with the same old tired refrain that is repeated ad nauseam by every alarmist everywhere every time the world is about to end (again): “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
Yes. “Science says”, we must ACT NOW! It is imperative to do something immediately – if not sooner – to prevent planetary destruction.
So, from my personal magazine collection i present to you these snippets from a climate-related article published in Newsweek magazine on April 28, 1975. Click the image to download a PDF copy of the entire article in all its alarmist glory.
By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
Imagine you’ve owned the same car since 1988 and for all these years you’ve always brought your car to the same mechanic. Now imagine the street sign to the right belongs to the mechanic you’ve been using all these years. Read the sign carefully.
Would you be at all surprised if this mechanic was only focused on muffler and exhaust related issues? So much so that maybe you too became overly focused on your muffler and exhaust?
Given your choice of shops is strictly limited to muffler and exhaust repairs, how can you ever expect to accurately diagnose problems NOT muffler or exhaust related?
The answer is, you can’t.
Above is the IPCC mandate as defined by the U.N. 
That’s right. Underneath all their papers, studies, rhetoric and obfuscation, lies the IPCC’s “muffler and exhaust” mandate as defined by the IPCC’s creator – the United Nations. Now you know why every one of their “findings” is “human-caused.”
“The IPCC does not have a mandate to consider any other causations for alleged climate change, such as natural ones related to solar change and ocean circulation cycles — just presumptive human causes, such as fossil fuels.
“The IPCC sees a human climate-fingerprint everywhere because that is what they are looking for.” – S. Fred Singer
My muffler analogy may not be the best example, but i think you get the idea: The next time you see a headline or hear a person touting another monumental, human-caused climate finding by the IPCC, remind them how the IPCC is finding what they’re looking for in the only place they’re looking.
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
 – Download the mandate by following this chain of links: IPCC > Procedures > Click “Principles Governing IPCC Work” and choose your language to download the PDF – OR – you can download a copy here (PDF)
 – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by, and operates under the control and monitoring of, the United Nations(source).
 – Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. (Source: Wikipedia)
By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 12, 2014
From my personal magazine collection is this climate-related article published in Time magazine on June 24, 1974:
Follow the links below the image to view the entire article, it makes for great reading. If you replace the word “cooling” with the word “warming” and replace the phrase “ice age” with the phrase “scalding cauldron of death and destruction” it’s just like an Al Gore speech but without the monotonous, lack-of-inflection robot voice.
Intro by Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
In this day and age of global warming alarmism people either forgot or don’t know that there was a time only 35 years ago when “scientists” were screaming and warning us of the coming ice age.
Below is an episode of “in Search of …”, a 1970s show hosted by Leonard ‘Mr. Spock’ Nimoy that explored mysteries of the day. This particular episode first aired in May, 1978 and explores “The Coming Ice Age.”
I find this episode interesting because they present the same historical data and trends we’re familiar with today – including the 40 year temperature decline that had begun 40 years earlier. But in the late 70s alarmists interpreted this data to mean an ice age was imminent.
Then in the early to mid 80s temperatures showed some warming and some of these same scientists spun around 180 degrees and declared the globe was now warming instead. A great example of this flip-flop is “Stanford University’s noted global warming alarmist and Al Gore advisor Stephen Schneider”(source) who appears in this 1978 episode endorsing and discussing the coming ice age – only to flip to a global WARMING alarmist position when it was convenient.
With the lack of warming over the last 17 years, i wonder how long before “science” decides we’re not headed for a scalding cauldron of death and destruction. Let me guess: as soon as somebody figures out how to create a multi-billion dollar industry to support and tax the new alarmist position.
Enjoy the “science” from 1978 🙂
By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – June 23, 2014
As you know, i am a global warming skeptic. If you wish to catch up on what i believe and why, i recommend looking to the menu at the top of each page where it says “Global Warming.”
Very briefly, this how i split the issue:
I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:
- Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
- Are humans responsible?
Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:
- I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
- I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.
Today i want to revisit an aspect of the global warming theory that i covered in my article “Global Warming: I Have Questions.”
For some background, this 97% figure comes from a study conducted by climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and it is quoted ad nauseam by global warming reality deniers as proof that “97% of climate scientists agree global warming is real and humans are the cause.”
