Geoengineer confronted – admits discussing spraying poison in the sky

 

http://StopSprayingUs-SF.com – Geoengineer Ken Calderia proposes spraying chemicals in our skies to “blunt the worst effects of global warming.” But when confronted (at 4:40) he was forced to admit there has been no global warming for at least 17 years (“it has leveled off”) and that when he worked at a nuclear weapons lab, he discussed poisoning the sky, “putting pathogens in a cloud” to “rain down on your enemy and do chemical and germ warfare.” But he assured us there was no reason for concern.

Shot and edited by Patrick Roddie.

Sources:-

“Hack the Sky” debate.
http://www.earthisland.org/events/sky…

UN Climate Chief admits no warming for 17 years
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/…

Article from 2000:- Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
http://www.independent.co.uk/environm…

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vo…

Operation Popeye – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati…

Weather Modification Inc – http://weathermodification.com

Evergreen International Aviation
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supe…

http://whyintheworldaretheyspraying
http://globalskywatch.com
http://newyorkskywatch.com
http://johnfitzgeraldforcongress.com
http://aircrap.org

Australia urged to formally recognise climate change refugee status

Australia, a close neighbour of small, low-lying South Pacific states at the frontline of climate change, should be the first country to formally recognise climate change refugees, the country’s main refugee advisory body has said.

The Refugee Council of Australia has told the Australian government that it should create a new refugee category for those fleeing the effects of climate change so that they can be offered protection similar to those escaping war or persecution.

The key legal document that defines refugees, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, defines a refugee as a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland because of their race, religion, nationality of membership of a particular group.

Read full story

SKY RAPE

SKY RAPE
by Greg Fernandez Jr
We Are Change TV

There are still many questions that will be addressed, I’m sure. Is this a chemtrail? If it has chemicals in it and leaves a trail, then Yes! So anything that has a chemical can qualify as a chem-trail? No. What separates contrails from chemtrails is that contrials dissipate within minutes. chemtrails do not. can i conclusively prove that chemtrails are real? If people think chemtrails are contrials then Yes. So how the team made these number clouds will be interesting to note. Some people say canola oil is used to create the clouds. That would be good news for sure. As long as it’s not toxic, what’s the problem? Things like this could actually bring more awareness about chemtrails and their true origins.

(photo by Manny Trev)
Hey creators, what did you use to create those clouds? Is it wrong that I think they look like chemtrails? Is it bad that I noticed that the clouds did not dissipate as something like contrails would? Hey, we’re just asking questions here. Answers will be forthcoming about this event where UC Berkeley graduate ISHKY and a combination of artists, scientists and programmers created the “Pi in the Sky,” as the ISHKY article states; which is the title of the Half Moon Bay Patch article.

From the website zero1biennial.org Ishky’s article “Pi in the Sky” is sure to get more people to look up into the sky every now and then. Doing so, I believe one may notice some strange similarities between chemtrails and the Pi in the sky. I can’t be so quick to jump to conclusions but I am very curious to know how these clouds were created, and if they’re environmentally safe. Aren’t you curious too? The Sky Writing is part of the Zero1 biennial digital arts festival in the San Francisco Bay Area.

(photo from http://www.facebook.com/threepointone4)
Ishky’s article is short, sweet, and to the point. I don’t know the exact date of the article but it was written before September 12th, so I’m disappointed this isn’t bigger news. This seems like something the mainstream media would have latched onto. What’s wrong with sending a subliminal message to look up in the sky, or to think about Pi, or math and science and how they work together with computer technology. There’s nothing wrong with an environmentally-safe Pi in the sky. So what’s the harm in asking for more information about how the clouds were created and how the airplanes were synchronized? Should I expect an answer? No, but I’ll be glad if we get one.

Ishky’s “request” was seen today, September 12, 2012, from San Jose to San Francisco before the sequence of numbers circled back towards San Mateo, Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View. At about 12:56 pm (Pacific Standard Time) the circle back to the San Jose ZERO 1 Garage was be complete. Have we not seen chemtrails along this same patterned route? I’m not saying there’s a connection, and I have no clue as to Ishky’s intent beyond what the website states. Specifically interesting is this quote, “The piece will dissolve into an unprecedented visual anomaly that prompts curiosity, providing rich opportunity for social interaction.”

That statement is so vague that it begs for speculation, in my opinion. Or perhaps it speaks for intelligent conversation. Perhaps only those who were involved know for sure. “Go with what you know,” a wise Walter Bradley once told me. What we know right now is very little. Going on that, I know I have many more questions to be answered. The one question that I haven’t seen asked enough is how they made the clouds. A follow-up question would of course include “why do these clouds have similar traits as chemtrails. If one does not believe chemtrails are real, then the question is irrelevant.

I do believe there is a difference between contrails and chemtrails. I do not know exactly where the event that took place today fits into that debate, but that’s because I don’t know a lot about the science and technology that went into making the Pi in the sky. So I can’t even begin to speculate on the motives, especially when there are so many people involved in a project like this. If one percent of those people has a sinister motive, we know how that can turn out. Compartmentalization is a vital tool of the Illuminati, or whoever you think is behind such sinister motives.

So at 11:45 am this group of artists, programmers and scientists orchestrated a public art exhibit for the citizens from San Jose to as far as San Francisco. Five “synchronized” (what appear to be) black or blue “aircraft” flew across the sky “equipped with dot-matrix technology” creating cloud dots to write the first thousand numbers of the infinite Pi formula. A sixth plane would document everything. Each number was “over a quarter of a mile in height.” “Presented in collaboration with Airsign” is at the top of Ishky’s article and he also teamed up with Stamen Design; described as “a world-class creative firm specializing in data-visualization.” According to the article, Stamen Design will help “develop a platform for the public to document and share experiences of the event.”

(photo from http://www.facebook.com/threepointone4)
The five synchronized aircraft’s “100+ mile loop” went around the Bay Area with such precision it makes one wonder if the aircraft used with the dot-matrix technology was unmanned aircraft. Or perhaps the it was aircraft with remote capabilities? More than likely these were just the best pilots I’ve ever seen up close. I counted seven aircraft with my eyes, but either way it doesn’t matter. What matters is that this is not the first time I have have personally seen numbers in the sky within the last year. This is not the first time this has happened along the same Bay Area route. More so, this route is also where we see a lot of chemtrails filling up the sky. They start out like contrails, but unlike contrails they do not dissipate – they actually expand into giant cloud-like shapes. Unless one watches the full transformation of trails-to-clouds it’s hard to visualize what I am trying to write. Some chemtrails linger for hours. Some have rainbow colors inside of them. Some are very thick and some are mixed in with contrails.

Finally, I have one more point to make, and I think the various photos out there will help prove me right or wrong. From where I was filming, it appeared that the numbers were being written backwards; meaning the numbers displaying Pi were meant to be seen from outer space, as opposed to from ground-level. So if this art exhibit was meant to prompt “curiosity” and provide a “rich opportunity for social interaction”, then it leads me to wonder, who was the social interaction meant for, and is it excluded to ground-level visuals? Or was it also meant to stimulate or reach those beyond ground-level Earth? Only those who orchestrated this event know for sure.

(photo by Manny Trev. Manny took two photos and they look like mirror images; one is backwards to the naked eye, but one is not.)
I asked a question on Facebook about how they made the clouds. Seems like a simple enough question. Like the art in the sky, my question was erased from the “Pi in the Sky Community Page about ZERO1”. (http://www.facebook.com/threepointone4) All attempts to contact Ishky have failed thus far, but I will not give up until I am proven wrong about my suspicion of chemicals being used to sky-write. I am baffled that most of the comments on their community page are about how cool it looked. The real question is what was used to make the clouds, and why do they look eerily similar to what we believe are chemtrails?

So I leave you with one last cryptic question. Is the ISHKY article “Pi In The Sky” a play off of the Alan Parsons Project’s music video of “Eye In The Sky”? Listen to the words. Regardless if the skywriting is related to chemtrails, I hope the event on 9/12/12 reminds more people to look up at the sky every once in a while.

UPDATE: 9/13/12 – The Chem-Trails are back with a vengeance

Could climate change make Canada a future superpower?

+
In Laurence C. Smith’s new book “The World in 2050,” which focuses on the effects of climate change over the next 40 years, it is theorized that Canada could become a global superpower.
Mr. Smith believes that the warmer temperatures will bring out more natural resources such as water, oil and gas. This will lead to higher numbers in immigration and cause new infrastructure and development. At the same time, southern countries will be losing resources and population, lending way for northern rim countries to lead in the global markets.
Northern rim countries, like Canada, Russia, the northern U.S. and the Scandinavian countries, may prosper during the times of higher temperatures, but all other countries will be devastated. Mr. Smith is quick to point this out and note that there are many negative effects caused by climate change, some of which we’re already seeing. “The pine beetle is devastating B.C. timber and summer heat waves knocked out 30 per cent of Russia wheat crop, so it would be disingenuous of me to suggest all of this spells nothing but good news. But alongside the bad news there will be some beneficial changes,” he says.
Laurence C. Smith is a scientist and professor of geography and earth sciences at the University of California Los Angeles. He originally set out to discover the negative effects of climate change in the north and “humanize it a bit,” but discovered “there are two sides to every issue.” “I went there and found people suffering but I also found people flourishing, doing well,” he told CTV.ca.

Read full article

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists tries to use Global Warming to stir up more fear, drama and alarmism

Editor’s note: See Climategate. Also see Climategate 2.0.

