Monday, June 30, 2014

Marvin Herndon

Global warming hoax

96 comments:

  1. "Science is truth." --Marvin Herndon

    This is an interesting discussion on how universities are corrupted by government money in the form of grants and how that money influences the outcome of their research.

    Using Eisenhower's phrase, he calls it the :"university government complex." I would call it the "university industrial complex" because there is no real government anymore.

    He seems to be overlooking the role of the corporations which now have the same status as individuals in the eyes of the law. It is they, IMHO, who are running the government and through them the universities' research into global warming. It is in their interest to impose yet another scheme for taxing the world on carbon emissions.

    As far as what they are putting in the chem-trails for weather modification, aluminum oxide, was it? Well, we know aluminum causes Alzheimer's. Whatever they are using, you can be sure it's some toxic industrial byproduct just like fluoride.

    (I'm curious why a scientist, especially an independent one like Herndon, has not spent any time looking into 9/11. Does he believe commercial jet liners can take out an entire building complex like the WTC?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Based on the research of Clint Richardson, they putting notices of aerosol spraying in the public notice section of local newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dont know if my comment made it to your blog:
    Please invite Lord Christopher Monckton to cive a presentation of the climate hoax, he can do it of the cuff.
    It would be great to hear you two discuss the philosophy of science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was a fan for many years of Lord Monckton, I was assigned to drive Christopher around New Orleans before his climate change hoax talk at a Tea Party gathering.
      I spent an entire day with him in my music studio and jammed with him as he is a accomplished pianist. I was building my courage to ask him about Chemtrails and after about 5 hours with him, I showed him google images of Chemtrails... much to my astonishment, he quickly pulled up a picture of two WWII dual winged, propeller driven planes engaged in a dogfight with smoke coming out the rear of the planes. He said, "See, we didn't have chemtrails back then." I guess he didn't know that I had given weekly chemtrail weather reports for many years and all of his credibility went right out the window.
      And to top it all off, he said to me "Don't be such a "Conspiracy Theorist." That did it for me. can you say controlled opposition?

      Delete
    2. Im sceptic about chemtrails too, but that doesnt make me controlled. I just have not seen the evidence, and not bothered to research them for myself. Everyone cant be on top of everything. Im sure there has been a few chemtrials (pun intended) weather control, escaping radar etc, but I find it hard to believe that chemtrails are put in the sky in massive scale, or why.

      Delete
    3. Monckton would not necessarily know of Chemtrails; motorfot is right. It's not "credibility" issue; a person can be knowledgeable abt 1 or 2 things, closed-minded re. others, and even have prejudices within areas of their general expertise.

      Delete
    4. We also drove by a recently demolished building done by controlled explosion and I mentioned Building 7 and he looked at me and said "You believe in every crack pot conspiracy you hear on the internet don't you?" Take from it what you will.

      Delete
    5. Your assumption about the gent may or may not be right, but you must admit that there is the possibility that what Clare said is correct. I have a very close friend, whom I have known for 38 years, who is an expert on the holohoax and understands many things about how the world works (or doesn't...) but refuses to entertain the idea that no plane hit the WTC despite all of my good arguments and all the scientific proof. That doesn't make him a shill or controlled opposition - he just has a block in his logical thought process on some things.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Very well said, It's not that he was unaware of chemtrails but every time I opened my mouth to impart something about my 6 years of research on the subject he told me that I was mistaken and would not let me speak. He actually said " I bet you get that stuff off the internet don't you?" I walked him outside to show him a disgusting display of all day spraying with his own eyes complete with the usual X's and tic tac toe grid, "It's just water vapor at high altitudes" HE IS NOT A SAILBOAT BUILDER WHO IS UNAWARE OF CHEMTRAILS!!!! HE IS THE LEADING SPOKESMAN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND HE IS OBLIVIOUS TO AEROSOL SPRAYING?! GIVE ME A BREAK. I also quizzed him on a host of issues like Zionism, the Fedreal Reserve ect, along with my incredibly awake friends and ALL come away disgusted. Sorry folks but he does not pass the smell test. I know it sucks having to accept that we've been duped yet again. He has good information to select from but so does Glenn Beck... only to be lead off a cliff on crucial issues. I do hear you and you are right about all you said but it doesn't apply to Christopher.

      Delete
    8. That sort of thing is so frustrating but sometimes it's beneficial to use those kinds of people in a limited way. I know that sounds bad, but in the same way that we can use books which we would not agree with in their entirety, we can use experts in a narrow field. I'm not all that familiar with Monkton but it sounds like he's an expert on climate change. Unless he is actively trying to sabotage other areas of the truth movement maybe he should be allowed to contribute to his one little corner of it.

      Delete
  4. The guest's scientific paper about Earth's core sounds interesting. My guess is that the Earth core is a former granitic sister planet that sank into a basaltic water planet. The crust of the granitic planet got peeled off during the merging process and became today's continental crust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we believe in the laws of gravity, I suppose it makes sense to assume that heavy elements, such as uranium, would gather in the center of the earth. It is a very attractive idea.

      Delete
  5. We're still stuck with the same Beatle tunes over and over and over and over. I think I realize now. Why just about every show starts out "I got a good reason. For taking the easy way out now" I am just laz---y.

    The producer obviously strings these segments together without a thought of leveling out the dbs between clips.

    Why is it Gary King can produce shows with dozens of clips put together with even volume. But Fetzer's producer seems not to understand how do that.

    The commercials are twice as loud as everything else. It is such a blast!

    Fire the producer!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My producer does a great job and if I have to choose between him and a disgruntled fan, it's not a tough call. I like the music as a framework for the show--and I have invited him to vary the cadence for those he puts up. Sorry you are not a "happy camper"!

      Delete
    2. Jim, you could ask again for Total to use more Beatles songs. - Sometimes sound is uneven, too, but I understand some guests don't have good connection. - Luck & luv 2 u both.

      Delete
    3. Total does a great job and so does Gary. They've both done great work when I've been on the show. Some folks don't like Gary's production - it's too over the top for them. I get a kick out of it.

      Total is a bit more Spartan which suits me just fine as well. But believe me Total covers up a lot of warts that the listeners never hear. We have our fair share of technical difficulties around here. Things would be a hell of lot worse if it wasn't for Total busting his ass to keep it together.

