Clouds with Silver (Iodide) Linings?

Chemtrails get a bad rap.

I don’t find it so hard to believe that aerosols are being released into the atmosphere, but my train of thought on the subject runs along a different set of tracks.

To imagine that the waste products of the chemical industry, which are so very expensive to store/bury/dispose of, could not be re-purposed into a product such as: Sulphur (S_8, used in the steel industry et al.) used in bullets, fluoride (F-,  NaF / F₆H₂Si, by-products of the fertilizer industry and used in the aluminum industry) used in toothpaste / tap-water, benzene (C6H6, a by-product of the petroleum industry) used in cigarettes, who-knows-what in fracking fluids, micro- and nano-sized particles in cloud seeding formulations,…) is simply naïve.

The Albertan insurance industry has been diverting and minimizing hailstorms by using cloud-seeding/desiccant programs to avoid damage to Calgary’s automobiles. The consequence is that some of these storms move further east and hit the crops instead.

In this way, the toxic waste, which cannot be safely disposed of on land without polluting an entire site forever (insurance companies have been actively funding cloud-seeding experiments for many decades; toxic waste spills at dump sites represent an enormous potential cost for these companies,) can be used as a raw material in a proprietary formula (like the Colonel’s seventeen herbs and spices or Coca-Cola’s secret recipe) and thus be re-classified from being ‘toxic waste’ to being a potentially harmful product but used in acceptably small doses.

“Concentrated hexafluorosilicic acid is corrosive and toxic, but in everyday use, it is so diluted as to be less harmful.“

Warm cloud seeding is not conducted nearly as frequently as silver iodide cloud seeding, and the effect of warm cloud seeding agents on the environment is not as well known. Warm cloud seeding agents are salts. Preliminary results suggest that because the amounts of seeding agent used are so small, even these warm cloud seeding materials probably do not have any significant impacts.

Wouldn’t it just be a lot cheaper to spray it out of a plane? Maybe the chemical industry is running out of land to bury its harmful by-products. They have to dispose of it somehow; so why not sell it instead of burying it? It would simply need to be mixed in with the jet fuel, which is a ‘dirty’ fuel to begin with, as anyone trying to use kerosene in a camping stove not designed for it will testify. It plugs the tiny spray nozzles. Modern jet engines are designed to mitigate this occurrence.

Alberta’s cloud-seeding pilots see 2nd busiest year in 20 years

It is easy to see how all of this could be linked to the so-called increase in extreme weather due to climate change despite the fact that Hermine (cat.1) was Florida’s first hurricane in over a decade, and that there have been no deaths due to a hurricane in the USA since Katrina, also more than a decade ago.

The problem is not one of albedo, nor is it one of nucleation; it is rather one of pollution because we breathe it and we end up eating it, too. Very small particles can be inhaled and can cross the blood-brain barrier (search Russell Blaylock for more info. He has, unsurprisingly, been labelled a conspiracy theorist for some of his views.) It falls on the grass like an imperceptibly fine mist. The cows eat the grass, we eat the cows. It falls onto our rivers but is too small for our filtration plants’ pores sizes. We drink them in suspension.

The worst part is that in most cases, the difference in levels may be too small to measure accurately. This means that any research into the issue can be put down quickly as just another ‘conspiracy.’ If one cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, that thing is not valid and as a result, is not worthy of consideration.

“Climate engineering, commonly referred to as geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of limiting adverse climate change.”

SRM (Solar Radiation Management), AWM (Atmospheric Water Management) are two terms used to cloud (excuse the pun) the discussion surrounding geo-engineering. The claim is that much is known about the potential environmental effects, which would be minimal – so they say, but NASA launched a satellite to study aerosols, and CERN has built a cloud chamber to study the same thing. If so much is known, why then fund these very very expensive tests? Monitoring experiments and testing conclusions seem to be reasonable guesses. Is the atmosphere being experimented on as was the case during nuclear atmospheric tests (which are no longer permitted due to health and environmental concerns?) Will we ban the practice only after tests are concluded?

Most who deny the existence of chemtrails fall back on one of two positions: 1) The long clouds left behind jets are contrails, not chemtrails, and 2) despite it having been talked about in US government documents, military documents, environmental assessments, university symposiums, and think-tank meetings, there is no evidence of it having been implemented.