A group of scientists that tracks the likelihood of a global cataclysm says the world is moving closer to doomsday.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Tuesday that it has moved its “Doomsday Clock” to five minutes to midnight.

The group says inadequate progress on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and continuing inaction on climate change are the reasons for the change.

Read propaganda laden “article” here

U.N. Taking Over City Councils Across America!

We Are Change Colorado – Stacy Lynne educates We Are Change Colorado about the International Council on LOCAL Environmental Initiatives. An arm of the United Nations Agenda 21 and how they are using “GREENWASHING” to take over America.


Agenda 21: An international mandate for building compliance and enforcement capacity as an essential element of environmental management

United Nation’s Agenda 21

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a New Enemy to unite us, we Came Up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.The real Enemy then, is Humanity itself.” Page 75 of The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome
PDF of The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club
of Rome


Club of Rome website

ICLEI

Billionaire David Rothschild admits man made global warming’s agenda is for GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. One min news clip.

“Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a New World Body, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.”
Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment

Seattle City Council bans plastic shopping bags

The fight over plastic bags could move to the Legislature in the coming session as environmentalists seek to expand the ban unanimously approved Monday by the Seattle City Council to the entire state.

At the same time, the plastics industry, which poured $1.4 million into defeating a 20-cent Seattle disposable-bag fee in 2009, suggested it would seek statewide legislation to encourage recycling, rather than fighting bans in every city.

“A statewide solution that includes recycling is more comprehensive. … It also supports an American industry that provides tens of thousands of jobs,” Mark Daniels, vice president for sustainability and environmental policy for South Carolina-based Hilex Poly Co., a leading manufacturer of plastic bags, said in a statement after the vote.

Read full article

Deadly snowstorm halts travel across Great Plains despite “Global Warming”

Fierce winds and snow that caused fatal road accidents and shuttered highways in five states, crawled deeper into the Great Plains early Tuesday, with forecasters warning that pre-holiday travel would be difficult if not impossible across the region.

Hotels were filling up quickly along major roadways from eastern New Mexico to Kansas, and nearly 100 rescue calls came in from motorists in the Texas Panhandle as blizzard conditions forced closed part of Interstate 40, a major east-west route, Monday night.

About 10 inches of snow had fallen in western Kansas before dawn Tuesday, and several more inches — along with strong wind gusts — were expected, National Weather Service meteorologist Marc Russell said.

Read full article

Here We Go Again: Climategate 2.0

The Intel Hub
By Madison RuppertEditor of End the Lie
November 23, 2011

A mere two years after the original Climategate which exposed massive deception perpetrated by the scientists promulgating the theory of anthropogenic global warming, a massive batch of previously unreleased hacked emails have been released.

The emails were hacked by an unknown entity and contain private correspondence between both British and American scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

This comes a mere five days before almost 200 countries are sending delegates to Durban, South Africa to attempt to come to an agreement on a new internationally recognized global warming treaty which would create the current treaty which is going to expire next year, called the Kyoto Protocol.

The major so-called scientists exposed in the original Climategate scandal return with a vengeance including Michael Mann, Ken Trenberth, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tom Wigley revealing the fact that they once again are deceiving the public.

The new dump of emails paints the promoters of man-made global warming in quite an ugly light indeed, showing that they are continuing to exaggerate the extent of global warming by privately admitting that the evidence in support of their position is quite lacking indeed.

As James Delingpole, a blogger for the British Telegraph, aptly put it, “what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.”

Yet the promoters of the anthropogenic global warming theory that is abused by criminals like Al Gore in order to rob the world blind in the name of saving the world continue to pretend it is based on hard science.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the George Soros funded Media Matters continues to promote the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its recent report that claims “climate change will likely worsen certain extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.”

Hopefully the rest of the media will not be ignorant enough to ignore the massive and widespread fraudulent activity of the scientists involved in promoting the man-made global warming theory.

That being said, the British Independent writes that, “A series of reviews in Britain and the US later cleared researchers of any scientific impropriety and said the affair had not undermined the scientific basis of global warming,” although to anyone who read the emails this conclusion seems a bit absurd.

UEA did not yet officially confirm if the emails were real while saying that they indeed “had the appearance” of being part of the batch of original Climategate emails that were released in 2009.

The emails date from before 2009 and are between the foremost researchers in the field of climate change in both the United States and the United Kingdom, which includes a leading figure in the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office, Sir John Houghton.

Of course so-called climate experts are claiming that, once again, the emails do not undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory, regardless of the fact that, as the Independent puts it, they “show climate scientists squabbling, politicking, calling each other names and, in effect, plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

If the data was truly there, the science would be irrefutable and there would be no need to attempt to put information in “the best possible light.”

Did Newton scheme about how to present his information in order to give the best possible impression? Of course not, if it is true science, there is no need for politicking and “plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

To any real scientist, this should be an affront to everything that science stands for, yet Bob Ward of the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change claims, “The emails… do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009.”

“None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions,” Ward told the Independent.

How can Ward make such a clearly demonstrably false assertion? I’m not quite sure but it appears he has a dogmatic attachment to the theory of man-made global warming that allows him to completely set aside reality in favor of his manufactured paradigm.

For instance, Geoff Jenkins who was formerly the head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre wrote, “Would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for Kilimanjaro glaciermelt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Phil Jones, the Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]”

How exactly does discounting a “wealth” of studies showing no rise in temperatures in the tropical troposphere “not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed” as Ward asserts?

Jones also made a quite damning comment in writing, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts [such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which would require giving information to the public]. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

If the science is legitimate, what need would there be to delete any emails? I’m not sure how Ward and others can take such blatant examples of misconduct in stride.

Another example of the science being discounted by the second Climategate leak is seen when the researchers mention the snow and ice cover on Mount Kilimanjaro which Al Gore cited as proof of man-made global warming in his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

As Anthony Watts covered (also see this article),  an email from Phil Jones to Geoff Jenkins of the UK Met Office reads, “I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down.”

Jenkins wrote, “I got [P]hilip [B]rohan to look at temps there (see attached) and there isn[‘]t any convincing consistent recent warming in the station data. […] would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for [K]ilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Clearly the science of climate change is far from settled and the claims being made by so-called climate change experts are far from accurate and truthful.

I find it somewhat disturbing that these “scientists” would be so comfortable deceiving the entire world in order to justify an enormous scam like carbon trading.

I sincerely hope that the establishment media doesn’t choose to ignore or selectively cover this latest leak as it is damning evidence showing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is far from the iron-clad science they are making it out to be.

If you would like to explore the leaked emails yourself, take a look here where they are all made available to the public and even available to search or browse through.

I encourage anyone and everyone to actually take it upon themselves to look through these and decide for yourself if you side with the so-called experts or those who think that science shouldn’t be a politicized and misrepresented field.

Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online

By: Leo Hickman, The Guardian

A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists’ handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011″ containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.

One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed “background and context” which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $ 2 a day” and, “Nations must invest $ 37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels,” the message states:

“Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics.”

To read more, visit:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

RE Tea Party » Technology

Earth Changes – Water Element

The Intel Hub
By Dr. Mark SircusIMVA
November 18, 2011

image

Bizarre reports of weather extremes continue to come in from all over the world and there is no one anywhere telling the public why we are seeing such violent climate change.

Officials are again hitting the global warming button quite hard but we really do not know what is going on and why. Extreme weather events are hitting human populations around the globe with no sign of any letup.

The year 2010 was one the worst years in world history for
high-impact floods. But just three weeks into the New Year,
2011 has already had an entire year’s worth of mega-floods.
Meteorologist Jeff Masters

We are witnessing terrible flooding occurring in country after country, particularly hard in Italy and France as of late and it’s not clear how much longer insurance companies can keep paying for claims.

Even the United States government is running out of emergency funds and has trouble voting in more. And when the funds are voted in, it is not real money that is available to repair damages and help disaster victims. It’s funny money, almost counterfeit because it is created out of thin air with more debt creation.

2011 has already seen more billion-dollar
natural disasters than any year on record.
National Climatic Data Center.

The Associated Press printed: “Nature is pummeling the United States this year with extremes, with insurance companies paying out record-breaking amounts.”

Floods are wreaking havoc around the world; cold is setting in early, promising a long cold winter in the north, volcanoes are continuing to blow their tops spilling huge tonnages of gasses and ash, which alone hold potential to lower world temperatures further.

image

The water is certainly coming from somewhere and according a NASA report, worldwide rainfall and snowfall were so extreme in so many places last year that sea levels fell dramatically. Sea levels have been rising steadily for over a century (some debate this assumption) as the ever-warmer ocean water expands and the world’s remaining glaciers and ice sheets melt.

In fact sea levels were thought to be rising twice as fast now as they were a few decades ago but now we have had an almost instant turnaround.

Nothing in the modern satellite record comes close to the 6 mm drop worldwide last year. While 6 mm might not sound like a lot, when collected from the surface of all our planet’s oceans it adds up to 26,000 gallons of water per human.

One Possible Cause

 
Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees, most climatologists believe, so this could explain what we are seeing with intensifying rainfall. The amount of ultra fine condensation nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of cosmic rays.

Normally this quantity varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. But lately there seems to be an unexplained increase in cosmic rays and this is troubling scientists.

The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory – CERN in Geneva – announced that more cosmic rays do indeed create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute cloud chamber experiment showed natural cosmic rays quickly created vast numbers of tiny “cloud seeds.”

Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle. Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active – and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere.

When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.

Recently at the South Pole increased levels of cosmic rays have been detected crashing into the Earth and they appear to be coming from a particular location rather than being distributed uniformly across the sky. Scientists know of no source close enough to produce this pattern.

We don’t know where they are coming from,” says Stefan Westerhoff of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It’s a mystery because the hotspots must be produced within about 0.03 light years of Earth. Further out, galactic magnetic fields should deflect the particles so much that the hotspots would be smeared out across the sky. But no such sources are known to exist.

Humans must stay within certain boundaries if they hope to avoid environmental catastrophe, a leading group of environmental scientists has recently said. Crossing those limits may not rock the Earth itself, but would lead to harsh consequences for human existence on the planet as we know it.

It does seem like we have crossed that boundary and have done so very quickly. In 2011 natural disaster has been the rule not the exception with flooding taking first place in how Nature is striking at us.

image

All one has to do is look around to witness the world drowning in floods. Thousands of Bangkok residents flocked to bus, rail and air terminals in an exodus from the mass of floodwater that hit the city. Water was seeping into central areas of the city of 12 million people, entering the grounds of the Grand Palace after the main Chao Phraya river overflowed at high tide.

The floods forced the closure of seven industrial estates in Ayutthaya, Nonthaburi and Pathum Thani provinces bordering Bangkok, causing billions of dollars of damage, disrupting supply chains for industry and putting about 650,000 people temporarily out of work.

Over 700 people have been killed and eight million affected by heavy flooding across Southeast Asia. Torrential rains have pelted Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, cutting off roads and destroying homes and crops. At least 900 factories have been shut in Thailand because of the flooding, many of them auto-parts manufacturers.

On October 31, 2011 about 1.8 million people in at least five states remained without power after a rare October snowstorm buried parts of the Northeast under more than two feet of snow. On the 25th more than 90 people were counted dead from heavy rains pounding Central America after Guatemala reported more people swept away by raging floodwaters and Costa Rica found four drowned.

An estimated 700,000 people were displaced by floods and landslides following as much as 120 centimeters (47 inches) of rain in the past week in some areas – three times the monthly average this season – officials said. The week before had people killed by a week of torrential rains in El Salvador.

At least nine people have been killed and five others are missing after flash floods hit the Italian Riviera turning roads into rivers and washing cars out to sea.

Two people were swept away in floodwaters when torrential rains created rivers near Costa Blanca. And Dublin’s officials began the onerous task of piecing the capital back together again on Tuesday after a torrential downpour the day before swelled the city’s main waterways, causing them to burst their banks. Water spilled over into the streets, and the flooding quickly prompted Dublin’s City Council to enact its “major emergency plan.”

Volcanic Eruptions and Climate Change

 
image

Volcanic eruptions affect the Earth’s climate more than thought by releasing far more weather-altering particles than scientists’ suspected, new research finds. Researchers have analyzed how many secondary particles of volcanic ash generates and how this ash reacts chemically with other components of the atmosphere. The particles created from the eruptions are mostly composed of sulfuric acid.

If sulfuric acid particles become large enough, they act as seeds for cloud formation. Clouds, in turn, can alter the amount and type of precipitation an area receives. The atmospheric data the researchers collected during the Eyjafjallajökull eruption suggest that volcanic eruptions can release up to 100 million times more ash particles than thought. In addition, seeding particles can form at lower altitudes and farther distances from volcanoes than past studies had suggested.

“Most previous studies did not properly account for low-altitude impacts of volcanoes,” researcher Julien Boulon, a physicist at the Laboratory of Meteorology Physics of the French National Center for Scientific Research and Blaise Pascal University in Aubiere, France, told OurAmazingPlanet.

The findings, detailed online on July 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, point to the potentially broader climate influence that volcanoes could have.

Conclusion

 
Whatever is governing these extreme climate events will hit us emotionally and in fact we do find survivors of disasters facing a considerable amount of post-traumatic stress. The worst danger though is to the world’s agricultural system, which is taking a beating from the flooding as the human race breaks through the seven billion mark.

Even before this year’s record disasters, world food stocks were getting dangerously low. The poor peoples of the world are paying more dearly for their food as a result, meaning many are eating less.

Life is hard and has always been so for most of humanity. Certain moments in history are harder than others and of course it always depends on where and who one is. Today the entire fabric of is changing threatening us. We have entered one of the most difficult and perhaps dangerous periods of our existence; and it comes after 60 years of television and the easy life for too many people who will not do well when the going gets tougher.

Obama Praises Australia’s Draconian Carbon Tax

By: Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com

President Barack Obama has ominously praised Australia’s draconian carbon tax, even as details emerge over how the government plans to fine businesses up to $ 1.1 million dollars merely for suggesting the fact that the new tax will cause prices to rise.

During a press conference yesterday, Obama praised Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard for pursuing “a bold strategy” in passing the highly controversial carbon tax bill.

“I think that’s good for the world,” Obama said. “I actually think, over the long term, it’s good for our economies, as well, because it’s my strong belief that industries, utilities, individual consumers — we’re all going to have to adapt how we use energy and how we think about carbon.”

In reality, the carbon tax is set to devastate Australia’s economy and send energy prices skyrocketing even as the world teeters on the brink of a financial collapse.

Illustrating how overwhelmingly unpopular the new tax is amongst both businesses and consumers, the Australian government has been forced to impose draconian punishments on retailers merely for complaining or informing their customers about how the new rules will cause price hikes.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price,” which in real terms means that firms can be fined up to $ 1.1 million dollars merely for running promotions that suggest the tax will cause prices to rise, such as “Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites”.

To read more, visit:  http://www.infowars.com/obama-praises-australias-draconian-carbon-tax/

RE Tea Party » Taxes

Media Roots – Occupy Oakland: Then and Now

Media Roots.org was at the scene of the police crackdown in Oakland, Ca. on November 14th, 2011 and documented the historic OCCUPY OAKLAND Strike, March, and Port of Oakland shutdown on 11-2-11

the following videos should be spread far and wide…

Occupy Oakland Historic Strike, March & Port Shutdown 11-2-11

http://www.mediaroots…

Media Roots captured some great energy from the day of the historic general strike in Oakland on 11-2-11.

Footage includes the strike, the shutdown of the banks around town, the epic march to the port and the shutdown of the Port of Oakland.

November 14th, 2011

“Welcome to the police state, look how many cops show up for a peaceful assembly.” – Abby Martin

“Abby Martin of Media Roots went to Occupy Oakland at 4:00 am to cover the second police raid on the encampment and crackdown against the peaceful protesters at Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The footage shows the intensity in the air leading up to the raid and the insane amount of police presence that showed up to crackdown and destroy the camp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13WaOp95d0M&feature=player_embedded
Mayor Jean Quan’s legal adviser resigned at 2 am in protest to the heavy police response.”

for more information visit: http://www.mediaroots…

Polar bear declared ‘species of special concern’ despite growing numbers

Editor’s note: Not sure why the Polar bears are being placed on this list, because the growing population and numbers are being reported to be a problem. Check out the article on the Examiner. Another article is also available on the Telegraph concerning a Polar bear expert barred by global warmists. According to this expert’s research over the last 30 years, Polar bear numbers have increased.

ShareThis

Polar bear declared ‘species of special concern’ 10 Nov 2011 The majestic but vulnerable polar bear has been declared a “species of special concern” under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. Environment Minister Peter Kent notes that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population. The listing means a comprehensive management plan must be prepared within three years. Polar bear populations have been increasingly threatened as global warming shrinks the Arctic icepack, restricting their traditional hunting range.

Citizens for Legitimate Government

Greenhouse gases rise by record amount- latest government alarmism

ShareThis

Greenhouse gases rise by record amount –Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago 03 Nov 2011 The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has jumped by a record amount, according to the US department of energy, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming. The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%.

Citizens for Legitimate Government

Occupy Check Point? How Occupy Can help Ron Paul

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland/ci_19247017

Though mostly a quiet an peaceful protest, there was what Oakland Tribune news journalist Sean Maher wrote was “almost like a rebel checkpoint” near the Port of Oakland, California. Around 7:40 pm protesters were deciding who would be allowed through this checkpoint at the intersection of Seventh Street and Maritime. Maher notes that “every car that comes through is stopped while protesters question the driver, then debate with the larger group about whether they should be allowed to pass.”

Some protesters debated about who to let through the checkpoint, but how this decision was made to let cars pas or not is not clear. However, there is no indication that any car was “detained” or turned away from the impromptu checkpoint. It’s hard for me to believe there was a checkpoint by protesters in Oakland, especially without any video or photographic evidence. It may be forthcoming in the near future. Was Maher exaggerating when he called a California street intersection a “rebel checkpoint,” or something “almost like” one? Who was in charge of this checkpoint, if anyone, remains to be seen, but it should be investigated. before some of the truck drivers could pass the checkpoint they would need to be cleared by the protesters that contorted this area. “Then, they await the larger answer,” Maher reports at 7:40 pm. Cars are allowed to pass through the checkpoint when the majority of the crowd shouted to “let him go through,” Maher adds.

