Archive for October, 2009

Bob Carter- A Down-Under View of Climate Science

October 27, 2009

A good sumary of the state of climate science by Bob Carter:

Down Under View of Climate Science

Advertisements

Roy Spencer

October 27, 2009

A couple of useful articles on climate change by Roy Spencer:

Rise of the Natural Climate Cycle Deniers

Climate model predicitions – time for a reality check

IPPC Crushes scientific objectivity

and finally, a quote from the final chapter of the IPPC Draft TAR 2000:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a future climate state is not possible.”

Global Warming’s Pause for Thought – Black and White Aerosols

October 25, 2009

Climate Resistance – Global Warming’s Pause for Thought

Black and white aerosols show

The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea (that the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970 was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight) as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol – black carbon – had a significant warming effect:

Climate Resistance: What are the implications of this work for the idea that the post-war temperature decline is the result of sulphate aerosols masking the warming effect of CO2 emissions?

Veerabhadran Ramanathan: After the 1970s, when the West was cleaning up pollution, there was a rise in temperatures. We stopped burning coal in cities etc, and coal puts out a lot of sulphates, and sulphates mask global warming. At the same time, in the tropics, China and India, they were growing fast and putting a lot more Black Carbon.

CR: So the sulphate component must have been reduced more than the Black Carbon component for the aerosol masking theory to hold? We now need empirical data to compare the effect of black and white aerosols during the post-war temperature slump?

VR: Exactly.

CR: Do we have that empirical data?

VR: No. The data we have is for 2002-2003. We don’t know what happened in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. The implication of this study is that we have to understand what is the relative change in the sulphur emissions versus the Black Carbon emissions – and we don’t know that.

CR: So what is the empirical evidence that, 50 years ago, white aerosols were masking GW due to CO2?

VR: It’s pretty flimsy. The main information we have […] is our understanding of the SO2 emissions by coal combustion, and oil. But we need to know not so much how much SO2 we put out, but how much was converted to sulphates, how much was removed [etc]

CR: So you don’t even know the life cycle of the SO2 and sulphates?

VR: No. All the information we have is from models… It could still be true [that white aerosols account for the post-war temperature slump]

CR: But it could not be true?

VR: Yes. The picture is complicated. But this paper is not saying it is wrong[…]

CR: So we now have a better idea of what is happening aerosol-wise in the present, but what was going on in the 1950s/’60s is still elusive?

VR: Yes, There’s a lot of research needs to be done on that – what happened in the ’50s and ’60s, and then why the rapid ramp up [from the ’70s]. I’m not saying our current understanding is wrong, just that it is a more complicated picture. I would say it’s uncertain.

We wouldn’t suggest the aerosol-masking theory is wrong either. What’s interesting is how a neat idea is sold as an established fact, how a working hypothesis has become a truth ‘well-known to all climate scientists’, how ’scientists are investigating’ becomes scientists ‘have explained’. Without the masking theory, the orthodoxy would have a serious problem. The research that shows that decade-long periods of static/declining temperatures are to be expected against the background of a warming trend (see the Spiked article above) makes no claims that such natural variation could account for the much longer post-war slump.

Meanwhile, it will be worth watching to see how the tactics of the climate orthodoxy change as – and if – the present slowdown in temperature rise continues. The slump has already robbed the orthodoxy of much of its potential for short-term alarmism about record temperatures, and the Met, for example, seems already to have ditched its yearly climate forecast in favour of a decadal one. And how long before serious efforts are made to explain the slump in causal terms – not to mention how quickly those investigations are deployed as proof that climate science has nailed it?

Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts

October 25, 2009

Here is a good little video. I’ve provided a written summary below.

Climate sensitivity = temperature increase that results from a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

IPCC Assumptions – catastrophe- what you have to believe:
1) Climate is dominated by positive feedbacks
2) Aerosols currently create substantial cooling

Neither of these assumptions is well supported by science.

Climate models assume sensitivity of between 2.5C and 4.5C

According to the IPCC these senstivities are built in two steps:

a) If the amount of CO2 is doubled instantaneously, wth everything else remainng the same, the temperature of the surface troposphere would have to increase by 1.2C…in the absence of other changes. This implies warming over the next century of less than 1C.

b) Due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is more complex. The IPCC believe the overall effect of feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase by an additional 1.5C to 4.5C.