Some of you may remember that during the sixties, seventies, and eighties, jets left very short contrails, maybe five to ten times the length of the plane. Jet engines built these days are more efficient than older models and leave significantly less contrails than did their predecessors. It is common to see jets leaving no contrails at all, which was not the case decades ago. Newer engines produce lower exhaust temperatures. It is worth noting that military fighter jets leave no contrails.

Modern jet engines do not leave contrails under most conditions. The conditions necessary occur rarely and do not change rapidly. It is beyond believable that the same atmospheric conditions which lead to the formation of contrails exist both on clear days and clear nights despite changes in relative humidity, temperature, and pressure.

I took this photo myself.

The plane leaving a ‘contrail’ is to the left. The one leaving a ‘persistent contrail’ or chemtrail is to the right. I watched them both for quite some time, almost from horizon to horizon. Despite relative changes in their altitudes and speeds, their trails did not change. The contrail remained short, while the chemtrail stretched from horizon to horizon (H2H.)

According to flightradar24.com, these were the two planes I photographed:

Same planes, same engines, same altitudes, same atmospheric conditions, different contrails?!?

The claim is that contrails are caused by a jet engine heating the air causing condensation. When refering to H2H, this is not plausible. We would need to believe that the air which was heated stayed at the same temperature for the five minutes or so after the jet had passed. This is not possible, especially at altitudes of 30,000+ ft. This is why contrails from decades ago disappeared rather quickly. This is the same reason that your visible breath on a cold day dissipates within seconds.

Contrails come from engine exhaust. Why then can chemtrails be seen to come from between engines? Why would a three-engine plane leave only two contrails? Broken contrails which display large gaps are also problematic and difficult to explain. It could be said that a localized change in atmospheric conditions can lead to the broken nature of certain contrails, but then why would they remain visible after several minutes of drifting?

Some will claim that the trails are just fuel being dumped by airliners coming in for a landing. Two problems with this assumption: The first is that planes usually dump fuel at altitudes of around ten thousand feet, not metres; the second is that planes wouldn’t dump fuel over populated areas, and so would likely not be seen. Besides, dumping enough fuel to stretch from H2H would leave the tanks empty.

The main chemicals used in chemtrails are said to include Aluminum, Barium, Manganese, Silver Iodide, Strontium, Sulphur, and others. These additives also serve as nucleation points. There may be several uses for these different elements such as weather modification, albedo growth, communications, cloud-seeding, etc. There are many possible military as well as commercial applications. None of these substances can be considered beneficial or even inert.

The following video shows a Californian town hall meeting in which the citizens forced their elected officials to take action on their behalf. (15:23)

This next video takes the debate to the UN. (17:46)

Rosalind Peterson, to her credit, says that there is no proof of chemtrails and so would not attach her name to a law suit claiming that they exist. Her contention is about proof. She says, and rightly so, that she cannot prove that jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. She also does not know who should be held accountable if it is happening. No credible studies have been done. All the evidence, at this point, is circumstantial. There is no funding for this type of research. But this does not mean it should not be done, nor does this mean chemtrailing is not happening. It simply means that it cannot be proven, yet. She has also stated that if solid evidence were to present itself, her calculus on the topic would change.

Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there’s tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn’t even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there’s Pentagon reports, there’s all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.

When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don’t have the documentation, and I don’t have a single study, I don’t have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.

-Rosalind Peterson

I agree with her. I am not claiming that this article proves the case one way or the other. I am simply saying that because of the evidence, more research needs to be done, and that a lack of proof does not provide contrary proof in and of itself. If this is taking place (?and based on the amount of research funding which has gone into this, why wouldn’t it be?) we should be aware. We need to guard against this once the legislation is put forth to initiate these plans, and we must be vigilant in case black projects have indeed proceeded with testing, as has been done secretly in the past, and which I personally believe is taking place now, even if it is on a relatively small scale. We must not ignore the possibility of this occurring. Certainly not all contrails are chemtrails, but even if a small percentage are hidden within, we all need to know about it, and the sooner, the better.