Even so, the results of such an investigation won’t change the fact that the protest itself was a huge success in demonstrating their frustrations against government oppression, while still allowing tolerance for opposing views. More so, citizens have once again reminded the world that there is still strength in numbers! Especially against Wall Street and the global banking industry in general; of which the Federal Reserve controls and manipulates for their own purposes. The people have also demonstrated that a peaceful demonstration is an affective way to spread awareness about government issues. The Occupy Movement should be focused on the Federal Reserve System, for that is the root of the current problems we face in America, and across the world. The Occupy Oakland demonstration proved that We the People still have a voice in our country and we still exercise our right to demonstrate.

On 11th Street and Broadway, two protesters were injured by a car that apparently ran a red light after some type of interaction with some of the protesters marching from Frank Ogawa Plaza to the Port of Oakland. The driver of the vehicle was apparently angry with some protesters who put their hands on his car while he was trying to drive “banging on the hood of his car”

Oakland Tribune news writer Paul T. Rosynsky reported at 7:35 pm that CBS 5 news trucks did not have as much luck as others in leaving the Port. Some of the protesters were vocal in allowing the trucks through, but others physically tried to block the trucks from leaving.

Hindsight will show the irony of protesters creating their own checkpoints in America. To be fair, only certain individuals should be at fault for this tyrannical behavior, not the entire group of demonstrators. Whatever we think about the Occupy Movement, we can certainly all agree that a peaceful demonstration attracts the masses. A peaceful demonstration is an unbeatable demonstration. The Tribune report adds that Alameda Labor Council members “served free hot dogs, hamburgers, veggie dogs and veggie burgers to a ravenous crowd and had given away more than 4,000 meals by 8 p.m. Firefighters from the City of Alameda with Alameda Local 689 worked the massive charcoal grills while other volunteers began picking up the mountains of trash overflowing garbage bins.”

Those who control Wall Street would like to control the entire Occupy Movement. We will know them by the fruits of their labor. The clear goal of Occupy and similar movements should be to get rid of the Federal Reserve Act. There is only one man who has stepped up to do just that. His name is Ron Paul. If we occupy the voting booths, perhaps we can decrease chances of voter fraud, thus increase the chance of Ron Paul becoming our next President of the United States. Is this a fairytale, the impossible dream? Is it possible that Ron Paul can continue the momentum to abolish the Federal Reserve?

Only in America.

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

JoNova

There goes another “fingerprint”…

It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

Judging by the speech gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.

Listen to the speech: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources”

Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.


 

CO2 variations do not correlate with man-made emissions. Peaks and falls correlate with hot years (e.g. 1998) and cold years (1991-92). No graphs are available from Salby’s speech or paper yet. This graph comes from Tom Quirk’s related work (see below).

The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current Australian political climate.

The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2 emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer — about 1%. Plants don’t like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2 from the air.

Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.

Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.

UPDATE Inserted: E.M.Smith covered this point well in 2009

“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2.

The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. Take a look at the above chart. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”

Chiefio also found some interesting quotes pointing out that corn (a C4 plant) absorbs more C13, and our mass fields of corn might just muck up the stats… (it’s a good post).

The sources of CO2 don’t seem to be industrialized areas

Suspiciously, when satellites record atmospheric CO2 levels around the globe they find that the sources don’t appear to be concentrated in the places we’d expect — industry or population concentrations like western Europe, the Ohio Valley, or China. Instead the sources appear to be in places like the Amazon Basin, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa — not so much the places with large human emissions of CO2!

But CO2 is a well mixed gas so it’s not possible to definitively sort out the sources or sinks with CO2 measurements around the globe. The differences are only of the order of 5%.

Instead the way to unravel the puzzle is to look at the one long recording we have (at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, going back to 1959) and graph the changes in CO2 and in C13 from year to year. Some years from January to January there may be a rise of 0 ppmv (ie no change), some years up to 3 ppmv. If those changes were due to man-made CO2 then we should see more of those rapid increases in recent times as man-made emissions increased faster.

What Salby found though, was nothing like what was expected

The largest increases year-to-year occurred when the world warmed fastest due to El Nino conditions. The smallest increases correlated with volcanoes which pump dust up into the atmosphere and keep the world cooler for a while. In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time-scale, and according to Salby, man-made emissions have little effect.

The climate models assume that most of the rise in CO2 (from 280 ppmv in1780 to 392 ppmv today) was due to industrialization and fossil fuel use. But the globe has been warming during that period (in fact since the depths of the Little Ice Age around 1680), so warmer conditions could be the reason that CO2 has been rising.

Salby does not dispute that some of the rise in CO2 levels is due to man-made emissions, but found that temperature alone explains about 80% of the variation in CO2 levels.

The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming. Salby says he sat on the results for six months wondering if there was any other interpretation he could arrive at, and then, when he invited scientists he trusted and admired to comment on the paper, they also sat on it for half a year. His speech created waves at the IUGG conference, and word is spreading.

A book will be released later this year: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.

Roy Spencer wrote along similar lines last year

Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason?” and Part II

“]…In Fig. 5 we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%. It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are at least as big as the human source. [Roy Spencer

“…   the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the natural fluxes in and out of the surface.  This means that we would need to know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2.  Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in accuracy??  I doubt it.”

Roy Spencer

Tom Quirk in Australia has been asking these questions for years

Tom Quirk showed that while most man-made CO2 is released in the Northern Hemisphere, and the southern Hemisphere stations ought to take months to record the rises, instead there did not appear to be any lag… (ie. the major source of the CO2 is global rather than from human activity).

Over 95% of [man-made emissions of] CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2  showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

Tom has done  a lot of work on this:

The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.

‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119.  http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

More info from Tom Quirk: SOURCES AND SINKS OF CARBON DIOXIDE  [17 page PDF]

But what about the ice cores?

The Vostok ice core record suggests CO2 levels have not been this high in the last 800,000 years, but if Salby is right, and temperature controls CO2, then CO2 levels ought to have been higher say, 130,000 years ago when the world was 2 – 4 degrees warmer than it is now.

Salby questions the ice core proxy and points out that in the ice cores, as temperature rises, C13 falls, much as it has been in the last 50 years. If it was also responding that way hundreds of thousands of years ago, then the C13 to C12 ratio can hardly be called a fingerprint of human emissions.

On the nature of science

According to Salby, science is about discourse and questioning. He emphasized the importance of debate: “Excluding discourse is not science”. He felt that it was not his position to comment on policy, saying the scientists that do are more activist than scientist.

After speaking in carefully selected phrases, he  finished his presentation saying that “anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic, is in fantasia”.

Salby was once an IPCC reviewer, and comments, damningly, that if these results had been available in 2007, “the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did.” I guess he’s also giving them an out.

———————————————————

Prof Murry Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011. [Thanks to Andrew Bolt]

Hidden Influences Are Shaping Costly Climate Change Restrictions and Penalties

By Teresa Platt | FCUSA

Agenda-laden non-profit groups and hard-nosed private individuals are guiding domestic and international campaigns to their benefit. Such campaigns impose harsh controls and costs on our governmental bodies, businesses and personal activities and are based more on taboos and myths than economic realities or science.

The climate is changing for the climate change campaign

While businesses provide necessary and desirable products, public education campaigns sell ideas. Such campaigns are designed to shift attitudes and generate policy. In recent years, the largest such policy-generating campaign, by far, has been the international climate change campaign, which burst onto the global scene at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the “Rio Earth Summit” in Brazil. In Rio, UNCED generated its own international treaties: the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Convention for Bio Diversity (UNCBD). The UN’s Environment Programme (UNEP) runs its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC).

Carbon Trading: Taxation and Regulation Without Representation – at $38,000 a Page!

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigns mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits to signatory nations and requires each country to file an annual report with the UN on its GHG inventory. How much do we taxpayers pay for the developing countries’ paperwork? How about more than $38,000 a page!

Each signatory country must participate in a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) dictating that projects under the treaty’s control are registered. Registration is based on submission of a Project Design Document, third party “verification” from an independent reviewer plus a period allowing for public comment. This is in addition to all local and national requirements. In every country that signed on to Kyoto, any project emitting GHG requires registration. These include buildings; livestock; manufacturing; utilities; mining, oil and gas extraction; aviation; land use and land use changes and foresty (LULUCF); and anything else generating GHG emissions into the atmosphere.

After review, mitigation via carbon credit trading is arranged to offset whatever negatives the CDM determines the project will generate in tons of carbon. This is where the “cap and trade” and “carbon trading” marketplace comes in. It is a socialist’s dream of how “free” people engage in “free” markets. The Europeans have already forced 10,000 facilities to participate in this trading scheme.

But this is just Phase I. Yes, they’ve come up with a UNFCCC Phase II which goes even further starting in 2012. The UNFCCC is counting down the days, literally – they have a counter on their web page breathlessly ticking off the seconds – until December when the countries meet in Copenhagen to give the UN more power. All to “save” the Earth.

It’s taxation and regulation by a governing body you never elected and can’t boot out of office. New Zealand farmers dubbed it all the “fart tax” and used the power of the vote to boot out politicians buying into this farce.

The UN leadership and their NGOs have orchestrated a global campaign that has instituted a taxing and regulatory mechanism via treaty, litigation, legislation and pure unchecked political power, forcing our governmental entities, and thereby the people, to do their bidding.(4)

A couple of billion tons of fat wait to be trimmed within the UN, USAID and hundreds of other federal programs.

No taxation and no regulation without representation!

The US Senate ratified the UNFCCC in October 1992 and made commitmentsincluding one to “Promote and cooperate in education, training and public awareness related to climate change and encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of non-governmental organizations …”.