To date, i had been unable to track down a copy of this 2013 study. I thought maybe i had just been looking in all the wrong places, then i come to find out “the University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists (John Cook) to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.“
Interesting, eh? 97% of scientists agree but nobody can use the data in a rebuttal. Gotta love it.
But alas, i finally found a PDF copy of this elusive study and i’ve had a chance to read through it for myself (PDF copy here) and below is my rebuttal.
This rebuttal of the study doesn’t get into the questionable methodology used by John Cook and his fellow authors. I’ll leave that for another day and another time. Why? Because i don’t want to muddy the waters. I don’t need to. Taken at face value, the study does NOT say “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.”
Let’s start on page 3 of the study where they explain how the total number of papers examined was determined:
The results and their findings are then depicted on page 4 of the study, in this table. The colors are not in the original table; I added these colors to make it easier to follow along with my breakdown that follows.
Interpretation of this data is as easy as 1, 2, 3 …
- 11,944 papers were analyzed.
- 3,896 of these papers expressed a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming (agw).
- 3,896 is 32.6% of the 11,944 papers.
CONCLUSION: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.
That’s it. I’ve done nothing to adjust or interpret these numbers. What you see is what you get: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.
What? What am i missing here? How does Cook et al twist 32.6% into the oft-quoted 97%?
I’ll tell you what’s missing – and it explains why the University of Queensland is threatening lawsuits over the use of this data for any scientific rebuttals:
They simply ignore the 7,930 papers not expressing a position.
That’s right, they simply ignored the 7,930 papers not expressing a position and qualified their 97% findings by saying the “percent of papers with a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)“.
The bottom line is, without any interpretation, taken at face value, without any qualifying language, this study says:
32.6% of scientists agree global warming is real!
That is the plain language of this study. Period.
Now remember i said i wasn’t going to get into the methodology of this study? Well, i’m not. But somebody far more qualified than myself has, and this 32.6% gets horribly worse for the authors of this study.
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
I am a
global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic. I catch a lot of heat (pun intended) for my skepticism.
But i have my reasons and this video does a very level-headed job of explaining where skeptics are coming from in the
global warming climate change climate disruption debate.
If you’re a
global warming climate change climate disruption believer and you wish to understand the skeptic’s perspective, i ask you to watch just the first 2 minutes.
The first 2 minutes of this video does an excellent job of spelling out the very thin line between believers and skeptics. So close, yet so far.
This video appears to be based on an article written by Dr. David M.W. Evans called The Skeptic’s Case. As such, you might find the video easier to understand if you read along with the original text (The Skeptic’s Case) or download the PDF here.
Actually, the PDF text version is worth downloading as a standalone resource for those times when people ask why you’re a
global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic.
Mason I. Bilderberg
By Dr. David M.W. Evans via YouTube
By Mason I. Bilderberg – 5/8/2014
As you might know by now, i have serious doubts about the
global warming climate change climate disruption theory. Quite frankly, i’m not convinced. At all.
There’s just too much funny business going on with the language and the alleged “science.”
If you want a more comprehensive insight into the reasons for my doubts, i suggest reading two articles i recently wrote: Global Warming: I Have Questions and Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.
One of the topics i hit upon in my second article (Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose) is the use of weasel words in the global warming debate.
This is a real hot point with me – the use of misleading language to distort the
global warming climate change climate disruption argument. If you have to lie, distort and otherwise mislead people to sell your wares, there’s a problem.
As a recent example, over at techtimes.com is this ominous sounding headline:
The first two paragraphs read:
Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in the history of mankind, according to a new study.
Researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, California made an analysis of carbon dioxide levels, finding concentrations at their highest level in 800,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Investigators found 401.33 parts per million of the greenhouse gas in the air.
To spot weasel wording you normally would look for some kind of qualifier language within the claim. In this instance, the phrase “800,000 years” jumped off the page at me.
So i naturally asked myself, “Self, why . . . why would they limit this claim to a time frame of 800,000 years when we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old and we know scientists have calculated carbon dioxide levels going back AT LEAST 500 million years?”
Here is why: to distort the truth.
Look at the graphs below. First thing to note is the Y axis on both graphs represents the level of CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm). The Y axis on both graphs are of equal size, this allows you to have an accurate perspective when comparing the CO2 levels between the two graphs.