      Commercials are always going to be louder than the show. Watch a few hours of the Talmudvision and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's a free show what do you expect? Sheesh.

      Delete
    4. Total and I are on the same team, trying to bring 100% truth to the listeners. Don is right, Total does so much work editing that is never heard. So do I. Cut us some slack, the shows are free and loaded with suppressed information. Dr. Fetzer drops back to pass as we streak down the field, If he throws to Total... I get in front of him and block, sometime he will lateral the ball and block for me. Maybe a trip to Denver would help, sit back, fire up and enjoy the show.

      Delete
    5. I, for one, really enjoy the Beatles songs. It would not be Radio Fetzer without them! The louder the better!

      Delete
  6. Get your own internet connection and stop eavesdropping on the guy in the cell next door. Strictly speaking, you should be in solitary confinement on bread and water. Why the hell is a deadbeat like you listening to commercials, anyway?
    Cheapo jailbird.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Global Climate Change (?) but no mention of rising ocean levels, loss of arctic and antarctic sea ice, rising CO2 levels in oceans, coral bleaching, etc. I would have thought you would have checked Herndon's connection to the Heartland Institute as I did! Government $ to University Researchers vs. Extraction Industry $ ... the scary United Nations. Why is he SO invested in us never being able to know or trust anything? God Fetzer, it was the UN that was animating Gen. Walker, the minutemen & the Birchers; remember Loran Hall?

    I grew up on a farm in Iowa in the '60's & '70's and I can attest to how different jet engine exhaust can appear at different times based on different pressures & temperatures.

    The founding fathers knew that only a government of 'We the people' could counter the concentration of Big $ ... I'm not saying Herndon didn't bring up some intriguing points, but shouldn't we be working on how we can make our society more democratic? Our Congress has become a pool of corruption, our representative gov't. is based upon a time it took 2 days by horseback to reach a meeting ... how can 535 people adequately represent +330 million of us?? How can we use our technology to make our government more democratically representative? Why can't we all vote on bills now instead of only 535 people in Congress?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider this graph:
      http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature_png
      It represents ice core reconstructions of ice age temperature. Anyone should be able to tell from this graph, that our imminent threat is NOT global warming, it is global cooling. We should put out as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible. We should also make plans to burn soot on the poles in case of a rapid global cooling. A thousand years ago my forefathers travelled in flimsy wooden boats to greenland, with livestyoch, to live there as farmers. The climate was a lot warmer than today. Today, not even trees grow on greenland because it is too cold. The sailors a thousand years ago navigated throgh waters that modern ships, wid radar, gps, navigation charts, cant sail without reinforced hulls and escort by ice-breakers. Ötzi the snowman walked in the alpes 5000 years ago. The alpes were mainly ice free then. Thats how the romans could conquer those parts of europe. Today much panic is voiced over the retreating claciers in the alps. But when the glaciers retreat, underneath the ice we find wood, money, clothes etc from a time 2000-5000 years ago when there was no ice and people travelled there by foot. Another illustration to make clear my point:
      http://www.lwhancock.com/images/HoloceneOptimumTemperature.jpg
      This means temperature is not stable, as IPPC will have you believe, within a few tenths of degrees C. Why it varies we dont know. So, in the last 100 years the climate has warmed, supposedly, 0.7 degrees C. That is very close to the error in reading thermometers, wich is 0.5 degrees C. The last 18 years almost, there has been NO warming of the climate, when humankind has burned 25% of total CO2 through history. If the hypothesis that increasing levels of CO2 dramatically influenses global climate, we would have seen huge jumps in temperature during these 18 years of increasing CO2 production. Weve seen nothing.
      I let Lord Monckton prove my point for you:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/
      AND further, to make the present look warm, scientists are cooling the past.
      http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/03/did-federal-climate-scientists-fudge-tem
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/giss-is-unique-now-includes-may-data/

      Delete
  8. David Thurman said:

    Global Climate Change (?) but no mention of rising ocean levels, loss of arctic and antarctic sea ice, rising CO2 levels in oceans, coral bleaching, etc. I would have thought you would have checked Herndon's connection to the Heartland Institute as I did! Government $ to University Researchers vs. Extraction Industry $ ... the scary United Nations. Why is he SO invested in us never being able to know or trust anything? God Fetzer, it was the UN that was animating Gen. Walker, the minutemen & the Birchers; remember Loran Hall?
    _______________________________
    Uh oh, shill alert! I just checked the Heartland Institute and they are calling climate change a hoax. Are you representing big business? Haven't you people wasted enough taxpayers' money on this climate change hoax? Aren't you disgusted with the lies you tell and the science you compromise:?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funders of the HEARTLAND Institute are the Koch Brothers & API American Petroleum Institute, of course they are calling climate change a hoax. Their so called scientists are the same ones who were saying, "We don't know if long-term cigarette smoking can cause cancer," in the '90's. Check it out!

      Delete
    2. I am NOT representing big business, but you Joan Edwards are most certainly representing the Extraction Industry BIG business.

      Delete
  9. Warning Signs: The Anatomy of a Global Warming Smear
    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/02/anatomy-of-global-warming-smear.html

    The “warmists”, a name applied to global warming hoaxers, launched into a paroxysm of denial that has not stopped to this day. Their respective universities have since engaged in every possible way to hide the documentation they claimed supported their claims. Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.

    We have reached the point where the warmists have been claiming that global warming causes global cooling! Along the way the bogus warming has been blamed for thousands of utterly absurd events and trends. What really worried the perpetrators was the fact that the planet had entered a cooling cycle in 1998.

    At the heart of the hoax was the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing the Earth to heat and that CO2 emissions must be reduced to save the Earth. Next to oxygen, CO2 is vital to all life on Earth as it sustains all vegetation which in turn sustains every creature that depends on it as a source of food. It represents a mere 0.033% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is referred to by warmists as a “greenhouse gas.” It is, as any meteorologist or climatologist will tell you, the atmosphere that protects the Earth from becoming a dissociated planet like Mars.
    __________________________________
    Dr. J. Marvin Herndon has quite an article on Corruption of Science in America. It can be found at http://www.nuclearplanet.com/corruption.pdf if you're interested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As most of you are aware, I have had a hard time sorting out the warming issue. I have no idea how so many of you can be so sure you are right when the "science" seems to be on the other side. I like to present different sides of issues, but this one remains unresolved for me for the time being.