The UNFCCC grew teeth in 1997 with its Kyoto Protocol, an amendment assigning mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits to signatory nations with a requirement for annual reports on national GHG inventories. The history of the Kyoto Protocol and the United States saw President Bill Clinton sign it in November 1998 but never submit it to the Senate for ratification, while the administration of George Bush rejected it outright as an economic sinkhole. Almost all other UN members have ratified the protocol, while a handful remain undecided.

The UNFCCC has something for everyone: meetings in exotic locales, lots of data accumulation, its own “cap and trade” marketplace in carbon credits where traders get rich, technology transfers, financial support for projects in developing countries, and lots and lots of paperwork. But not to worry, the UNFCCC will help with the paperwork, at tens of thousands of dollars per page.

Following direction for the UNFCCC treaty dictates, the US has committed to a massive shift from a fossil fuel-dependent economy built on imports from the Middle East and abundant US coal. The new economy embraces “clean” energy dependent on minerals imported from mines in China, Russia and Africa and opportunity exported since most of the key sources are closed to access in the US.

The UN is a galaxy unto itself. And it’s becoming more and more obvious to waitresses and truck drivers working double shifts just to pay their taxes that the UN is another layer of government, unaccountable and global, and designed to benefit those seeking to rule the world via a computer and desk job.

US allegiance to UN

Our Executive branch has committed to reducing GHG emissions a bit less over a slightly longer timeframe than established in the Kyoto amendment to the UNFCCC. Many point out that such goals are economic straightjackets to the developed countries, delivering to developing countries such as India and China a competitive advantage while doing nothing for a climate that changes due to natural factors far beyond human control.(3)

The administration has committed to supporting the “clean” energy lobby with massive taxpayer subsidies per kilowatt ($80 billion in loans and grants plus a ten-year $150 billion infusion for R&D) and to heavily regulating and taxing fossil fuel energy sources.

The EU is ahead of the US and their findings tell a cautionary tale of 50,000 “green” energy jobs costing Spain US$38 billion (an astounding US$760,000 per job), a drain on resources, rising energy prices and opportunities exported. Each “green” job created in Spain destroyed 2.2 other real jobs. Other countries are revolting against the outrageous costs of these pie-in-the-sky programs.

With all these expensive options on the table, many recognize that the politics are careening forward, pushed by an orchestrated climate change campaign built on “scientific” reports issued by the UNIPCCC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists are politely questioning the UNIPCCC data while others are outraged.

“[A]nthropogenic global warming is the most colossal forgery of the century … the biggest sham of the last 15 years,” said Italy’s Franco Battaglia, Ph.D.. Another called it “the worst scientific scandal in history.”

The sky is falling

Our Executive branch has committed to meeting UN-mandated goals while in the Legislative branch, the House narrowly passed and sent the Senate a whopping 1,427-page climate change/energy bill capping air pollution and setting up carbon trading markets, cap and trade. The debate was heated since there is a growing awareness that this is politics in search of business returns, not science.

In the Judiciary branch, a greenhouse gas (GHG)-as-pollutant court case is directing the EPA to regulate under the Clean Air Act or explain why not. Mass vs EPA (2007) was remanded back to the lower courts and EPA because the Supreme Court declared:

“… the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.” … “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty … is irrelevant. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.” {pages 31 and 32}

“Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, instead offering only a laundry list of reasons not to regulate ……These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. … If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making areasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rule-making petition based upon impermissible considerations.” {holding 4. of the summarizing syllabus}

Pushed by the courts, the EPA issued a proposed “endangerment” finding, then issued its final finding in December 2009 just before various states met in Copenhagen to hammer out an agreement to reduce GHG emissions. Now the EPA can spend 2010 regulating. Under discussion are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

The EPA is drafting standards for F, R and L-based carbon sources. Fossil fuel-based F-carbon industries such as coal-fired power plants and the auto industry and rock-based R-carbon industries such as mining, which release the carbon sequestered in rocks, are under review. Flooding the EPA office are petitions to force regulation further down the chain to the smallest entity and to L-carbon (living) entities such as crop production, forestry and animal agriculture.

Pony up, cowboy!

Everyone, from builders to cowboys, is trying to figure out what this will mean for their industry. A 64,000 square foot building emits over 100 tons of GHG and will quickly come under the long arm of the EPA. So, it is said, will ranchers with 25 dairy cows, 50 head of beef cattle, 200 hogs or a 500-acre corn farmer, both in L-carbon businesses. EPA’s 2008-2009 CAA/Title V permit fee/tax is $43.75 per ton of emitted GHG. This calculates to$175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $21.87 per hog in fees/taxes per year.

Randy Parker, CEO of the Utah Farm Bureau, crunched the numbers for the Utah herd based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture Statistics:

That’s a GHG/climate change tax of $98 million, almost half of the beef, dairy and hog farmers’ net income in Utah alone! Imagine such taxes extrapolated to the entire country, to all L-carbon based businesses. Factor in similar taxes on F and R-carbon industries such as transport, our national utility grid, mining and manufacturing – industries that will attempt to pass these costs to you the consumer or simply export opportunity offshore to avoid such onerous carbon taxation.

Coal, a favorite target of the climate change campaign, has several hundred years’ worth of reserves and efficiently produces 40% of the world’s electricity. Coal will be heavily hit by US carbon taxes. The EU aviation sector estimates this GHG taxation scheme will cost US$19.6 billion to US$91.8 billion annually and estimated they could only pass a third of such costs to the consumer.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) has overstated animal agriculture’s contribution but no calculations are available for wildlife’s contribution to GHG emissions. Yet.

Ted Turner, who donated $1 billion to the UN, has not yet weighedin on the debate. Ted is the U.S.’s largest landowner and biggest bison rancher with over 50,000 head on 2 million acres. Ted’s herd farts out about 100,000 tons of GHG emissions per year. Ted’s annual GHG tax will be $4.375 million. Ouch. When he gets that bill, he might rethink the wisdom of his grand donation.

Unless the US resorts to illegal “green” trade barriers on imports, this GHG tax on products can’t be passed along to consumers so we can kiss our cowboys and farmers goodbye!

Green groups promote regulation

Eco and animal rights groups, predictably, are enthusiastic. Most have already incorporated climate change messages into their propaganda. There are pleas to “save” expanding polar bear populations from extinction, ironically with offers of plush toy and fake fleece giveaways crafted from fossil fuel-based synthetics.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals preaches veganism will save the Earth from global warming and its co-founder Alex Pacheco established Clean Air Investments, LLC in 2005.

Jan Hartke, founder and director of the Humane Society of the United States’s (HSUS) “global environmental arm” and subsidiary Earth Voice International (EVI), morphed into a climate change expert in recent years. As vice-chairperson of the Clinton Climate Initiative, Hartke is advising city mayors on the issue and co-chaired the 2009 Environmental and Clean Energy Inaugural Ball welcoming in the Obama administration.

Hartke also chairs the U.N. Alliance for Sustainable Development, and served as president and board member of the Earth Council Foundation (ECF). Former UNCED’s Secretary General Maurice Strong has served as ECF’s chairman. Other ECF board members included Strong’s stepdaughter Kristina Mayo (who served as his assistant at the UN) and other HSUS board members including Marilyn Wilhelm and David Jhirad.

Hartke committed $10.5 million and secretariat services to Bill Clinton’s Climate Change and Environment Coalition (CCEC) on behalf of ECF and HSUS subsidiaries EVI and Humane Society International (HSI).(1)

Professional-Natura

HSUS’s largest single donation in 2004, $250,000, went to Pro-Natura USA that hired John van D. Lewis as its executive director (2004-2006).

In 2005, Earth Council Foundation (c/o Jan Hartke at the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) DC address) donated $85,000 to Pro-Natura International in Paris for a feasibility study for a “Global Institute for Sustainable Development.”

By 2007, Hartke was chairing something called the “UN Alliance for Sustainable Development”, and HSUS’s 2007 990s listed a new affiliate they controlled, the “Global Alliance for Humane Sustainable Development”.

Lewis served 22 years with USAID and as Supervisory Rural Development Officer for USAID/Haiti in Port-au-Prince (1983-1987), overseeing an agricultural development portfolio of over $50 million annually. He served as director of USAID’s central (Global Bureau) Office of Agriculture and Food Security (1994-2000). He was also a member of the US delegation to the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and developed carbon market mechanisms for Carbon Credit Capital, which published a primer on carbon markets that you’ll want to study.

As COO of the Climate Investment Network, Lewis developed a presentation on Carbon Sequestration for the UN’s Development Program. He is now an equity partner with Terra Global Capital LLC Landscape Carbon Fund.

Hartke and Lewis’s views on how the world should work are already law via treaty, government commitment and litigative caveat.

NOTES:

2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990-2007 (April 2009).

http://www.climatedepot.com

http://sovereignty.net/library/library-4.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424567009790525.html

The special influence of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

HSUS and its affiliates transferred over $230,000 to ECF between 2002 through 2004. ECF’s assets are less than $100,000 so it does not have the assets to meet this $10.5 million obligation. But neither do the HSUS subsidiaries, HSI and EVI. HSI closed 2005 with a negative fund balance of $9.7 million which ballooned to $11.2 million in 2006, then fell slightly to a negative $10.6 million at the close of 2007.