The top graph represents the last 1 million years. The blue squiggly line represents the CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years that are referenced in the techtimes.com article.
The bottom graph represents the last 600 million years. The blue line represents the CO2 levels for the last 600 million years.
Take a look:
Now do you see why the techtimes.com article couched their scary headline within the 800,000 year time frame? Had they gone back any further they wouldn’t be able to write their tabloid headline! (Added bonus: 800,000 years allows them to use the catchy phrase “since the existence of mankind” which helps advance the “blame mankind” narrative.)
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
More on my
global warming climate change climate disruption perspective:
As suggested by a friend, I’m following up my Top Ten bad global warming arguments list with a Top Ten good arguments list. These are in no particular order, and I might have missed something important.
These ten were just off the top of my head….there’s no telling what might be lingering deeper in my brain.
I have avoided specific alternative causal mechanisms of natural climate change, because I view them individually as speculative. But taken as a whole, they represent a class of unknowns that can’t be just swept under the rug just because we don’t understand them.
For some reason, all of these ended up being phrased as questions, rather than statements.
1 • No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?
2 • Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?
3 • IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?
4 • Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how do you botch a hindcast?
5 • …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?
6 • Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?
Man-made climate change paved the way for American scientists to come up with the idea of weather modification. They reasoned that if daily human activity was already impacting weather patterns, it was acceptable for them to deliberately change the weather for a variety of purposes.
The first meeting about weather modification was held at the end of 1945. At this time, the possibility of using several weather manipulation schemes to America’s advantage during war was discussed. Later, during the Cold War, funds were poured into further research on the topic. This opened the door for using the weather as a secret weapon against enemies. Unfortunately, it also created the opportunity for several people and institutions to use this technology for more sinister purposes. Naturally, this topic is taboo within government organizations, but this hasn’t stopped the theories and even evidence of different “climate engineering events” from popping up all over the Internet.
10 • Hurricane Sandy Was An Engineered Superstorm
Many believe that Hurricane Sandy was a product of man-made climate change. Then there are those who believe that the storm itself was man-made. The storm was not even over yet when conspiracy theories started flying around. It is said that President Barack Obama engineered the superstorm that slammed into the eastern seaboard just a week before elections were due to take place to ensure his reelection. Proponents of the theory conclude that Obama needed a situation in which he could be the “hero,” helping those in need and ultimately proving he was the best candidate for president.
Conspiracy or not, Hurricane Sandy certainly seemed to help Obama’s presidential bid. He even won over Republican governor Chris Christie, who commented that he “kept every promise he made” when the hurricane struck. Christie declared at a press conference that although he disagreed with the president on principles and policy, he had no regrets working with him, a statement for which the governor received considerable backlash. It fueled rumors of an engineered storm, as it seemed that Obama was out to get even the opposition into his corner.
How would a human even be able to engineer a hurricane? If you believe the theories, it would be possible with the help of The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a government research arm that studies the upper atmosphere. It is believed that HAARP was instrumental in creating Sandy with electromagnetic waves and its SBX platform. Conspiracy theorists are also convinced that Hurricane Katrina was created and steered by HAARP under the order of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Naturally, HAARP denies any involvement.
9 • The Lynmouth Flood Was Caused By Cloud-Seeding
In 1952, 90 million tons of water swept through Lynmouth, a village in Devon. The disaster claimed the lives of 35 people, and 430 lost their homes. It was deemed an “act of God” and a terrible tragedy. However, rumors began to surface that rainmaking experiments may have been to blame for the excessive flooding. It was estimated that the Lynmouth region received 252 times their usual rainfall during the flooding, and it happened within a week of the rainfall experiments undertaken by the Royal Air Force.
It may seem like a creepy coincidence, but it appears to be just that. Experts noted that while rainmaking experiments did indeed take place, only individual cumulus clouds were injected with iodide or dry ice. This led to accelerated rainfall that lasted only about 20 minutes. Furthermore, the flood was not confined to Lynmouth. Heavy showers were reported all over West and South Wales.