Feedback:

Temperature change = dT/(1-f)

If f > 0, then feedback is positive and temperature increases are accelerated
If f < 0 then feedback is negative and temperature increases are damped
If f >1, then temperature "runs away" (tipping points)

Most scientists assume, that when they discover an unknown but stable process, that it is dominated by negative feedback. However, the IPCC seems to be the exception when it comes to climate science. Climate scientists assume that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedback. They assume that 1.2C of warming from CO2 alone is multiplied up.

Positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC: Albedo, humidity, outgassing
Negative feedbacks assumed by IPCC: clouds, plant growth, iris effect

If one assumes positive feedbacks dominate then you should be able to apply this to historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures e.g. from the 285ppm CO2 level 125 years ago, to 385ppm level today. In that time, global temperatures have only risen 0.6C. No-one has proven either whether this is natural or man-made warming. Anyway, if you assume the 0.6C increase is from ma-made CO2, it is only a fraction (f= 0.13, 0.6C increase, sensitivity 1.37C) of the temperature increase required to fit into any of the IPCC positive feedback scenarios (e.g. f=0.8, 2.6C increase, sensitivity 6C; f=0.6, 1.3C increase, sensitivity 3C). The IPCC blame this on "global dimming“.

The IPCC now postulates that man made aerosols (e.g. sulphates, black carbon) play a role in temporarily colling the globe and delaying any temperature increases from CO2 emissions by masking any positive feedback. This is an arbitary plug to save face of climate modellers.

Man made aerosols cannot be causing global dimming…. because they are short lived, and local in effects, only present in significant concentrations in certain areas of the world. Therefore for aerosols to mask global warming by 1oC would require the aerosol affected areas to have a masking effect of 10-20oC which is absurd. Also, aerosols are mostly in the northern hemisphere, so if aerosols were masking temperature increase then you would expect the northern heisphere to be cooler, but in fact the southern hemisphere is warming less quickly than the northern hemisphere.

Syndrome of Control- Testimony of Jonathan May, Presented by Lyndsey Williams

October 24, 2009

Here is an excellent presentation by Lyndsey Williams, who gives a stunning insight into Jonathan May’s story.

Part 1

Summary of Part 1:

Jonathan May, a UK citizen who worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in England, attempted to take on the Internationalists in the 1980’s by setting up a “worldwide federal reserve” with the help of Arab sources, in order to help save certain nations from the the power elite. The power elite control both the purse strings and governments across the globe through control of their finances. From his sources in the Council of Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, Jonathan May discovered what the internationalists intended to do worldwide. Jonathan May’s testimony reveals the power elite’s gameplan for global takeover.

Jonathan May persuaded the Arabs to invest in his planned worldwide Federal Reserve System to counteract the internationalists. This new system was to be backed by real assets such as land, minerals, oil, coal, raw materials, timber etc. At the point where the Arabs were to deliver the funds to set this up, Internationalists in England found out about it and threatened the life of Jonathan May, and would not allow the Arabs to transfer their money into England to start the process. Jonathan May then came to America, but the same group that had influence & control the UK also control America, and in August 1986 Jonthan May was arrested and put in federal prison in Minnesota on erroneous charges.


Who are the power elite?

13 families have control of the central banks of the “hard currency” countries. (“Hard currency” where those currencies are that are not allowed to fluctuate). These familes have control of the policy and decison making of central banks of those countries.

These private banks are the real owners of the US Federal Reserve, which controls the money supply, interest rates,the general economy, and thus the lifestyles of every citizen. They manipulate gold prices, they control the hard currencies, and they also control the banks of the leading nations of the world … these are private banking families such as :

1) Rothschilds of London and Berlin
2) Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
3) Kuhn Loeb& Co. of Germany and New York
4)Lazare Brothers of Paris
5) Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany
6) Lehman Brothers of New York
7) Goldman Sachs of New York
8) Rockefeller Brothers of New York

These banks practice fractional reserve banking, which allows the central banks to permit the prime banks (who’s owners and controllers are the same people as the central banks) to loan out 26 units of currency for every one unit of currency the have in deposit.

Part 2

Summary of Part 2:

Back in the mid seventies, the final stage of “Project 2000” was implemented by the internationalists. “Project 2000” was the Global creditors unilateral totalitarian plan.
A pentagon offical and three US Government officials visted the Prime Minister of Nigeria. They gave the Nigerians $50 millon to “double the price of crude light oil“.

Why? Nigeria is one of only two nations in the world that has light crude. Light crude is the most valuable oil in the world as it needs little refining. All other oil is priced in accordance with the price of light crude. So, whoever controls the price of light crude controls the price of all other oil.