From 1998 through 2004, EVI spent $2.6 million to raise $217,000 in donations from the public. From 1999 through 2004, HSUS provided EVI with $8.7 million, or 98.7%, of EVI’s total income of $8.8 million. EVI still closed 2005 with a negative $10.7 million fund balance. That’s a whopping $19.4 million run through HSUS’s EVI as it created a climate change expert, Hartke, suitable for global center stage, acted as the secretariat for Clinton’s Climate Initiative, and launched programs promoting climate change and carbon trading.

Since ECF has virtually no assets and EVI and HSI are financially dependent on HSUS, the $10.5 million commitment made by ECF/EVI/HSI to generate climate-focused policy change was actually underwritten by HSUS, and EVI’s $10.6 million deficit when it stopped filing tax returns was most likely absorbed by HSUS.

One man’s vast influence

UN maestro Maurice Strong served as Secretary-General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the “Rio Earth Summit” and has been called the “godfather” of the UNFCC.(3)

Earth Council Foundation (ECF), we are told, is a subsidiary of The Earth Council, “an autonomous Swiss non-governmental organization affiliated with the Earth Council Foundation Canada with offices in San Jose, Costa Rica(2) and the Earth Council Foundation – USA”. The Earth Council was founded at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (where the concept of climate change moved to the world stage) “at the initiative of the Summit’s Secretary-General, Maurice Strong …”. Beside the entities in the US, Canada and Costa Rica, the Earth Council conglomerate includes an Earth Council Alliance in San Diego, the Oriental Environmental Institute in China and the Earth Charter Initiative.

The Earth Charter Initiative sprang from another document introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit. “An Earth Charter USA Network advances the Charter in cooperation with the Secretariat which is based at The Center for Respect of Life and Environment, an affiliate of The Humane Society of the U.S., in Washington, DC” and “All contributions will go towards supporting the Earth Charter Initiative at the University of Peace in Costa Rica.”

HSUS and its affiliates issued grants totaling over $450,000 between 1998 and 2004 to its Center and the University for Peace. Bringing us full circle again, Maurice Strong served as the University for Peace’s “President and Rector” as early as 1999.(2)

The UN initially funded Strong’s Earth Council in 1999 with a grant of $1,244,300 from tax dollars. The Earth Council is a climate change policy catalyst that “carries out the climate change and market mechanism program in partnership with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)”. The UNCTAD/Earth Council “Carbon Market Programme (CMP) started in 1991 as the UNCTAD Emissions Trading Project and has been a pioneer in working with governments and the private sector in the development of a global carbon market.”

Strong resigned from the UN and moved to China while under scrutiny for a suspect $1 million payment that appeared tied to the UN’s corrupt “oil for food” program.

Strong now serves as Chairman of the China Carbon Corporation and Vice-Chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange. He states his colleague, president of China Carbon Corporation, “pioneered the development of emissions trading by the United Nations.”

All the scientific data for the climate change campaign runs through yet another UN entity, the International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) which regularly issues apocalyptic reports further fueling the campaign.

US taxpayers fund a galaxy of UN programs

Unelected, unaccountable, UN players and their NGOs have been engineering an energy tax and the global power structure to pull it off for a very long time. All paid for by your tax dollars.

Taxpayers from around the world underwrite the UN with the US paying the largest share, over a quarter of the total. The UN runs dozens of agencies and programs such as its corrupt “oil for food” project, the scientifically bankrupt IPCC and generates NGO catalysts pushing for policy changes, “carbon trading” schemes and regulatory nightmares.

There are layers and layers and layers of unelected, unaccountable players in the climate change campaign. Take out dozens and hundreds remain. And they have access to UN and USAID funding so it’s impossible to stop them unless, during these tough economic times, Americans say they’ve had enough and simply deny access to our hard-earned tax dollars, shutting down this galaxy of agencies, committee and NGOS.

But consider this, you might be going to war. It is estimated that the nation of NGOs is now the 13th largest economy on the planet. And it’s not going to go down without a fight.

NOTES:

Congressional Briefing Service documents at http://ncseonline.org/NLE/crsreports/briefingbooks/climate/ebgcc6.cfm

(1) As of June 2008, all reference to EVI and HSI was removed from this page but can now be found here. See also page 8.

(2) The “University for Peace”, based in Costa Rica, is another UN-generated module. Maurice Strong served as President as early as 1999 and his 2007 bio lists him as “President and Rector”. December 5, 1980, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 35/55 setting out in its annex the “International Agreement for the Establishment of the University for Peace.” December 14, 2005, the UN passed another resolution in support.

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories notes that “With Russia’s ratification the ‘55 percent of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions of the Parties included in Annex I’ clause was satisfied and the treaty brought into force, effective 16 February 2005.”

(4) This is not the first time that treaty doctrine has been incorporated into federal law without the U.S. ratifying the treaty. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) was, along with the UNFCCC, the second of the two treaties opened for signature at the UNCED in 1992 in Rio and has not been ratified by the Senate but is impacting US policy.

Further reading:

Tyranny by treaty. While government mandates have us all tied up in knots and going broke, few have examined how international agreements, treaties, contribute to this problem. By Teresa Platt, June 11, 2010.

Climate heats up prior to climate change meeting in December. By Teresa Platt, Oct. 21, 2009.

Obama Admin: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year. Declan McCullagh blog, CBS News, Sept. 15, 2009.

Electricity costs, the Red Map.

No cap and trade.

World’s First Vertical Forest

The Bosco Verticale is a system that optimizes, recuperates, and produces energy. Covered in plant life, the building aids in balancing the microclimate and in filtering the dust particles contained in the urban environment (Milan is one of the most polluted cities in Europe). The diversity of the plants and their characteristics produce humidity, absorb CO2 and dust particles, producing oxygen and protect the building from radiation and acoustic pollution. This not only improves the quality of living spaces, but gives way to dramatic energy savings year round.

Each apartment in the building will have a balcony planted with trees that are able to respond to the city’s weather — shade will be provided within the summer, while also filtering city pollution; and in the winter the bare trees will allow sunlight to permeate through the spaces. Plant irrigation will be supported through the filtering and reuse of the greywater produced by the building. Additionally, Aeolian and photovoltaic energy systems will further promote the tower’s self-sufficiency.

Read more

Occupy Oakland Raid: Cops Just “Following Orders”

Abby Martin of Media Roots went out to cover the immediate aftermath of the brutal police raid of Occupy Oakland at 6:20 am on October 25, 2011.

http://youtu.be/1NJXEsXlw7Q

 

http://mediaroots.org/media-roots-tv-occupy-oakland-raid.php
500+ Oakland PD used tear gas, rubber bullets and completely leveled two encampments of peaceful protestors practicing civil disobedience. 90+ protestors were then arrested.

Check out my coverage later that same day, when cops launched smoke bombs and tear gas unprovoked into the crowd of Occupy Oakland protestors in an intense showdown between Oakland PD & OWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgn4IXHyVdI&feature=channel_video_title

Contact the Mayor Jean Quan here: http://www.oaklandnet.com/contactmayor.asp

Abby Martin Contact Info:


http://www.mediaroots.org

http://www.twitter.com/abbymartin

Libya: White Flag War Crime & Working With Al-Qaeda

“To ignore the white flag of surrender, the white flag of truce, I think is a major, major war crime and one that NATO will try to cover up with all of its resources because every one recognizes that that is way beyond the pale when it comes to a war crime; failing to recognize the white flag of truce.” – Wayne Madsen (Investigative Journalist)     According to Madsen’s sources, Gadhafi was another victim in an assassination plot, telling Aaron Dykes, of Infowars.com, that “I do believe that the CIA, now, was involved in allowing Gadhafi to be executed.” (Infowars: 10/24/11 @ 37:35)

 Kurt Nimmo writes that “The use of white flags to signal surrender is an ancient tradition going back to the Eastern Han dynasty in China and the Roman Empire. Violating the widely accept convention is considered an act of extreme treachery.”

Officials deny that Gadhafi was trying to surrender. According to Nimmo’s report, Madsen’s sources claim that “Gaddafi was told to surrender to the al-Qaeda rebels besieging Sirte before morning prayers at 5 am, but that it was decided to surrender after the sun was well up in the sky so the white flags would be clearly visible.”

Alex Jones and Wayne Madsen have both brought up the point that if Gadhafi was trying to escape, as the officials state, the ousted leader of Libya would have done so at night; not during the day, where Predator drones could spot Gadhafi and take him out. Though a  drone did wound Gadhafi, it’s reported that the leader was taken alive by rebel forces on the ground. Like the Osama “death”  story, the official story about the death of Gadhafi has changed many times.

Unlike the OBL farce in Pakistan, there are many pictures and video of a deceased Gadhafi available to the public, and deemed to be non-offensive. The circumstances may be different, but still I wonder why it is ok to show photos and video of a deceased Gadhafi (which more than likely proves he’s dead), yet for someone who allegedly killed 3,000 people, and is the leader of Al-Qaeda , who’s killed many of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s too offensive to show Bin Laden’s death pictures.

This makes no sense to me. It’s not offensive to show Gadhafi dead, but it is for the alleged 9/11 mastermind? First we’re told Gadhafi was found in a sewer, then we’re told he was killed in some sort of cross-fire. then the drone story got added, then it came out that Gadhafi was taken alive and then shot.

For the satanic elements out there, there is more news that Madsen relays to Aaron Dykes on October 24th, 2011. This, if true, is disgusting. Madsen states that “There’s a video circulating, showing that Gadhafi was being sodomized by a rifle barrel before he was killed. Now this brings up all that remember Abu Ghraib; the sodomizing of the detainees there, the executions of detainees at Abu Ghraib and all the other heinous war crimes committed by the United States and its allies. And here we have what seems to be a continuation of this policy.”