Much of the evidence brought forth by proponents of chemtrailing is not credible. There is, admittedly, much false information, much of which is combined into false claims by those who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes evidence. This is clear and is prevalent in many other domains, as well. There can be no denial that there is some veritably bad investigative work which has been done in the name of the chemtrail theory. This, however, is not a valid argument against good evidence being presented. There is BS everywhere, from all sides, on all issues, but common sense and physical laws do exist to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Pictures of spray nozzles mounted on planes, for example, are not proof. There are many good reasons to install spray nozzles on planes. These can range from vortex testing, crop spraying, smoke trails for airshows, missile defense systems, etc. They do not prove anything, nor do pictures of planes full of storage tanks. Just because others have presented these as proof, does not in itself prove that chemtrails are not real. Disney changing its backdrop to reflect modern skies does not prove this either, but what it does show is that a change in our skies is a recognizable phenomenon, and if the explanations for these changes are not plausible, we must continue to push for better answers.

geoengineeringwatch.org is a website run by Dane Wigington, who has also participated in the making of several videos which document the phenomenon (see below.) The site is filled with an enormous amount of data on the subject. Sites like these, while providing much good data, must be taken with a grain of salt. There are many issues which distract from the narrative such as climate change. There are those who disagree with Dane’s position on it, and so try to discredit all the evidence he presents. There is a rift between those who believe in AGW and chemtrails, those who believe in AGW but not chemtrails, those who believe in chemtrails but not AGW, and those who believe that AGW means that people are affecting climate, but on purpose, through the use of chemtrails (SRM et al.) and other means. None of this changes the evidence brought forth by air, water, and soil samples, whistle-blower testimony, photographic evidence, flight logs, insurance company research documents, military reports, scientific assessments, etc. We need to push for more complete studies.

Two points to ponder: 1) Why is it that planes which do not leave persistent contrails (PCTs) often can be seen flying through PCTs left by other planes (with identical engines and on the same flight path?) Would not the conditions which prevent the formation of PCTs in the former also lead to the dissipation of these in the latter? 2) In order for this not to be a ‘conspiracy theory’, it only needs to have happened once. Is there any doubt that such an oft-talked about topic would have been tested? It must also be noted that ‘one’ does not a statistically relevant study make.

Additional resources:

chemtrailsplanet.net

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (.pdf)

Chemtrails: The Secret War (1:00:56 – Italian with subs.)

Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ USAF ~ Kristen Meghan (21:35)

What In The World Are They Spraying (1:37:44)

Why In The World Are They Spraying (1:12:54)

 

Earth Hour – Whatevs

On March 25th, everyone was encouraged to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.

We were told that we were doing the earth a favour. Turn off those bad electric lights, and light a candle to inspire others to do the same next year.

What a crock.

We were told to replace highly efficient and super clean hydro-generated electricity with sooty candles. Now, not all the countries in the world are as fortunate as we are (here in Canada) to have access to hydro-electric power, but even a gas-powered lawnmower engine is more efficient than an open flame burning a cotton wick. Cotton is made of carbon, after all, and burning it… well, you can guess the rest.

I’m not saying that carbon is bad for the planet – a better word might be ‘essential’ – but even if carbon were the GHG global-warming environment-killing enemy we are being told it is, should burning more of it be a symbol of our collective will to reduce its abundance in our atmosphere?

No wonder less and less people are paying attention to this mass-shaming claptrap.

“Fewer Torontonians shut off the lights for Earth Hour this year, Toronto Hydro reveals, but the city did see a 2.8 per cent drop in electricity demand.”

When people don’t even understand the very basic principles which underpin their most vehement beliefs, it’s probably time to pack it in. Carbon taxes, indeed. Sheesh!

 

COP 22 – Marrakech

With all the hoopla surrounding COP 21 in Paris, you’d think there would be some media coverage of COP 22 in Marrakech. Not a word. That always makes me nervous. Huge deals signed in the dark always will.

I’ve always wondered how the cities get picked for these events. Today, Julian Assange let slip that King Mohammed VI of Morocco has given the Clinton Global Initiative twelve million dollars (24:52). On the other hand, that means nothing. Maybe there is a better reason to hold it there. There is a lot of dissent in Morocco, at the moment, and might prove to be a good staging area against populism in Africa. That’s a legitimate reason. You see, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Then again, there could be more to it than that… there always is.

“Morocco Buys Hillary Clinton and Western Sahara Suffers”

*Update*

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

via WUWT:

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

…

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.”

Brains or Thumbs?

This article is not about texting.