      Delete
    2. The two sides you speak of, I presume are:
      1 Those who claim to know what causes warming and, according to definition of scince, can -and do- make falsiafiable predictions.
      2 Those who say climate is (yet) to complicated and poorly understood for scince to understand and predict.
      -
      So, then we just have to take a look at the predictions, ie models, to see if they are maybe scince or are falsified by nature:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
      -
      Ops, doesent look to good for those who claim to have understood climate.
      -
      One example. CO2 makes air cool a little bit slower, true. But at the same time, warmer air mens more water vapour in the air, and more rain, everyone agrees to that, even warmists. But what the warmists dont accept is that more vapour and rain means more clouds, that COOL the planet by blocking sunlight. Yes, a thermostat. But the (negative)cloud feedback is missing from many models, it is discarded as unimportant and unknown.
      This is just a minor point. The missing "hotspot" also proves warmist theory wrong, falsifies the theory. It should end right there, solid proof the theory is wrong, look it up.
      -
      http://joannenova.com.au/tag/missing-hot-spot/
      -
      So lets be honest, we know to little about climate to make predictions, or to say what role CO2 plays. According to temperature data the past 18 years human CO2 makes little or no difference, it is at least impossible to measure.
      Global warming scepticism for dummies:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

      Delete
    3. The State of Climate Science - Richard Lindzen
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plo18WEYTBI

      Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen joins us to discuss the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.

      Delete
    4. " My concept of the thermonuclear ignition of stars by nuclear fission has been completely ignored by the model- making astrophysicists. Ignoring work that challenges the ‘politically correct’ consensus-approved story-line is common practice, thanks to the fear of retribution by secret ‘peer reviewers’or to the fear of being ‘denounced’ and blacklisted. "

      Dr Herndon might like to know he is not alone in that respect. Stephen Crothers from the Thunderbolts Project in the clip show show the Big Bang and the idea of stars being nuclear infernos is nothing more than playing make believe.

      Stephen Crothers: The Parallax Effect on Short Hair | EU2014
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48fo


      Stephen Crothers presented the case that Black Holes and the Big Bang have been created by theorists and never observed. Black Holes are now said to be both invisible and visible. Quasars are now black holes; so are the 'blazars'. Individual black holes are also alleged x-ray sources. It is claimed that galaxies harbor a super-massive black hole at their centers, along with other black holes dispersed throughout them. All these black holes exist in an alleged expanding big bang universe. However, black hole universes are inconsistent with big bang universes. The audience were taken through the salient facts one step at a time in this riveting mostly non-mathematical presentation. The math of General Relativity has a notorious reputation for its complexity but most of the important facts can be understood by the layman and specialist alike without any mathematics.

Crothers is a preeminent mathematician, counted among the most competent critics of modern cosmology (including both the General Theory of Relativity and popular theory of the Big Bang). He has also gained much attention for his systematic unraveling of standard Black Hole theory, showing that the mathematical model of a Black Hole follows neither from observation nor from any logical reasoning from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Subscribe to Thunderbolts Update newsletter: http://eepurl.com/ETy41
Thunderbolts Project Home: http://www.thunderbolts.info

      Delete
    5. Piers Corbyn: The Reality of Long Range Weather and Climate Change

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R26PXRrgds

      Published on Apr 29, 2014
      In his talk, Piers Corbyn described the failure of standard meteorology (SM) in outlook, theory, and practice. He included: signals in real meteorology data unexplained by SM; real role of jet stream, stratosphere, electro-jets, magnetosphere, solar wind, solar corona, and the Moon; the total inability of SM to explain: sudden stratospheric warmings and its consequences, tropical storm intensifications, angular momentum concentration in tornadoes; and the need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations; the theoretical basis of non-standard long range weather forecasting on a real planet; a summary on his WeatherAction forecasting skill and examples; and the future of forecasting and meteorology, climate 'science' and science in general.

      Piers Corbyn began recording weather and climate patterns at the age of five, constructing his own observation equipment. He obtained a first-class honors degree in physics at Imperial College London. In 1969, he became the first president of the Imperial College Students' Union to be directly elected by the student body. He later studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College, London, and then began examining the relationship between Earth's weather and climate and solar activity. Following many years of weather prediction as an occupation, Piers formed WeatherAction in 1995, where he sells web-accessible long-range monthly forecasts for Britain and Ireland, Europe, and the USA plus special forecasts of 'Red Weather periods' and related increases in thunder/tornado and earthquake risk.
      www.weatheraction.com

      Delete
  10. Thank you Mr. Thurman for bringing to our attention a nice little publication put out by the Heartland Institute which featured this informative article on more greedy government actions. Do you people have any sense of decency?

    FDA Targets Cigar Makers, Threatening 119-Year-Old Business | Heartlander Magazine

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/07/07/fda-targets-cigar-makers-threatening-119-year-old-business

    J.C. Newman Cigar Co. is one of a kind, literally.

    Founded in 1895 by Julius Caesar Newman, a Hungarian immigrant, the Tampa-based family business is the last of what was once 150 “Cigar City” factories.

    The business has outlasted 19 U.S. presidents, two world wars, a Cuban economic embargo that crushed many of its competitors and, most recently, the Great Recession.

    Now, the company is fighting for its life.

    New FDA Crackdown

    A new executive branch regulation aimed at curbing youth access to tobacco by stomping out affordable cigars effectively would extinguish the Newman family legacy and its 130 jobs.........

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why would Oilcompanies, banks, politicians all want to tax CO2? Is there a money trail to follow?
    Let us examine the sums of money loosely.
    30 Gtons of CO2 is produced to the delight of all green plants on earth, even the deserts are greening as a result of our emissions. To make it easy to come up with a sum of money potentially to gain from this, let us tax every ton 100$. that is 100 000 000 000$. Thats a lot of money for a lot of players. If we put the money in hundred dollar bills and stack the in a pile, how high would it reach? Assume the bills are 0.1 mm thick, that means a thousand $ is one mm, 1 meter 1 miljon, our sum above would stretch 100 000 meters, or 100 km, roughly 70 miles. So, if they pull this scam off, they can collect 70 miles of hundred dollar bills stacked on each other, every year. And that is just the beginning.
    Then comes all the investments in inefficient green technology for producing energy without carbon. Investments backed up by tax-payer money, of course, and subsidised by tax payers, with interest to the banks etc etc. They will charge us over and over again for the extra costs. It is a scam, it is all about money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. error in math!
      I will do it over.
      30 Gtons is 30 000 000 000 tons.
      A 1000 000$ pile of bills is roughly one meter high. 1 millon $ is also 10 000 bills, therefor divide 3E10 with 1E4 = 3E6 meters, 3 million meters, 3000 km, 2000 miles.
      Ok, thats even worse than 70 miles.
      2000 miles of hundred dollar bills neatly stacked on top of each other, raise the price of carbondioxide to 150/ton end the pile will stretch across the USA east to west.
      -
      Sorry for my lousy math, been awhile since I juggled numbers.