Our country is lost. But what is lost can always be found. It’s up to us…

ARE WE WORKING WITH

AL-QAEDA

IN LIBYA?

On May 25th 2011, former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney reminded Alex Jones, “We’ve seen it over, and over, and over again. Individuals of wealth and resource, who are able to pull the levers on U.S. military and diplomatic policy, are able to arm a small group of people, give them the financial where-with-all to wreak havoc and terror on a population; and then all of a sudden – presto, abracadabra – you’ve got what is called in the media, a civil war. Well it’s not a civil war. It’s a group of people who’ve decided that they want something that that particular area has. For example, in Sierra Leone, it was diamonds; and when the British Sandline mercenaries went into the home of Fute Sanko, what did they find there? A letter from Maurice Tempelsman proposing to do business. So, this is the kind of thing that motivates U.N. Policy, and I am certain that at the end of an investigation, were we to have one, we would find that there are certain individuals involved in this; and they’re able to dictate to the president [Barack Obama], to [British Prime Minister David] Cameron, to [President of the French Republic Nicolas]Sarkozy, to all of the NATO allies, they’re able to dictate them going to war.”

Al-Qaeda Is Working For US

Alex then wonders “How can the neo-con media call you [Cynthia McKinney] a traitor for being over there reporting the truth when it’s admitted that what Gadhafi said three months ago is true. That the main force – this is now in The Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times – that is running all this is al-Qaeda. In fact the Al-Qaeda commander, under CIA payroll, admits that he killed U.S. soldiers, or commanded groups in Iraq. So, you’re against people that killed US soldiers, and so you’re bad.”

Cynthia McKinney will always “remember what Robin Cook, the now-deceased foreign minister of the United Kingdom had to say about al-Qaeda. He just said [al-Qaeda] was the CIA’s Rolodex…the situation that the United States is allied with al-Qaeda is not unusual. What is unusual is that they actually admit it.”

“For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up. This makes no sense at all. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress. It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.” – Ron Paul

On June 13th 2011, the United States House of Representatives voted 248 to 163 to invoke the War Powers Resolution, prohibiting funding of any U.S. military operations in Libya. By U.S. law Congress must authorize the president to send U.S. troops into combat. (62) Obama tried to bypass congress’s authority with airstrikes over Libya. At the very least, what Obama should have done, if he had a good reason for putting any type of military soldiers into combat in Libya, was obtain a declaration of war from congress. Congressman Dan Burton has expressed his outrage that Obama has “received no authorization whatsoever from the Congress of the United States and it’s in violation of the War Powers Act and the Constitution.” (63) The congressman added that “the president is not a king and he shouldn’t act like a king.”

The War Powers Act does give Obama authority to send troops into combat without congressional approval, which seems ludicrous to me. Even so, within two days from sending troops into combat, the president must inform both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so they can vote within sixty days on whether or not the troops should remain in combat. Sixty days later, congress has not given Obama the approval, therefore, there’s good reason to believe that what Obama is doing in Libya is in violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act…it’s illegal. That never stopped presidents in the past, and this president is maintaining the continuation of illegal presidential activity.

No one may be surprised, but are we conditioned to accept this behavior as normal? If so, what does that say about the standards expected of America? Just don’t get caught.

If It Walks Like A Duck

Press TV reported that Obama has not swayed from his stance that Gadhafi must go. In my opinion, this is similar to Bush saying ‘Saddam must go.’ “Qaddafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a let-up in the pressure that we are applying.” Who’s we? NATO? The United Nations? Is all of this being done for the “credibility of the U.N.”? Does this president hope to bypass congress to set a precedent that could lead to the US overthrowing countries as the administration sees fit?

Let’s be clear, Press TV reported that in early June 2011 Obama did “send a letter to congressional leaders, asking for a resolution to back the military campaign.” At this point, those who received the message loud and clear have not taken Obama up on his request.

Examiner journalist Deborah Dupre writes that “US led forces continue the mission to kill Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi’s and his loyal supporters. NATO fighting is also continuing at the oil refinery in Misurata where the US Navy cluster bombed, injuring and killing hundreds of civilians. Libyans are defending Zlitan, one of three towns separating Misurata from the capital Tripoli, Berber mountains southwest of Tripoli, in nearby Yafran, and Dafnia near Misurata. According to Al-Jazeera, the town of Brega claims its important oil refinery “once operational, could supply the east of the country with much-needed fuel to produce electricity.”” (64)

Back in late March 2011 fighter bombers and cruise missiles struck Libyan air defenses, enforcing a no-fly-zone. It was around this time that reports surfaced about ground forces in Libya, including tanks and various armored vehicles. Micheal Chossudovsky called this “a war which has the objective of regime change.” Paul Watson writes that “while launching air strikes in support of so-called “protesters” who have commandeered fighter jets and tanks,” the protesters that the United States, France, Canada and the UK are supporting “are in fact Islamic fundamentalist al-Qaeda cells who want to impose sharia law in Libya.” (65) He sums up what every citizen of the United States should know, that “some of the very rebels now being funded and trained by western forces were part of the al-Qaeda cell that tried to kill Gaddafi on behalf of the United States and Britain 15 years ago.”

In March it seemed like the “protesters” we were helping were good people standing up against a tyrant in Gadhafi. In black and white terms one can see that point of view. Yet when you dig into the facts of the matter certain things do not make sense. Like why would we be helping al-Qaeda in Libya, yet fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq? – and all because of September 11th.

So what’s in Libya? Micheal Chossudovsky tells Russia Today it’s about oil, getting control of the oil in Libya “which constitutes 3.5% of total oil reserves.” The country has one of the largest national oil companies in the world, and the largest in Africa. Still, with new technologies and the oil dependency crisis at the forefront of public debate, I think it’s ultimately about something more than oil. Oil is a huge part of it, and there’s tons of evidence to support that fact. But I am again reminded of John Perkins book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where he talks about how countries are brought down by a shadow force that has control over the American government; enough control to topple a country and place a new leader as the head of a new regime. It’s a pattern.

Controlling the oil is not enough. There are those who control those who control the flow of oil in the modern world. They are the ones who send economic hit men into sovereign countries and oppress the people, starve them out with debt, until the United States steps in as a hero for the country, and gains full control of a once sovereign nation, tribe, or peoples. It happens over and over and over again, as history shows. However, history has never shown when this stopped happening. Is it then safe to assume it’s still happening? Is what is happening in Libya enough proof?

We have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting al-Qaeda.

Now we are told that we may have soldiers in Libya fighting alongside suspected al-Qaeda members. Something stinks here…

Gadhafi

The March 20th report by Paul Watson, writing for Infowars.com, explains how “In 2002 French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gaddafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan. Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, and allowed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.” (66)

Why would the United States block a warrant for someone they claimed was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Perhaps they wanted to be the ones to capture bin Laden first?

On March 29th Reuters reported that NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, reported flickers of potential al-Qaeda or Hezbollah affiliates found as part of the rebels that oppose Gadhafi. Admrial James Stavridis testified before the U.S. Senate, stating “We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces…we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, we’ve seen different things.” (67)

Flickers? Infiltration at best, controlled opposition as worst. Either way, this is appearing to be one more worthless war where citizens will be sacrificed in the name of nothing. Nothing more than death will come from this. The death of the people of Libya will ignite a fire, spread resentment, and diminish peace throughout the world. No one will be safer. Just as with the Patriot Act, TSA regulations, the wars, the result is that the Constitution is further diminished, and the will of the people continues to bend…but not break.

Steve Watson writes that the commander of the anti-Gadhafi rebel forces, “Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi…admitted that he had previously recruited fundamentalists to fight in Iraq, and said that the fighters are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya.” (68)

By March 26th Chris Adams, writing for McClatchy, reported on the new leader of the rebel opposition to Gadhafi, Khalifa Hifler. “Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.” (69)

Kurt Nimmo adds that “Mr. Hifter is a CIA operative, which likely explains his lengthy stay in Virginia. In 1996, the Washington Post reported that a Col. Haftar (a variation on Hifter) had arrived in the United States and he was “reported to be the leader of a contra-style group based in the U.S. called the Libyan National Army,” the Wisdom Fund noted at the time. “This group is supported by the U.S., and has been given training facilities in the U.S. It’s a good presumption that Col. Haftar’s group operates in Libya with the blessings of our government.”(70)An April 4th article by Webster Griffin Tarpley, for Infowars.com, explains “Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has rightly warned against the NATO policy of arming the Libyan rebels, since this would be “conducive to terrorism.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has also condemned any NATO arming of the rebels. Pope Benedict XVI’s call for a cease-fire goes in the same direction. Russia, Turkey, China, and other governments must now formally demand explanations from the State Department as to why the US is providing the most dangerous international terrorists with modern weapons and training, while proposing to award them large chunks of the $32 billion of frozen Libyan government assets, plus a share in coming oil revenues. This is enough to make the Mediterranean, the Arab world, and southern Europe boil over with refugees, piracy, mayhem, and war.”