Most anthropologists agree, at least, this is my understanding of that which I learned in school, that despite weak defenses, humans evolved to dominate the world because of big brains; more sophisticated might be a better term, or it might not.

Many animals have bigger brains than we.

It has been shown that animals are capable of language and that their math skills are far superior to ours. Dolphins and gorillas especially, but who knows how many animals can outwit us? IQ tests are said to be unfair because it is difficult to design them without some cultural bias. How different, then, must an animal’s IQ environment be? Street-smarts over book-smarts, one might say. Who’s to say how many species are more cleverer than us?

The problem, perhaps, isn’t one of intelligence but simply communication.

Some would say that the reason we took over was our thumbs (opposable digits.) Thumbs allowed for tool-making which quickly devolved into an arms-race that goes on to this day.

But, other animals have thumbs, too. So, why not them? Maybe they know love.

Maybe they had the good sense to know that ‘less is more.’ They traveled light. They had the power to defend themselves, but they lacked the desire to dominate, to take everything over. They saw that growth (1 of 8 – 09:17) would only lead to their eventual demise. They had the courage to face the world and its dangers, to do things the hard way, without seeking to insulate themselves more and more from the hardships which make life interesting. Are they foolish or wise? Asian cultures consider that animals kept in captivity are ultimately happy, like they won the lottery of life. The western view differs, thinking it cruel to deprive animals of their freedom (to face danger,) although western culture, strangely enough, reflects this way of thinking by isolating itself from the ‘dangerous’ natural world. Is it in our very essence to imprison ourselves and to weaken ourselves to the point of total dependence? Desmond Morris thinks so.

Instead of spending hours growing food we can eat, we now spend hours growing grass which we throw away. That’s a big red flag.

So maybe there is something else which allows us to dominate, another quality which permits us to lord over all we see, to the point of writing it into our gospels. Maybe it’s a moral quality or a primal arrogance, maybe we are just so physically weak that we have become a paranoid species. “Humanity No# 1 !” Discipline through fear seems pretty natural to humans on many levels.

As Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said, “It is a hard heart that kills.” I would distinguish that it is either a hard heart, or an empty stomach. Killing everyday to eat makes one a pacifist by nature. You don’t want to have to kill during your breaks, too. Killing is hard and it’s dangerous. You only do it when absolutely necessary. Does never killing anything besides a mosquito or a spider cause a buildup of whatever it is that got us here, in the first place? Does not killing result in us not being able to control the urge to kill? Do we need to kill? That would explain a lot. Maybe it isn’t the killing we need, maybe it’s the risk of being killed. That would explain extreme sports.

Maybe it was the combination of language, technology, and hubris that got us here. Maybe it was dumb luck. I wonder what animals must think of our stewardship. After seeing an interesting episode of the CBC’s “The Nature of Things,” I thought about [when a translation device is invented] what kind of questions animals will want to ask us. I also wonder about the answers we will have for them. I also wonder if the government will be involved to put the proper ‘spin’ on the first official inter-species communication. Government, industry, the military, and religion will probably all be represented and involved.

It might be good practice for when the aliens arrive. Come to think of it, it’s probably just hubris… and it’s all down-hill from here.

Advantage

As with all military forces, where there is a significant advantage, be it technological, logistical, geographical, financial, etc., wars of aggression are always waged by the more powerful. Mice do not roar. Knowing that international power ebbs and flows, and that the militarized police act as the glue, they take it while they can. Holding it proves harder. Holding and expanding is the ultimate goal. Hundreds, no thousands, from Alexander, Caesers, Attila, Napoleon, Rothschild, Hitler, have all wanted to rule the world. Who’s to say nobody wants to do that anymore.

TPTB have always wanted a slave population to do their bidding. They have always been at war with the lower class. They have wealth, and we have numbers. They get richer, develop better weapons, live longer, and we just multiply. They’ve never been richer, but they’ve neither ever been so outnumbered. All international treaties, the UN, world governments, Ngo’s, trade deals, environmental legislation, the legal system, industry, the military, etc. are structured to keep us occupied (productive) and distracted, and to die older. Don’t rock the boat and you get to have toys; start thinking for yourself and it’s time for re-education. The more docile the population and the more loyal the soldiers (by love or by fear) the better the odds they will be triumphant in an aggressive war.