      Delete
  12. The industrial revolution would have had a net COOLING effect, if we are focusing on atmospheric release. The reason is we know that SO2, NO2 and coal particulates are a force for COOLING and not warming.

    There is a conspiracy of fake data around. But the 90's may well have been anomalous in its warmth .... I mean in terms that there may have well been some small amount of warming above what solar uptick would account for. But this was a decade when the US and others radically reduced its SO2 output from its coal generating plants and just before the new Chinese plants started pumping out extra SO2 due to phenomenal economic growth. What I'm saying is the 90's was a time when SO2 output dropped radically for the first time (I say this from memory ... I researched the issue in depth from 2005 to 2008 ... and I was all over the debate until I walked away knowing it was just a monstrous scam.)

    The 1930's have to be considered the hottest decade in some centuries until proven otherwise. BUT NOT NECESSARILY for a great segment of the human species. Since much of the human family will have experienced a warming climate purely on the basis of the growth of cities.

    Concrete buildings and roads massively warm the environment for those who move to cities, and those who are somewhat downwind from these cities. So much so that those who live a little FURTHER downwind have experienced greater rainfall. As the cooling after the extra warmth leads to greater precipitation.

    If any of you have seen a graph which shows the 90's as substantially warmer then the 30's you have been witness to fake data. But the reality is that most graphs purport to show this. They are lies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The tricks the oligarchs use to show warming are almost childish in their idiocy. There are three big evil liars in this arena. There is a NASA division who lies all the time and they go under the prestigious name of Goddard. There is a division of NOAA that goes under the name of the wider department, thus defaming all those who work for NOAA, many of them no doubt good people. And there is some outfit called Hadley in the UK. They co-ordinate their fake data so that their graphs look roughly similar but the bullshit they employ to get this faux-convergence differs one to the other.

    Since I haven't really been all over the data for six years I can get mixed up with what criminal bank of liars was using which excuse at the time.

    But in any case I'll give you guys a bit of a flavour as to how these assholes work. And yes like in other areas there is a disproportionate Jew representation in this wickedness. I don't give a toss anymore about identifying this though I was an am a fan of many Jew thinkers. All of them mavericks in their own time and who paid a price for their rebellion from the authoritarian tribal positions that they and we must suffer under.

    Anyhow one scam was to use more data then could be honestly used. So that temperature measuring stations were used longitudinally even though a city had grown up around them from when the measuring had first begun. It was so much worse then how I have described but I will compress matters.

    Another scam was that when the Soviet Union (a colder then average territory YES OR NO?????) when it collapsed, all these measuring stations fell under disuse. And the usual suspects used this as a way of giving a boost to global temperature averages during the 90's. The decade when this collapse was full in force.

    Then when these bastards were all out of options, one of these three I witnessed tagging sea warmth data on that wasn't present at the start of their longitudinal study.

    Then there was the fact that third world countries were adding measuring stations. Now it is a sad fact that the third world tended to be hotter and more tropical then those places where measuring stations had been in operation for decades ... and in some cases centuries.

    So this too provided an opportunity for this filth to screw the data. Its not clear to me from memory, that all three of these criminal subdivisions uses all of these techniques to lie to us. Actually my impression is that they did not. That they let the relative faux-convergence of their graphs speak (and lie) for themselves and my best guess would be that they split up the anti-science techniques between them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thurman I am reading your jive but I just cannot find a point to it.

    Are you a trace gas hysteric? Can you pony up the evidence that could exonerate this scam?

    I'm saying that this scam is worse and more transparent then Piltdown man. Run away or run away from the need for evidence. I do not have the gift of second sight but I know that you won't come good with the evidence.

    Now how could that be? That I already know you will fall short? Even though I have no paranormal powers? How do I know this for an absolute fact, even though I cannot foretell the future?

    Give it up fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  15. This is interesting:
    Not only AGW-believers are making models that (so far has failed) to predict future climete. Here is one model that has got som attention lately, which predicts the sun will cool the earth. So it is a model that dont belive in human CO2 as relevant, but it claims to have predictive power. The sceptic community is divided, true sceptics think this is just another shot in the dark, AGW haters hope it is right. Who knows, only time will tell, http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
    If I understand mr Fetzer right, he thinks the best model is a relevant model. Maybe, I am unsure that is true when dealing with possibly chaotic events that may prove to be truly incalculable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. chem trails all over europe and the UK

    ReplyDelete
  17. Israel intensifies onslaught on Gaza.
    Middle East on brink of total war.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "This is interesting:
    Not only AGW-believers are making models that (so far has failed) to predict future climete. Here is one model that has got som attention lately, which predicts the sun will cool the earth....."

    Not only do they fail at prediction. They don't even backtest. The idiocy of these people is mind-blowing. The logic of their models is .... not logical. Their flat earth Watts-per-square metre model is just a sick joke. They cannot even point to an anomaly for their alleged greenhouse effect to fill in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joan Edwards said :' "Science is truth." --Marvin Herndon .This is an interesting discussion on how universities are corrupted by government money in the form of grants and how that money influences the outcome of their research....."

    Herndon is wrong, science _might_ be truth- it all depends on the scientist and how brainwashed they've been by the university they attended [assuming they went to one].

    If a university trained "scientist" has been trained to specifically ignore standard scientific procedures/protocol, then the conclusions of their "research" will be necessarily invalid.

    For one example [outside of the global warming issue]: in complete violation of correct scientific procedure, [brainwashed] university graduate Jim Fetzer is on record as saying that the alleged "live" 911 US network broadcasts, have:

    "a prima facie" justification to be regarded as genuine" by any/all "legitimate" 9/11 researchers.