At the same time, Bush Snr and other members of the Trilateral Comission were in the middle east, persuading the middle east nations (and the UK) to consolidate OPEC. The deal cut with the middle east oil countries was that “oil buyers” would pay significantly more for oil provided that the Arabs would support America by investing their increased revenues in the big banks in America.

30 or 40 years pror to this, International Bankers had persuaded the Arabs to allow them to finance oil production by provision of oil supply systems and refineries. They charged the Arabs ‘Usery‘, which the Arabs paid back (since they became so wealthy so quickly). Back in those days, gasoline was cheap. But in the 1980’s, the internationalists went to Nigeria and doubled the price of light crude. They then told the Arabs to invest a portion of the funds they receive from the new oil price increase into the international banks in New York. These deposits woud be in the form of “30 year time certificates”. The Arabs, knowing little about international finance, accepted the deal.

Thisis why the price of oil skyrocketed in 1971-1974. The international bankers knew, that the increase in revenue from oil that was going to the Arabs, would come right back to their banks in 30 year time certificate deposits.

The Arabs did not know that the international bankers were taking them, they did not know until the early 1980’s that the controlling intersts of the prime banks were also the controlling interests of the major oil companies.

The Rockefellers set up the “Joint Stock Trust” in 1870, three years before the US Government declared Joint Stock Trusts illegal in 1873. It is this entity (joint stock trust) that ultimately controls the prime banks and the Federal Reserve Board. It is under the Joint Stock Trust that the international bankers in New York are allowed to operate, under a grandfather agreement that permits them to continue, whereas other banks are not allowed to operate under this mechanism since it is now illegal. This is why banks such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are howing record profits, while most other banks are broke.

Part 3

Summary of Part 3:

The Joint Stocks Trust is in control of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Federal Reserve, and therefore controls the US currency. The deal cut with the Arabs was that they should put their money into the prime banks. The Arabs did not know that the prime banks would practice fractional reserve banking with their money. These banks would lend out the Arabs money at 20 to 1 , wheras the Arabs would only receive interest on their “30 year time deposits”. The banks effectively had control of the wealth of the middle east.

What did the bankers do with the Arabs funds? They invested them in third world country loans. These third world countries are broke today even though the banks invested in them 15-20 years ago. The banks wanted those countries to go broke, knowing and relying on the greed and mishandling of the loans by third world nations . Most of these countries being former colonial countries who were just gaining independance, with no or little experience in government – it was inevitable that the loans were squandered.

In 1981, Jonathan May met the Hunt Brothers of Texas, and the Texas Governor John Connolly . The Hunt Brothers were multibillionaire oil barons. They were trying to secretely start off a new currency for Texas, independant of the Federal Reserve. Since Texas is only part of the American Union by “Treaty“, meaning that they could leave the union if they decided not to renew the treaty (Texas is not a state by vote, it is a state by treaty). Connolly was in the limousine with JFK when he was shot, and managed to escape the same fate by lying on the floor of the car, & the Hunt Brothers are bankrupt today – bankrupted by the internationalists. Connolly and the Hunt Brothers were prevented from setting Texas up as a separate country wth its own currency by the internationalists. The Hunt Brothers were attempting to dominate the silver market, in order to start to achieve this and overcome the international bankers.
The Hunts were in partnerhip with the Shah of Iran, and a German banker and an Austrian Banker. The the Hunts were buying silver using one man on the floor of all the exchanges, & the Federal Reserve got to hear about it. The German banker was murdered. The Shah of Iran was deposed. The Austrian banker was badly beaten up and ended up in a mental institution. The Hunts are virtually bankrupt. The Shah was brought to the US and held in protective custody , where he was “treated”. He was perfectly healthy when he left Iran, but “they made sure that he died”….

Congressman George Hansen wanted to investigate what was happening in Iran, but congress would not let him go to Iran. So he went to Iran anyway, buying his own ticket, and when he got there, the Khomeini gave him an audience. The Khomeini said to Congressman Hansen, that he could take back one half of the hostages in Iran (Iran Hostage Crisis), provided that an investigation is started into the relationship between the Shah of Iran, Chase Manhattan Bank, Henry Kissinger and President Carter. Congressman Hansen was told by congress to get on the next plane home, and not to bring any hostages back with him.

Part 4

Summary of Part 4

When congressman Hansen returned to the US, he found out that President Carter knew that the hostages were going to be taken, and why. The release of the hostages was not negotiated by the state department of the USA. The release of the Iran hostages was negotiated by a negotiator of Chase Manhatten Bank in New York. The hostages were held captive while the bankers got the Shah’s money in their banks before he was killed.