The US spends more money on ‘defense’ than any other country in the world. It is assumed they have the best military. They also spend more on health care than anyone else. They do not, however, have the best health care. But they THINK they do.

So what if, while trying to hold on to hegemony, they do attack Russia overtly thinking they have the advantage? What if Russia calls their bluff? What if Russia isn’t so backwards? They keep hacking the US, after all. If Russia and China can hack the US, all their drones belong to ‘them’. Size doesn’t matter if you can just pull the plug. And it ain’t just the military; it could be demographics, it could be the banking sector, debt, cyber, stocks, disease, natural disaster… any one of these things could beat them before they get out of the gate.

And what if THEY see an advantage?

The problem here is that US military superiority is only perceived to be so, the reality is, though greatly speculated on, unknown. What if they perceive an advantage where there is none? We’re still the ones doing their bidding, but there might be a lot less of us after something like that. That’s how much they hate us… they’re willing to go live underground for a generation if it will just rid them of us. Like when you have to move out of your house when you fumigate, well it’s something like that.

I wonder if there are any underground cities yet…

L. Ashwell Wood, 1950

The Grass Farmers

People tend to build next to rivers in order to facilitate trade. The best agricultural land tends to be near rivers. For decades, suburban centres have been making the switch from zoning for agricultural land to zoning for residential. Some residents are even being fined for growing food on their property because some municipal bylaws prohibit it.

We’ve replaced our farmland with lawns. We’ve gone from planting seed for food to planting grass for nothing. We’ve gone from tending our crops to watering our lawns. We’ve gone from harvesting our own winter stores and declaring our independence to cutting the grass on one of our two days off just to keep up appearances. Tending a well-landscaped lawn, flower beds, shrubs and hedges, non-fruit-bearing trees, can be as much work as farming, but the yield is zero. In fact, it turns out to be an enormous time sink, much like entertainment, socializing, and child-rearing. It also turns out be be a circular exercise in recycling compost for no benefit outside the aesthetic.

As a response to this long-term trend, big-agri is developing GMO’s in order to feed the ever growing population. They’re actually making quite a big deal of it, too. There is such a shortage of good farmland, we now need to engineer our food like we should have engineered our spaces.

Even a fruit tree every so often would make an impact on the ever-growing problem of ‘food islands.’ Why should I drive past unused farmland to go buy synthetic vegetables trucked into the tiled mall?

So with the scare-mongering of over-population and the fear-porn of climate change, the two things we can do to increase global yield in food supplies and prevent starvation are: home gardens; and increased atmospheric levels of CO2, but both have fallen into dis-favour. (A solar panel on some rooftops here and there wouldn’t hurt either.) The point is that population is controlled by the availability or scarcity of resources, and it is not the majority poor who control that.

Is there a systemic problem looming? Sterility has needlessly become a very large industry. A very large and damaging industry. See Morgan Spurlock’s “The Truth Behind Toxins“. CNN doesn’t even mention that it is about chemicals, addressing only ‘food’ in the introduction. The common thread throughout most of the show is sterility and cancer. The show starts off with what is probably the most persistent danger, flame-retardants. An honest examination, dis-honestly portrayed. There are many earlier examples of journalism on the topic; most were not widely viewed.

Birth rates are down almost everywhere in the western-world, as cancer rates skyrocket. GMOs are said to have negative effects on fertility and also may ‘transform cells.’ Cleaning products and beauty products also, as it turns out.

Deranged monarchs re-incarnated as merciful diseases do not a sensible solution make.

With food independence comes a better use of our time, money, resources, and health. Perhaps, we should rather think about saving a buck than making one.

 

AGW – Calamity or Strategy?

There are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is a consequence of natural forces, there are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is man-made, and there are some who don’t believe it is happening at all.

Most reputable scientists seem to agree that there was a warming trend noticed in the mid-eighties (when satellite data became ‘de rigueur’) which lasted until 1998. Most would also agree that this warming has plateau’d and that the average global temperature has been steady for the last two decades. Many say that CO2 is to blame, many don’t.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, put all that aside for the moment. It really doesn’t matter, anyhow. What does matter in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate is whether or not there are some people who have been trying to get the earth to warm up. Dane Wiggington is of the opinion that the earth is warming and that the result will be catastrophic. He also believes that geo-engineering is (partly) to blame. The implications are surreal.