    See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" :

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html ,

    thus allowing the alleged visual record of 9/11 to be elevated to the level of genuine evidence without ever having made a serious attempt to establish whether or not that alleged visual record is in fact genuine evidence, or not.

    "Science is truth". Yeah, right. :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OBF said: "Herndon is wrong, science _might_ be truth- it all depends on the scientist and how brainwashed they've been by the university they attended [assuming they went to one]."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hi, OBF. Did you listen to the podcast? I wrote a little summary of what I heard because I tend to forget the audio quickly. Herndon's point was that huge amounts of money in government grants to universities for scientific research have changed the outcome of that research so that it is no longer "truth" but what the donors want to hear. Science is corrupted.

    I'm not interested in the global warming/cooling issue. I have no opinion except that I am leery of grants and universities for the reasons you cite. I am sick of being manipulated by government which IMHO is run by global corporations--more schemes for making money with more and more regulations.

    Herndon is a libertarian and is against what the universities are pushing. The new poster, Thurman, on the other hand, must be a Greenpeace supporter and wants to see more government regulation. (I personally favor the libertarian approach. Also like Ron Paul for standing up on the 9/11 issue.)

    This is not an issue that interests me. We haven't finished the debate on 9/11. Fetzer, IMO, still has not studied the videos properly. So we haven't resolved that issue yet. I wish we could go back to it.

    Also, a question for September Clues is why is there practically nothing written on WTC 1993. The same question to Fetzer. There is much on the record because of a legal case revealing the FBI created the bomb that exploded in the garage and was blamed on an FBI operative, Emad Salem. This is an intriguing case documented by Ralph Shoenman. It is also a template of how the FBI has entrapped so many in bombing plots such as the Shoebomber, the Underwear bomber, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the 1993 wtc bombing trial is fascinating. that trial gave us the blind sheik, the assassination of meir kahane (remember these guys? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miLk32l_4VU ), and a thwarted '94 plot to blow up nyc landmarks. the southern district of ny sure can put on a legal spectacle when it wants to.

      the case was presided over by good old mike mukasey. mukasey got his start in the southern district of ny in the early seventies with his two cronies feinberg and guiliani. mukasey's son marc is a partner over at bracewell guiliani. marc was the lawyer for bernie madoff's simmy right-hand man, frank dipiscali.

      there is a ton of bs in that case but if i had to choose the funniest it has to be the meir kahane shenanigans. wiki seems to know that he had one of the biggest funerals in the history of the state of israel after he was 'assassinated' by el sayyid nosair. these guys really know how to drive the narrative.

      since this is a jfk site i would be remiss if i didn't mention that the heroic former chief of staff for ted kennedy and the chairman of the board of the kennedy library, ken feinberg; once allocated the settlement fees of a holocaust labor case with none other than nicholas deb. katzenbach. now how could ken stand being around one of the men most responsible for the cover-up of the jfk 'assassination'? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/world/52-million-for-lawyers-fees-in-nazi-era-slave-labor-suits.html

      Delete
  21. http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Good analysis of "prima facie" argument regarding the video record of 9/11. (For some reason, my computer freezes up on some websites. I wish you'd post it where I might read the whole thing. It's quite good.)

    It seems to me if Dr. Fetzer can't accept the "prima facie" Sandy Hook video, he is being inconsistent by accepting the 9/11 video evidence. Now that we have solid evidence that video fakery has been used in many "terrorist" events, it's only logical and "scientific" to thoroughly examine the hard evidence in the biggest event of them all, 9/11, The whole world was witness to 9/11 because of the television coverage that day and in the weeks that followed. This IS the EVIDENCE. Writing it off as unimportant is very suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still talking about the supposed importance of video fakery on 9/11 is highly suspicious - it smacks of disinfo tactics.

      Video fakery is so irrelevant as to represent nothing more than a waste of our time.

      9/11 research has made huge strides in recent weeks due to the leaking of highly classified information that confirms the use of nuclear weapons - enhanced types known as thermobaric nuclear bombs.

      They have a remanufactured W54 primary core and an iron oxide secondary; they are designed to destroy large metal objects and the tin towers were steel structures.

      Anyone who insists on talking about video fakery like it is important must be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

      These articles explain the types of nukes used an how they came to be in the hands of Israel:

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/04/369796/most-lethal-weapon-in-us-hands/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/

      Delete
    2. "Still talking about the supposed importance of video fakery on 9/11 is highly suspicious"

      If anyone is going to use any video as evidence of a “thermo-metric bomb” in court. Then someone comes along and proves that the evidence is fake video. There goes your case in a legal proceeding.

      Here is a clip showing obvious cgi footage of the south tower burning and before the second plane hits.

      Video Fakery - Smoke & Mirrors 9/11 South Tower
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYSGjU3gFo

      The plaintiff is the one responsible for presenting real facts to support their claims.
      Therefore the fake footage needs to separated from the footage that can be verified as real.

      What's the point here? Just to determine how the towers were brought down.

      All the culprits need to be bought to court even the media.

      I tend to agree that video of the towers exploding looks real. I would still be interested in a professional analysis of the available footage. So to make sure that we have not been fooled again.

      Did Fetzer ever respond to OF's 'stupid claims"?

      Which he seems to have been interested in doing.

      Delete
    3. Forget the videos, they are irrelevant.

      We now possess all of the evidence and proof needed, thus rendering the videos totally and utterly irrelevant, whether faked or not.

      The video of the destruction of the towers is real, you are watching the vapourisation of much of the structure by nuclear explosions, hence the huge pyroclastic cloud and the 'spire' - it just disintegrates, well, that is the steel being vapourised by a massive neutron flux.

      No court is going to care two hoots about some video footage when there is such a large and consistent body of evidence such as we now possess, which includes the 'real' 9/11 report which was carried out in 2003 by Sandia Labs on behalf of the Department of Energy and categorically proves the nuclear nature of the events. This report was highly classified and was leaked recently, it is devastating to those who have been trying to hide the truth and utterly destroys all the disinfo agents with their bogus thermite stories and nonsense about nukes not existing.