In 1983 , Jonathan May became aware of a group of two bank holding companies. One of these holding companies was used to hold the Arab’s money, and this holding company then loaned the money to third world countries. The creation of these holding companies meant that the internationalists could not be held responsible for what happens to the Arabs’ money. Knowing that these third world companies would squander the loans and go broke. The second holding company was used to purchase agricultural land and other banks and certain US corporations, which continued to make money.

The general public’s own money – which pays for gasline at the pump, goes to the Arabs, who send it to the international banks in NY, who send it to the bank holding companies, which purchase the regular banks in the US (which are going under today). So they get the money to do these things- it’s our own money, through gas prices.

Part 5

Summary of Part 5

Part 6

Summary of Part 6

Part 7

Summary of Part 7

Also, here, is some more information on Jonathan May, plus his scripted evidence.

Jonathan May attempted to free us from the shackles of the Federal Reserve by creating an alternate banking system with instruments backed by land, raw materials, mineral deposits, oil, coal, timber, and other wilderness holdings. Jonathan aided Governor Connolly and the Hunt brothers in their effort to corner the silver market. The silver would have been used to create a “Bank of Texas” issue of “real money”. This would have destroyed the Federal Reserve had the Hunts been successful. When the world bankers realized what was happening, they destroyed Connolly, the Hunt Brothers, Jonathan May, and Texas.

The Federal Reserve entrapped Mr. May by intentionally routing his credit instruments through the Federal Reserve, against the terms clearly stated upon those instruments, instead of through Mr. May’s alternate system. Jonathan May was illegally arrested, illegally tried, and illegally imprisoned in the Federal prison at Terre Haute, Indiana. The world power structure has stolen Mr. May’s idea, which will be used as the banking system of the New World Order and is known as the World Conservation Bank. Jonathan has served four years of a fifteen-year sentence.


Telling Time: July 27, 1990

Jonathan May Tells the Secrets of World Bankers

Taliban’s Successful Opium Eradication Programme

October 19, 2009

The supposed war on terror is also serves the dual purpose of fighting drugs production in Afghanistan.Or does it? How ironic that the Taliban successfully implemented a 95% eradication of opium production in 2000-2001 before the invasion by western troops. Since then, opium production has exploded and the beneficieries of this lucrative contraband accrues to business syndicates, organized crime and western banking and financial institutions. A very small percentage accrues to farmers and traders in the producing country.

Here are four reports as evidence, including a UN document on the opium economy in Afghanistan.

Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?
United Nations Report- The opium economy in Afghanistan
NY Times- At Heroin’s Source, Taliban do What ‘Just Say No’ Could Not
Taliban’s Eradication of Poppies is Convulsing Opium Market

oh and then there’s this:
MI6- Lords of the Global Drug Trade

Webster Tarpley- War on Terror is a Fraud

October 19, 2009

A n old one, but explains who benefits  from endless wars.

“Without an enemy image, you cannot have an Oligarchical society.”

“Those who benefit are the beneficieries of the current system…financiers primarily. They fear that without the diversion of a war, they cannot maintain social relations, property relations in the current form. They have manufactured in complete hysteria, a largely fictitious enemy.”

Look up a book by “Frank Kitson – low intensity operations”

Press-TV: UK Army providing Taliban with Helicopter Transport

October 18, 2009

Press TV are reporting that, according to diplomats, the British Army are involved in transporting Taliban gunmen around Afghanistan by helicopter . This has been going on for 5 months according to the Afghan president.

UK Army providing Taliban with Helicopter Transport

I can’t find much to corroborate this Press TV report , but it’s worth flagging up. If the political motivation is to escalate the Afghan campaign, then it’s in their interests to have an enemy to fight with…

Club of Rome & Climate Change

October 17, 2009

The Club of Rome is a premier global think-tank. This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. Take a look here.

Back in 1992, the Club of Rome produced a report – First Global Revolution and in the report are a few revelations.

On page 75 you can see where they “came up” with the idea of global warming to enforce agendas:

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.”
——–
“It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

On page 71 democracy is given a kicking:

” In its present form, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and technical nature of today’s problems do not alwys allow elected representatives to always make competent decisions at the right time”.

Ten Questions Ignored by the Authorities on Swine Flu Vaccines

October 17, 2009

Ten Questions – Natural News

1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?

2) Where, then, is the so-called “science” backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?

3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?

4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?

5) Why don’t doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine?

6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth’s history?

7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?

8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%?

9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?

10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?