There are three reasons for which this scenario is plausible: derivatives; market share; and commodities.

Derivatives (without getting too technical) are insurance. They are side bets made by financiers in order to protect themselves against investments gone bad. A farmers’ crops may be worth a million dollars, but if a natural disaster strikes, the failed crop might be worth two million through the derivatives market. This is the basis for ‘disaster capitalism.’ The derivatives market is said to be worth hundreds of trillions. Profits depend on failures in more traditional enterprises.

Market share is what drives corporations to monopoly. The more market share, the more customers, the more sales. Companies such as Monsanto have been developing techniques which would assure them almost complete market dominance. They, along with their partners, have been researching seed technology which could grow in almost any condition such as drought, flood, and even radiation.

Commodities are everything the world uses. They are raw materials. They are food. They are mineral resources such as gold (debatable,) oil, uranium, and coal. Some say that they are running out, or at least, that the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. There could be a new source of commodities, though. There could be an entire ocean of virgin ground awaiting exploration.

This would satisfy all three conditions.

If the world was warming, the polar ice caps would melt. This would wreak havoc with the global economy and the derivatives market would prove very profitable for the psychopaths praying for (and betting on) plague conditions. Environmental devastation would also prove very profitable for large conglomerates that could supply (very expensive) food which could not be grown anywhere else anymore. Thirdly, if the poles did melt, great swaths of new land would be exposed and exploited immediately.

This doomsday scenario begs the question, are there those who would sabotage the world for their own gain? If history is any indication, the answer is a resounding, “Yes!” If these people do exist, are they presently putting their resources to work in trying to achieve this goal? Is geo-engineering being used to warm the planet further and faster?

Whether or not this is being implemented, the people in Davos have just put together a plan to ensure that whatever happens, they will control the outcome. “Scott Minerd (who before Guggenheim worked at Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley) …joined a World Economic Forum advisory council. Its task? Develop guidelines for those nations looking to do business at the top of the world. That framework is to be released Thursday, in Davos.”

“The Arctic guidelines are voluntary, like many other sustainable investment initiatives, including the Principles for Responsible Investment or even the WEF’s own work on “sustainable competitiveness.” How does anyone expect to protect the Arctic environment in such a gold rush? The project is designed to complement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and while the green earth is littered with do-good business pledges, the notion received a shot in the arm recently. In December, almost 200 nations agreed in Paris to adhere to the first-ever universal climate goals. How nations contribute to progress toward them is their call, since there are no binding demands to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The above taken from Bloomberg’s “The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean.”

So cui bono? Who are the people who would benefit from a world destroyed, what tools would they employ to see such a strategy implemented, and just how far would they go to dominate and control the earth and its resources?

One would expect to find the answer just north of 66 degrees.

Trickle-Up Carbon Taxes

Here are some points about carbon taxes which may have passed under the radar gleaned from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision (a Canadian think-tank.)

The commission had what they refered to as a debate today between Chris Ragan, chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and Merran Smith, Executive Director or Clean Energy Canada moderated by the Globe and Mail’s Editorial Page Editor Tony Keller. It wasn’t much of a debate, it was more like publicity. The live event was aimed at corporate oil sector executives.

The participants mostly echoed each others’ comments. Even pre-recorded clips and guest questions simply regurgitated the day’s talking points. They were few, but seemed to encourage oil companies to accept the incentivization programs aimed directly at them. The public, and its concerns, were for the most part, ignored.

The one point which kept coming up was that carbon taxes should be revenue-neutral. What this means is that while companies would be taxed for their share of carbon emissions (again, there was no distinction between CO, CO2, and CH4) at about $30/tonne, the money would then come back to the company through special programs, tax breaks in other areas, or subsidies. BC’s cement industry was cited saying that some $25M had already been given in order to reduce GHG emissions. So is the government trying to get some of its money back, or is it trying to get corporations to pay for their own subsidies?

BC uses a revenue-neutral system whereas the system in Quebec is cap and trade (Quebec carbon is taxed at about $14/tonne.) The problem here is the perception of oil companies; if they feel the taxes are not revenue-neutral, the ‘debators’ conceded, there would be an exodus of mostly manufacturing jobs towards cheaper emerging markets. In other words, ‘the working man’ suffers.