      Delete
    4. i'd like to here more about the thermobaric gimmicks. do they stuff the thermobaric bombs into the mini-nukes? maybe we should ask the father of the neutron bomb, samuel t. cohen. cohen, whose parents were jews from the former austro-hungarian empire, created the neutron bomb at livermore, dr. strangelove's lair.

      fortunately for us, it appears the cohen was also an expert on mini-nukes and the scawy stuff called red mercury. here's a quote from the good doctor-
      In a column for WorldNetDaily, Cohen claimed that 100 of these mini-nukes were in the hands of terrorists,[15] and later that Saddam Hussein had taken delivery of about fifty of these devices, which he supposedly planned on using against the US forces as they approached Baghdad.

      cohen supposedly recruited herman kahn to the rand corp. kahn was another inspiration for dr. strangelove we are told.

      cohen also claimed that he was awarded a medal by pope john paul dos for developing a secret tactical nuke.

      interesting fella this father of the neutron bomb. he was even a target of meir kahane's jdl. scawy stuff. you wouldn't want these guys mad at ya.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miLk32l_4VU

      Delete
    5. this cohen character was one funny mad scientist- performance artist.

      “The neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented,” Mr. Cohen wrote in his 1983 autobiography, “Shame: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb.” (After the U.S. dismantled its neutron bombs, he retitled the book, “F*** You! Mr. President.”)
      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/02/father-of-neutron-bomb-the-most-moral-weapon-dies/#.U8APQvm8qSo

      by the way, the father of the atom bomb, the father of the neutron bomb, and the father of the h-bomb all worked at berkeley with the father of cyclotron. the fellas at lawrence berkeley lab and lawrence livermore love their shenigans.

      Delete
    6. 911truthnc,

      The video you are promoting was never aired. Some guy create it to have some fun with these truthers, or something. I highly recommend you remove it from you channel, or add a disclaimer.

      Delete
    7. Re: The whole world was witness to 9/11 because of the television coverage that day and in the weeks that followed. This IS the EVIDENCE. Writing it off as unimportant is very suspicious.

      Yes Joan, protecting the MSM complicity in this operation is highly suspicious. That is one of the most important objectives for the HUGE controlled opposition, that their Weapon of Mass Deception isn't reviled. They need it for all their other operations too of course. This is one of the common denominators in ALL these operations. Must be protected at all costs.

      Delete
    8. Re: I tend to agree that video of the towers exploding looks real.

      Why would they show us the evidence on TV, 911truthnc? Why not air some fake Hollywood shit that wouldn't prove anything whatsoever? Fake news isn't necessary illegal at all. Would also give the 911 operation management better control, and would simplify the logistics for live news reports, and lower the overall risk. They cold pre-approve everything, and not just sit there and wait for some screw ups, etc.

      Delete
    9. Ian, your story is about as credible as the "magic passport".

      Delete
    10. El Buggo,

      Here is the live feed of that clip.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    11. "Why would they show us the evidence on TV, 911truthnc? "

      It is such a big red pill to shallow. Until, I can be shown anomalies. I suspect, not believe, what we see is real. If not, they did a damn good job!

      I wish I had the time and know how to satisfy my own mind.

      I have a life.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    12. "Forget the videos, they are irrelevant."

      Ian, you agree that some of the footage is cgi rendering. Are you now suggesting that fact is not important in bringing all the culprits to justice?

      Again, what is our objective?

      Delete
    13. 911truthnc, I suspect you are a little bit late to the party. That Smoke & Mirrors video was discussed many years ago, and the conclusion was that it had been created by some BS artist. You will not find an identical clip here in the 2001 TV Archive: https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

      The live feed you link to is from an other angle, and first seen in 2010, and not in 2001.

      Delete
    14. PMS24/7 wrote: Forget the videos, they are irrelevant.

      It is pretty significant that they aired a pre-recorded animated Hollywood cartoon horror movie on live news 911. Ask a ten-year-old if you are in doubt. Even a child understands that this is important.

      The gang who control the news networks must have been complicit in this operation, and their top agents in the Gov backed up this Big Lie too.

      Delete
  22. People in general still don't know where exactly the bells are ringing. They just can hear the bells. It really doesn't matter the scope of video fakery on 911 and whether the perps could fake everything. They can do it today, and for us it is better to accept 911 as total fakery and close the chapter. That's what people should know and we must make sure they get what is right for them rather than let the perps have their way at polluting the air with myriads of half truths.

    As for steam engines capable of crashing the buildings into millions upon millions particles of microscopic dust(whatever it means,I never have seen microscopic dust yet) good luck with it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm sure the perps who murdered thousands of innocent people and are killing tens of thousands more through fatal diseases caused by 9/11 would absolutely love it if we declared 9/11 to be just fakery and moved on.

    Only an utter idiot or a agent of the perps would wish to declare 9/11 as just fakery.

    Which are you Pimon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just because an event was fake it doesn't follow that one must then 'move on'.

      Delete
    2. "9/11 to be just fakery"

      Ian,

      I do not think anyone is purposing that the 9/11 event did not concur and no one died.

      I think the question to be pondered. Did the media actually present the destruction of the towers as a real time event and not a hollywood production.

      Nukes could have been used. That does not mean. We(the public) were privy to see the real events occurring that day.

      It does make sense. That it would be in their best interest not to allow that to happen. Hence, putting us in the dilemma. We currently find ourselves in. i.e. infighting.

      The 9/11 event was orchestrated by the highest levels in the military, intelligence, and political apparatus. Not to question every aspect of the event would be naive.

      My two sense.

      Delete
    3. Nukes WERE used, we have conclusive proof of this now.

      Forget about all this nonsense about fakery, it is nothing more than disinfo designed to obfuscate the truth - that Israel, in conjunction with the Zionist US Neocons used nuclear weapons in the middle of a major US city to murder thousands of people.

      Delete
  24. You never revealed your thoughts as to what was the chain of command, and who killed those people. Some of them have proven unquestionably to have been sims. You can offer for consultation the names you think were not sims and we will consult the experts.


    BK wrote; Only an utter idiot or a agent of the perps would wish to declare 9/11 as just fakery.k point. Tell your

    tell your bozos it's a weak argument.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The time for arguing about who did 9/11 and how has passed, we now know with absolute certainty.

    Read those articles, it lays it all out clearly.