8 • Operation Popeye
Monsoon season in Vietnam is bad enough without interference from government, but during the Vietnam War, the American government attempted to extend monsoon season by at least 30 days by seeding the clouds over the area with silver and lead iodide. This top secret campaign was known as Operation Popeye and ran from 1967–1972. It allegedly focused on increasing rainfall over the resupply routes in the area, particularly the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The plan was kept under wraps until 1971, when a reporter uncovered a memo secretly sent to President Johnson. The memo contained the following message: “Laos operations—Continue as at present plus Pop Eye to reduce the trafficability [sic] along infiltration routes & Authorization requested to implement operational phase of weather modification process previously successful tested and evaluated in some area.”
The reporter, Jack Anderson, wasted no time in bringing this information to the public. This ultimately led to the proposal of a treaty between the US and other governments to prohibit the use of weather modification technology during wartime. The ENMOD (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques) was signed in 1976 by a host of UN members, ensuring that all forms of weather manipulation are only used for peaceable means.
The American government may deny that Operation Popeye was intended to increase rainfall for sinister purposes, but the conspiracy theories surrounding the project aren’t going away anytime soon.
7 • Yellow Rain
The Hmong people sided with the US during the Vietnam War. This was not taken lightly by the countries of Vietnam and Laos, who declared a different kind of war on the Hmong tribes: chemical warfare. Witnesses described seeing yellow-colored rain falling from the sky that had an oily texture and seemed to cling to whatever it landed on. Others reported seeing helicopters flying low over the land and spraying the oily liquid over the area.
It seemed that the “yellow rain” had some form of acid in it. Many who came into contact with it claimed to have had seizures, and others even alleged that it blinded them permanently. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, similar statements were made by the Cambodian people.
Interestingly enough, it seems that experts have now concluded that yellow rain was, in fact, the feces of honeybees, making all of the above just an elaborate conspiracy theory. It was also concluded that the toxins found in the yellow rain were naturally produced by fungi in the bee feces.
6 • The California Drought Was Caused By Geo-Engineering
In May 2013, a state of drought was declared in California that persisted throughout the rest of the year, the state’s driest year to date. In December, a massive wildfire broke out near Big Sur, thought to have been spurred by the dry spell. More than 900 acres of land were destroyed in the blaze. The drought continued into 2014.
The logical explanation given by scientists was that the drought was the result of global warming, man-made climate change, or both. Conspiracy theorists are not buying it, though. They are convinced that geo-engineering is to blame for the drought. According to theorists, geo-engineers have cut the rainfall in California with the continuous spraying of aerosols and use of ionosphere heating. By turning California into a desert, its citizens will be at the mercy of the government to supply food they can no longer provide for themselves, leaving the government in total control of the population.
Proponents of the theory are even going as far as to say that there is no natural weather anymore. They believe that continued geo-engineering has caused the planet’s natural climate system to stop functioning. Now, the geo-engineers are simply making up weather patterns as they go along, hurtling America into a state of weather warfare.
When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.
They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt.
But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.
Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.
Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the . . .
By Joanne Nova via JoNova
We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:
- Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I. (see footnote 1 SPM, page 3)
- Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.
Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).
To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures, 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010, Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.
Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work.
Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message
September 14, 2012
Here’s the story/transcript from Spencer Michels, along with video that follows. I have not seen the piece that will be airing nationally yet, and I don’t know how much of me they use, but this just appeared on the PBS website.
One note: when they talk about “heat sync” they really meant to say heat sink. – Anthony
Intro by PBS:
It was about 105 degrees in Chico, Calif., about three hours north of Sacramento, when we arrived at the offices of one of the nation’s most read climate skeptics. Actually, Anthony Watts calls himself a pragmatic skeptic when it comes to global warming. Watts is a former television meteorologist, who has been studying climate change for years. He doesn’t claim to be a scientist; he attended Purdue. He’s the author of a blog, Watts Up with That?, which he calls the world’s most viewed site on global warming. For a story I was working on for the PBS NewsHour, Watts was recommended by the Heartland Institute, a conservative, Chicago-based non-profit that is one of the leading groups that doubt that climate change — if it exists — is attributable to human activities.
Watts doesn’t come across as a true believer or a fanatic. For one thing, he has built a business that caters to television stations and individuals who want accurate weather information and need displays to show their viewers. He has developed an array of high tech devices to disseminate weather data and put it on screens. He has several TV stations around the country as clients.