They then pointed out that manufacturing jobs were being replaced with other jobs (in Ontario total hires went up.) If those jobs are being replaced with better jobs (R&D,) (re)education will cost more for the workers and saddle them with more debt – if Canadians are even qualified to do these jobs – which is doubtful. But if the jobs (as is more probably the case) are being replaced with lesser jobs (service sector) as is the current trend, again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers.

Emerging market countries have been quick to point out that most of this ‘pollution’ was made by developed market countries who then counter that the pollution from the next fifty years will be mostly EM, and much worse. We got it on credit, but you have to pay up front.

Finally, the ‘leftover’ taxes would be used to help subsidize public transport. Since less people will be able to afford cars, this seems reasonable. Again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers. Those who can afford it will be encouraged to buy newer cleaner cars. More money being spent by the public which already owes a tremendous amount of new car debt in favour of the car companies who produce the pollution in the first place. This is all getting rather circular. Who suffers? You guessed it.

All this is based upon the notion that this entire carbon market will not be a free market, but a highly manipulated one; one in which the price of carbon can never be high enough, much like the already carbon-tax-laden airline ticket. Prices will be set, because if the market were left to its own devices, and it turns out that CO2 does nothing to raise global temperatures, the >$1T market would collapse taking everything out with it.

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision has no literature referencing sources for CO2 harm, cites no peer-reviewed papers backing up its claims, will not provide any references, and says the science is settled which negates the need for any pesky proof.

The commission has also indicated that all forms of carbon emissions should be subject to taxation. Get ready for a breathing tax, Canada.

 

Who Cops the COP?

In light of the recent attack in Paris, and with police claiming they cannot ensure the security of the many participants to COP 21 including the pope and other heads of state, no public demonstrations will be allowed. Period.

The emphasis has been on the hundreds of thousands of supposed supporters who had been expected to march in solidarity with the aims of the conference (whether or not it would have manifested.) No mention has been made, however, of those who oppose the conference and its goals. No mention will be made of them at all as they will, thanks to the new normal of global security, not even be allowed to show up. This has turned out to be a tremendously effective way to silence dissent. Is this the future of global governance?

The fear was that support for the ‘environmental’ goals would be overshadowed by those who denounce them. Public apathy on the subject is rampant and the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are gaining momentum. In no way did they want a repeat of many G-7/G-8/G-20 conferences in which protestors turned out ‘en masse’ while support for the policies was nowhere to be seen.

Surely their numbers must be substantial. The CO2 poll at the top of this blog shows that fully two thirds of respondants believe that the world would be better off if CO2 levels were not reduced.

One can only wonder, had the events of Nov. 13th in Paris not occured, just what the conference, or more precisely, the scene outside the conference, would have looked like. Just lucky, I suppose.

Since all demonstrations were banned for the reason of security (anti-terrorism,) all demonstrators will be seen as terrorists; hence, if you are a skeptic, you’re no better than a member of ISIS.

With the unelected writing policy to be sold by the elected to the electors, and with an absolute media blackout on dissent, it is difficult to see how the ‘international order’ could be headed towards a democratic future.

Sun Tzu wrote that the best way to win a war was not to fight in the first place. Wise words taken to heart in Paris. One more in a long list of debates which alarmists have done everything possible to avoid.

---

It all started here at COP 2.

“1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.”

---

Timothy Endicott Wirth

“In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation’s board.”

---

“The United Nations Foundation was launched in 1998 with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner to support the United Nations causes… The main issue areas that the Foundation addresses are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, and population, and supporting the United Nations.”

---

How is it that the philanthropists who are the most ardent supporters of medical programs to save more lives (especially in the 1/3 world) through health services, disease reduction, and mass vaccination, are the same alarmists who decry over-population as the number one threat to humanity in being the number one cause of climate change (0:58)? These Ehrlichians, these Holdrenites really need to clarify why they routinely spend billions funding these programs to save millions of lives while publicly stating that it is a death sentance to us all. In order for people to voluntarily agree to have no more than one or two children, poverty must be eradicated. Funding health services will only make that problem worse, if one listens to the men who share the views of the Ted Turners’ and the Bill Gates’ and the Al Gores’ of the world. When notable people say one thing yet do another, it should be noted. When objecting to these incongruencies is not tolerated, it should be feared.

 

 

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?