    Israel's Dimona reactor went out of operation due to an accident in the late 80s, so starting in 1988 under Daddy Bush and continuing into the Clinton era, 350 W54 warheads from the decommissioned Davy Crockett system were stolen from the Pantex facility in TX and illegally transferred to Israel. Dick Cheney and Daddy Bush were the key figures in this illegal transfer.

    These warheads were remanufactured in Israel into advanced 'salted' or enhanced types. The type used to destroy the WTC is called a Thermobaric Nuclear Weapon and it uses a secondary jacket of iron oxide around it's nuclear primary core; it is specifically designed to vapourise steel and thus destroy large metal objects.

    The bombs were held at the Israeli consulate in NYC awaiting use.

    So 9/11 was carried out by Israel with the full compliance an assistance of the US Neocons - Cheney and the Bushes prime among them.

    We now have all of the information to conclusively prove what happened and who did it; to totally burn and destroy all the disinfo agents who talk about nanothermite and faked videos and nukes being fake; therefore there is no further need to even acknowledge the existent of these lowlife scum disinfo agents and shills, their time has passed, they have ultimately failed and the finger of guilt is pointing directly into the black hearts of their Israeli masters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there you have it, conclusive proof that the wtc was vaporized in a massive neutron flux.

      case closed.

      Delete
  26. Joan Edwards said : " (For some reason, my computer freezes up on some websites. I wish you'd post it where I might read the whole thing. It's quite good.)"

    "It seems to me if Dr. Fetzer can't accept the "prima facie" Sandy Hook video, he is being inconsistent by accepting the 9/11 video evidence. Now that we have solid evidence that video fakery has been used in many "terrorist" events, it's only logical and "scientific" to thoroughly examine the hard evidence in the biggest event of them all, 9/11, "


    Joan, the article was posted at my blogspt website, nowhere else.

    I suspect that your problem viewing it has to do with your browser and its settings.

    The alternative might be that you are simply not allowing enough time for pages to load.

    As to J. Fetzers "inconsistency" as pointed out, I suspect that there is a very large mental block. [either that or he is acting deliberately].

    He, like most, has no problem accepting the idea of faked videos being broadcast _after_ an event, [eg Boston Marathon], but it is a far harder pill to swallow in the case of 9/11 [the idea of entirely faked "live" MSM broadcasts on 9/11].

    Outside of the moon landings, 9/11 is unique in the brazenness of the perps in that the original footage, on all 5 network TV stations, as well as overseas [eg BBC], was all put out there as being live, as it happened- which is _not_ the case with Boston etc., as you are no doubt aware.

    So most investigators have a psychological barrier to looking at the footage with the required amount of suspicion, despite the fact that for an investigator trained in the scientific method , it is entirely wrong [methodologically speaking] for him or her to just give the benefit of the doubt to any/all alleged 9/11 footage or photo[s].

    Another part of the psychological resistance to following the scientific methodology consistently for someone like Fetzer is, I suspect, the fact that they have absolutely no idea how to go about analyzing videos/photos in the first place, and no idea about what would be the "dead giveaway" signs of C.G.I. compositing.

    At the same time, an intellectual arrogance on the part of the researcher often prevents that person from ever admitting to either :

    1] the need to follow the scientific methodology closely.

    2] their almost complete absence of any idea of what to actually look for as being obvious signs of C.G.I.

    And so it goes :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Joan Edwards said:"We haven't finished the debate on 9/11."

    That debate can/will never end, Joan.

    Just look at the other popular debates on sites like these [eg Moon landings, Boston, JFK etc etc.etc. etc., ad infinitum] .

    It can, and will be, no different in the case of 9/11.

    But that does not mean that the debate _cannot_ end for _you_ personally, Joan [or anyone else], if you/they want it to.

    If you think you understand "the truth" about 9/11 in a similar way to myself and the average Simon Shack/September Clues fan, I suggest that important questions you might want to consider could be :

    "Now what? How does knowing this information affect my life? What should I change in my life in light of this information I have discovered?

    For more on this please see : "9/11 Video & Victim Fakery and"The Matrix", Versus Your Freedom":

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/05/911-video-victim-fakery-andthe-matrix.html

    Regards, onebornfree.



    ReplyDelete
  29. El Buggo said: "The video you are promoting was never aired. "

    Hey Bug, good point.

    It never ceases to amaze just how few of the people calling themselves "9/11 researchers" [eg J. Fetzer himself, plus his many, various acolytes- or is it aco-lites?] , know the difference [and can tell merely by looking], between original , "live" MSM aired imagery [ which I have in the past on my blog referred to as "Class A" 9/11 imagery] , and everything else that appeared _afterwards_ [which I have in the past on my blog referred to as "Class B" 9/11 imagery] , and which was never ever aired live.

    Like I said, it never ceases to amaze me. :-)

    regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks OBF,

      Shouldn't be so surprising. Really important that they can keep the people inside the virtual reality they created for us that day. And this is one of the most important tasks for the HUGE controlled opposition.

      Delete
  30. "Forget the videos, they are irrelevant"

    true colours shining through. From now on you are not to prove a single thing with the aid of videeoos.

    BTW thoughts on holograms?

    Please ?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Still waiting for the first fetzer fan boi to back up the hologram theory.

    Shy away ? who would blame you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im not sure but maybe mr Fetzer has realized that holograms are projections of light and that a hologram plane projected against a bright blue sky i impossible, laws of physics. Light + light does not make dark.
      It was FBI/CIA op richard hall who introduced that nonsense I believe.
      Antway, we learn who is fake and who is real. Judy Wood, Richard Hall, Pete Santilli, Dallas Goldbug, they are all feds on some level. They are not just ignorant, they are knowingly infiltrating the truth movement.

      Delete
    2. Add to that list Simon Shack, Phil Jayhan, Chris Bollyn, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit and anyone else who spouts nonsense about nanothermite or nukes being a hoax.

      Delete
    3. How can you lump someone who thinks that magic is science with someone who doesn't?

      Back up the Holograms Ian!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Ian,
      Just saw that you bashed Simon's music... not to my taste either. But I appreciate his talent.

      By the way have you ever looked at your own photos Ian? Terrible...