Tarpley describes four components that create this secret army that is commanding the rebel forces. “The first is provided by the British, and consists of the monarchist and racist Harabi and Obeidat tribes of the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor, whose traditional culture is that of the obscurantist Senussi Order…Two ingredients come from the CIA.” That would be al-Qaeda, “founded as the CIA’s own Arab Legion against the USSR by then CIA deputy director Robert Gates…in Afghanistan in 1981-82.” Another product of the CIA would be “Libyan National Salvation Front, based first in Sudan and then in Northern Virginia, which is supposedly sending the CIA asset Khalifa Hifter to lead the rebel military.” The French are the fourth component of what Tarpley calls the “Four Plagues of Libya.” The French “arranged the defection of top Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari last fall, as reported by Maghreb Confidential. A clique of generals around Mesmari helped foment the military mutinies against Qaddafi in northeast Libya.” (71)

A May 14th 2011 article by Global Research begins with a letter from Muammar Gadhafi sent to Barack Obama, “We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaeda in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It’s an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali…If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?” (72)

The article states that “less than 2% of the entire Libyan population” supports the “so-called ‘Libyan pro-democracy movement.’” As these rebels are armed and trained by the governments of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, they are assisted by the Arab League in bombing targets in Tripoli, while the collateral damage is all a part of bombing Gadhafi out of his compound, to put a new government in place. Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, this government will not be representative of the people of the country, but of the shadow forces that control the heads of countries across the world. It’s all part of the plan.

Let’s not forget what Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel told the Hindustan Times, “There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.” (73)

President Barack Obama told “Early Show” co-anchor Erica Hill on March 29th that the intervention against Libya has saved “thousands of lives.” The president said the no-fly zone would assure that Gadhafi is “not using his air-power against his own people.” In order to succeed in this global mission of ousting Gadhafi from power in Libya, President Obama said he’s trying to “mobilize the world community to put the squeeze on him so that at some point he makes a decision to leave.” Straight out of an episode of the Sopranos; Tony puts the squeeze on his competition until there’s nothing left to squeeze.

Obama reiterates that at this point there has been no formal attempt to talk to Gadhafi or his loyals. Then he says something similar to what Bush said about Saddam; all Gadhafi has to do to implement a cease-fire is “stop going on the offensive in certain areas.” After a brief pause Obama continues, “He knows steps he could take that would stop the constant bombardment that he’s under.” (74)

So here we have the president admitting there is a constant bombardment of air-strikes over Libya. Of course what is not mentioned is how many innocent lives have been lost because of the bombings. He also doesn’t expand on what Gadhafi has to do for a cease-fire, just saying that “Gadhafi knows” what he has to do. When one isn’t being entirely forthcoming, it’s hard to be articulate. He says the rebels on the ground that “we’ve met with” are vetted. If they’ve been vetted, how does Obama account for the “flickers” of al-Qaeda or Hezzbollah that Admiral Stavridis told congress about? How they vetted these people in such a short time is also highly questionable, leading to more speculation of plans previously put in motion, in my opinion.

After being asked about the “flicker” of intelligence that al-Qaeda or Hezbollah may be part of this “spontaneous rebel alliance” against Gadhafi, Obama admits that “among all the people who opposed Qaddafi,” it’s possible there might be “elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests.” Obama cautioned against jumping into the internal Libyan war with both feet, but had no problem being on the same side as al-Qaeda in order to knock Gadhafi out of power. Obama has already committed so much towards ousting the leader, including trying to bypass congressional approval of airstrikes – which include U.S. troops being sent into combat, regardless of the label “kinetic action.”

It was March 21st when President Obama informed the congress that “at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.” The Office of Legal Council, in an April 1st memo, gave the country a poor excuse for the no-fly zones, and why Obama went to the United Nations to receive authority to conduct military operations in Libya. We now know for sure this means troops on the ground, even though this was hidden for a long time from the public. Of course, most people had no idea that Obama would ever send troops into Libya. He had to go to the United Nations because, as we have seen, congress would not vote to authorize the continuation of U.S. soldiers in Libya.

Who knows how long the CIA has been on the ground, both covertly and overtly. As Louis Fisher, writing for LAW.com explains, “An April 1 memo by the Office of Legal Counsel states that Security Council Resolution 1973 “imposed a no-fly zone and authorized the use of military force to protect civilians.” Because Libya did not comply with the resolution, the OLC concluded that President Obama was justified in using military force against Libya to maintain “the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and the effectiveness of its actions to promote international peace and security.”” (75)

What about the credibility of the United States? Does this make us safer or does it increase the hatred towards the American government? As Obama told Erica Hill, the opposition forces to Gadhafi are “saying the right things.” It’s just too bad our President isn’t doing the right thing. For the last time, send our troops home.

As Ron Paul told John King of CNN, Obama “can’t go to war without permission from the congress.” (76) Paul calls it an insult to the American people and congress to suggest that the President doesn’t need to tell anyone he’s going to put military soldiers in Libya. In order to go to war in Libya, President Obama has suggested that all he needs to do so “is get a U.N. (United Nations Resolution) and then use the force through NATO. NATO was set up to fight and stand up against the Communists. So they’re searching for a mission. Instead of now defending Europe, they’re starting wars.”

JFK Maze: Jackie Kennedy’s Book Review (nothing special)

 

I was expecting when I read this book, which comes with an audio CD that I would read about the rumours of Mrs. Kennedy claiming President Johnson was involved in the assassination of JFK. No such luck. Here’s some notes from the book. Don’t waste your Federal Reserve notes on this junk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy” available everywhere:

Jackie Kennedy once wrote Senator Edward Kennedy that her husband, John Kennedy, “wished to emulate Thomas Jefferson, with whom he had such great affinity.” (page XXVIII)

The President’s wife said in 1964 that Kennedy did not “particularly like” Vice-President Johnson. While she felt that Lyndon would usually argue or be rude to President Kennedy, when the two men were together, “it was really like fencing in political things.” She adds that from her point-of-view the political fencing was “nothing personal” to President Kennedy, who “always sort of bested” Johnson. (Jacqueline Kennedy, pg. 56)

Jacqueline tells interviewer Arthur Schlesinger in a 1964 interview that there were “about five, six things [Kennedy] was going to do this time.” One of those things was to “get rid of” FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Boy would I love to know the other things on that short list. (pg. 144) Another thing was that Kennedy was planning on getting rid of Dean Rusk. (pg. 313)

She says Kennedy once told her “can you imagine leaving someone like Lyman Lemnitzer” as the Joint Chief of staff for the next president to deal with? Not just Lemnitzer either, she makes clear, but “all those people in there.” Is she referring to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff of 1962? Whoever she is specifically referring to, she calls them all “a hopeless bunch of men.”

In my opinion, Lemnitzer and the chiefs would fit that description well. (pg. 183) Appointed by Eisenhower, under President Kennedy, Lemnitzer approved Operation Northwoods, a false flag operation designed for the U.S. Government to commit acts of terrorism in American cities such as Miami, and others, and blame the terrorism on Cuba. This would give the USA the excuse it needed to fully invade Cuba with public support from American citizens. Operation Northwoods and Lemnitzer’s previous Bay of Pigs advice were enough for Kennedy to fire the Chairman.

Lemnitzer would not see a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Operation Northwoods, a variation of it, would arouse suspicion on September 11th, 2001. Remote control planes, innocent passengers dying by U.S. Government terrorists, and a pretext to invade a country or two would all be related to theories about what really happened on 9/11. Was the false flag operation of Operation Northwoods a blueprint for the events of September 11th? Perhaps it’s too soon to come to that conclusion; but it is a conclusion that should not be disregarded either.

Mrs. Kennedy also said that Robert Kennedy would tell her “how awful J. Edgar Hoover’s been since Jack died and the way he curries favor with Lyndon Johnson by sending him all these awful reports about everyone.”

On the Bay of Pigs she talks about how the CIA is “operating so in the dark, saying, “Even if you get an order from the President, go ahead with it.”” She understood that future incidents of CIA ignoring presidential orders is exactly “the kind of thing that’s going to happen again.” (pg. 272-273)

John Kennedy reportedly told his wife and brother Bobby, “Oh God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president?” (pg. 278)

“The Military Industrial Complex is the same everywhere. It wants war, it wants more power, and it will go out and create an enemy; so that it can get the trillions a year and take over society and set up check-points all over the country and overthrow the Bill of Rights and get tax-payer money to fund all of it.” – Alex Jones (9/11/11)

Next time we will review more on JFK and Richard Nagell – who is The Man Who Knew Too Much. Nagell claimed he was a double or triple agent working for the US Government undercover, working for the KGB in order to follow Oswald and convince Oswald not to kill the President. If Nagell was unsuccessful, he was to kill Oswald.

“The Military Industrial Complex is the same everywhere. It wants war, it wants more power, and it will go out and create an enemy; so that it can get the trillions a year and take over society and set up check-points all over the country and overthrow the Bill of Rights and get tax-payer money to fund all of it.” – Alex Jones (9/11/11)

Abby Martin (founder of Media Roots) speaks at San Francisco State on Censorship

www.mediaroots.org

Full article: http://www.mediaroots.org/abby-martin-of-media-roots-speaks-at-sfsu.php

October 3, 2011

MEDIA ROOTS- Abby Martin, founder of Media Roots, speaks to students at San Francisco State University about the landscape of media censorship, the formation of her citizen journalism project Media Roots and why she is collaborating her efforts with Project Censored.

Abby Martin Speaks At SF University On Media Censorship

Check out an hour interview with Abby for KZYX radio about the left/right paradigm and media censorship.

We Are Change TV.US