But Watts’ reputation doesn’t come from his business — IntelliWeather — but rather from his outspoken views on climate change. He says he’s been gathering data for years, and he’s analyzed it along with some academics. He used to think somewhat along the same lines as Richard Muller, the University of California physicist who recently declared he was no longer a skeptic on climate change. Muller had analyzed two centuries worth of temperature data and decided his former skepticism was misplaced: yes, the earth has been warming, and the reason is that humans are producing carbon dioxide that is hastening the warming the planet.
Watts doesn’t buy Muller’s analysis, since, he believes, it is based on faulty data. The big problem, as Watts sees it, is that the stations where temperatures are gathered are too close to urban developments where heat is soaked up and distorts the readings. So it looks like the earth is warming though it may not be, he says.
The climate isn’t changing, but doomsday rhetoric is rising
The world isn’t warming. The Climate Depot website obtained the latest satellite measurements and found the Earth’s thermostat hasn’t budged since September 1996.
That’s 210 straight months without any trend of the planet growing hotter, or colder, by even a tenth of a degree. This ought to be good news for buyers of a Toyota Prius or carbon-dioxide offsets. They could imagine themselves as having saved the world. But they’re more depressed than ever.
Matthew Ranson, an economist, describes in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management the chaos that he thinks awaits. “Between 2010 and 2099,” he writes in the peer-reviewed journal, “climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States.” No estimates of mopery or pillaging.
Mr. Ranson said he examined the effect that temperature has on crime rates, based on FBI records. The numbers recognize the obvious criminal preference to rob and pillage in balmy conditions; a blizzard is bad for everybody’s business.
He speculates that a great crime wave would follow the heat wave predicted by computer models of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The U.N. panel is raising its rhetoric, too. London’s daily Independent reports that the panel predicts crop yields will fall by 2 percent every decade, leading to malnutrition and starvation. There will be floods, fires, civil war, hay fever, heat waves, boils, various itches, pestilence and plagues on mankind.
Science Denial Is Not Exclusive To Right Wing Fundamentalists
By David Jerale via The Libertarian Republic
In a column for Scientific American January of last year, Michael Shermer, the founder of The Skeptics Society, exposed what he calls “The Liberals’ War on Science.” Shermer observes that, while it is true that Republicans are more overwhelmingly opposed to well-established scientific consensus like anthropogenic climate change theory and evolution, the problem of science denial also reaches epidemic proportions on the left.
“Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—,” Shermer writes, “in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs.”
Taken only at face value, this seems fairly innocuous– and critics like Chris Mooney were quick to point out, correctly, that science denial is predominantly right-wing.
Fair enough, but I offer this riposte: Rick Santorum and his ilk don’t teach science.
Discovery News, on the other hand, does– and in June, they posted a YouTube video by Laci Green, a popular online social justice advocate, feminist and peer sex educator, about genetically modified organisms. In this video, Laci doesn’t explicitly state her own opinion with regard to whether or not genetically modified foods are safe, choosing instead to present arguments for and against, with a heavy bias against, ending by asking viewers to post their thoughts on the matter in the comments section below the video.
This is a clear example of “false balance,” a tendency for media to overstate controversy in scientific matters. Fox News has been criticized for this because their coverage of climate science greatly over-represents those who disagree with anthropogenic global warming theory while there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that the theory is correct. As it happens, there is a similarly strong scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods, but Laci conveniently ignores it for the sake of manufactured controversy– and she’s not alone.
SciShow, hosted by Hank Green, is a YouTube channel with over 1.5 million subscribers devoted to discussing scientific topics. Last year, Hank posted a video wherein he discusses genetically modified organisms– what they are, why they exist, how they’re made, etcetera– which included some cherry-picked information and outright fabrications about the supposed dangers of genetic modification, in spite of the existing scientific consensus to the contrary. It was later removed, and re-uploaded by another YouTube user– in the comments section there, Hank explains “We dropped it because we cited studies that have since been discredited.”
But Hank and Laci Green are just a couple of online personalities– No real harm, right?
Enter Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” Bill has been, for the most part, strongly against science denial– he has spoken against teaching creationism to children as well as climate change denial, but oddly, he breaks form when the topic is genetically modified organisms.
Let that sink in for a moment– perhaps the most well-known science popularizer alive, Bill Nye, trying to scare people into thinking GMOs are harmful.
That’s a far cry from some preacher doing the same thing because it conflicts with his religious dogma. It’s science education programming being used to spread pseudoscience, and the consequences could be devastating.