      Delete
  32. @BK smashing, can you link me to anything that vaporizes steel, nuclear or not nuclear. I will find a better use for it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. that's out of this world ... might be fake... hmm hmm - Simon Shack

    that's out of this world... HOLOGAMS 100% Jim Fatzer

    ReplyDelete
  34. @OBF think the post producion hi res videos are meant to blend with the original narrative. Wih time there will be less and less people who will know the catch. There already may be few. What was the point of showing them? I am not sure. A mass experiment with perception of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Simon Pimon said : "@OBF think the post producion hi res videos are meant to blend with the original narrative..."

    I'm not sure exactly why myself, but my best guess is that the higher resolution was intended to reinforce/cement the imagery in the publics "mind", most of whom had forgotten the original broadcast imagery [and its consistent, appallingly low, quality].

    Most of this mental reinforcement was achieved via the mass N.I.S.T fake F.O.I.A. release in 2010, and seems to have worked on most, er, "researchers" too, BTW :-)

    regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This reinforcement thing, maybe so, but is too standard an answer for me. Blurred imagery hidden behind news headers and footers and farther confused by confusing speak equals something like radio live broadcast. A high res video of a plane blending with a building and impossible collapses, faked or kinda not, are not part of the real world and ambiguity falls out either. Most of these earlier big hoaxes have common feature, a smartly placed bait, like the thruthers sampled to accuse Bush of murder to plug the path out with absurd. The perps are not lacking in good moves that I am sure of. It is interesting that the high res videos were shown after the vicsim report if my calendar is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  38. motorfot said : "Im not sure but maybe mr Fetzer has realized that holograms are projections of light and that a hologram plane projected against a bright blue sky i impossible, laws of physics."

    In your dreams, perhaps , motorfot :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just to remind people... the videos were shown live on TV

    And for someone who is looking into video fakery they are pretty relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jim Hollander said : "Back up the Holograms Ian!"

    I don't know if you ever read my 4 part analysis of Richard Hall's holographic plane image theory, Jim.

    In my analysis I show that Hall falsifies data points [for what is already fake data :-)], by extending the path of the theoretically invisible[ i.e. "cloaked"] military plane that supposedly projected the holographic plane image of Fl.175, from its last given data point roughly opposite Ellis Island, all the way to the face of WTC2.

    Not only that, in order to conform to his claim that all of the plane flight paths for Fl.175 matched in the 20+ videos he "analyzed" , Hall _again_ graphically lies, this time about the path of the plane image in the CBS "divebomber" sequence. [i.e. he draws a line that does not conform to given data, on screen, in order to bolster his theory.]

    In my interview concerning Hall's theory on Mr Fetzer's show , Mr Fetzer was informed of both of these obviously deliberate, er, "misrepresentations" by Hall, as well as other inconsistencies in Hall's theory, and at the time Mr Fetzer said he would contact Mr Hall about the points I had raised.

    This was more than a year ago. To this day, no response from either Hall or Fetzer.

    Why am I not surprised?

    See: "Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique - ":

    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Regarding the discussion towards the end on other potential contributors to climate change besides carbon emissions; but also concerning the side-lining of ideas not just within the academic community, but also within the purportedly independent/alternative media, here is a mostly censored exchange that occurred on Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy site. These comments were saved in case they weren't approved (and they weren't) in response to....

    http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/29/denying-climate-change-while-exploiting-it/

    You would be a climate change denier to not acknowledge the other deliberate factors influencing climate. Have you looked up lately..? http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ Of course the argument is made that we have to geo-engineer in secrecy because our democracies are ineffectual in addressing the problem; yet the concentration of warming in the arctic regions would seem to confirm Matt Anderson's contention that this is being done not in order to counter global warming, but to open up new resources in previously inaccessible regions. Indeed, as an aerospace engineer (not a climate scientist), he would be in a position to know this is going on. Furthermore, that the Navy is anticipating an acceleration of arctic ice melt far ahead of the predictions of climate scientists suggests that they know something the latter do not - as they are not mere passive observers of climate systems, but active manipulators thereof. I should note here that the Navy, Air
    Force and DARPA are joint funders of HAARP (along with outside contract work of BAE Systems). There is a case to be made that not just HAARP, but other ionospheric heaters operated by Russia and the Scandinavian nations are together deliberately warming the arctic regions... http://wxxxnews.blogspot.com/2010/09/warm-dent-in-arctic.html - it may indeed be a consensual conspiracy of each economic rival to warm their respective arctic "turf".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was posted for a time and then was deleted by Baker, but not before Lindorff replied (the only post in this exchange that remains standing)...

      "The problem with your theory is that there is actually bitter disagreement about who owns the "turf" under the Arctic. If they had a neat map, and all agreed, okay maybe, but you have wildly competing claims -- which is why the Navy wants urgently to get a fleet up there. There is no cooperation in exploiting those resources. In fact, it is quite possible that there could be military conflicts up there between competing economic interests -- the Russians, the US, Canada, and even Denmark, which at least for now owns Greenland, but which would have the backing of the whole of Europe.

      Dave Lindorff"

      ........

      Reply to Lindorff that did immediately post (without approval) but then was deleted presumably by Baker:

      The continental shelves adjacent to the coastlines of each nation are not in dispute. It is closer to the North Pole that the territorial claims become dicier. This is an issue marginal to the other points I raised, however, which regrettably Mr. Baker has seen fit to suppress. I will attempt to repeat those that directly address the article...

      Fact: as your article notes, the Navy is predicting an accelerated polar ice melt, far beyond what conventional models predict. What might account for this? Your article does not offer an explanation since, as you note, Admiral Papp ignored the question of causation in the report. Another fact that I mentioned could explain the accelerated prediction; namely that the U.S. Navy (along with Air Force and DARPA) funds HAARP, an ionospheric heater in Alaska that conceivably could alter weather patterns so as to warm the North coast of Alaska and the Arctic Ocean regions adjacent to it, thus opening up oil fields previously inaccessible (just as Russia and the Scandinavian countries have similar ionospheric heaters and could be doing the same,). This is admittedly speculative, but it is speculation based upon facts, one of which is highlighted in your article.

      .....

      This comment stayed up over the weekend, but was gone by Monday...

      "If your comment posting has been deleted, it is likely because you are ignoring our stated terms above...." - Russ Baker. It is also possible however that even if you adhere to the stated terms, your comments will still be deleted because they contradict the "narrow ideological line" of the editor.

      Delete
  43. Online Business with hourly profit, Just Invest and Rest
    AllTimeProfit.com

    ReplyDelete