US Urges Scientists To Block Out Sun

[solve_et_coagula]

It seems "their" ongoing chemtrails didnt work out neatly, hmm!?!?!

When do human beings realize/accept that we're part of Nature itself, to see the entire Cosmos as a lovely, caring Being where everything is in its perfect place for good reason, and when are we humble enough to start benefiting from these eternal forces...

US Urges Scientists To Block Out Sun

David Adam and Liz Minchin
January 29, 2007

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html

[thoth]

Yep, more confirmation that WE'RE FUCKED!

[edelweiss pirate]

You have to feel slightly concerned when these guys decide that the best way to combat global warming would not be the logical way, ie, funding better public transport, reducing emmisions and radically changing our lifestyles, but no, what nonsense, it's bad for business. Let's get rid of the sun instead... yay! that way it'll be business as usual...

I'm so glad these dicks have shown themselves insignificant and powerless before nature...

[sean~infinte]

more fear mongering perhaps?
is global warming a real threat
all that article says to me is LOOK PUNY HUMANS OUR MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT IS SOOO SERIOUS WE ARE GOING TO CREATE SUN BLOCK FOR THE EARTH LIL DO U KNO ITS A LOAD OS SHIT NOW FEAR USS MWHAHA

[carvey]

http://www.slackerastronomy.org/images/simpsons-sun.png

[horseflesh]

This reminds me of Zecharia Sitchin's theory of the annunaki using ground-up gold in the atmosphere of Niburu to protect the planet from (possibly) the same natural cycle.

2012 here we come !. ;)

[armin]

yep, i think its about time more people started waking up and realising the world that we live in, if people were half normal this forum would be packed. but in time im sure its popularity will grow,it is quite new after all

[kha zarr]

that mr. burns thing is the FIRST thing that came to mind - sheesh.

it wont be the first excuse and wont be the last...global warming i mean.

what would be their solution to preventing a pole shift? Putting large magnets into space around the earth?? :confused:

well if global warming by man IS a sham - perhaps they block out the sun for this reason, as a 'last ditch effort to prevent awakening' [though it is said to also accompany serious earth changes also ?? I kinda dont get this stuff so well]:

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/1.htm#sunspotcycles

oh man, I found bible codes on that page, I dont really believe in those....

[unicorn]

thank you so much for this post, & the newspage website link. It's unbelievable hilarious!

'It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change' (UN communist international zionist illuminatitorro dung).

It gets better... 'Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects". Sounds like I might have heard that before...

In Alexander Nile's book (get in on http://www.focusonfacts.com he states that the plan for the one-world government is for the political show to turn so disasterous that by the time we are offered the shiney 'New World Order' we will be begging for it & welcoming it with open arms... so this baffoonery is to be expected. How much longer will people be taken in by this... you just gotta laugh :rolleyes:

Anyway, Ra (the Sun) won't be letting a few balloons deflect his rays. He has been a shining star indeed :D by fucking up many satelite functions with his sun storm activities, go bro! How can these hermoncules expect us to take this crap... it's a global scaled comedy / tragedy. God help us!

[fryertuck]

what happens when someone invents a tivo hack of some sorts?

[harpalchemist]

Hilarious!Just something else to distract us from our progress.Thoth,lighten up.Sounds like another alternative 3 scenario.Just keep focused on what you are doing,be calm in an ocean of confusion.

[kha zarr]

"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power, and it was believed, that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."

-Morpheus, 'The Matrix'

dont know why im writing this, its late.

[king]

thank you so much for this post, & the newspage website link. It's unbelievable hilarious!


to you and me ... who can see through the veil.
but to millions of zombies -- this sounds like a major threat.
I already noticed that they will be playing 'global warming card' instead of E.T. card. I guess not many people are buying "evil reptilians that rule the world"

:lol:

Just today, in local newspaper there were a few (not one, not two but a few) prominently placed articles that all hint to "global warming problem".


'It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change' (UN communist international zionist illuminatitorro dung).

fuckers were already doing it with chemtrails and HAARP combo. Barium and aluminum dust is in chemtrails.
People are being dosed with that shit like there is no tomorrow.

And yes, this "problem" will be taken to the UN, that is the idea -- it is global warming, a global threat.
:rolleyes:


It gets better... 'Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects". Sounds like I might have heard that before...

<sigh>, yes...
they are never aware of potential side effects, aren't they?

In Alexander Nile's book (get in on http://www.focusonfacts.com he states that the plan for the one-world government is for the political show to turn so disasterous that by the time we are offered the shiney 'New World Order' we will be begging for it & welcoming it with open arms... so this baffoonery is to be expected. How much longer will people be taken in by this... you just gotta laugh :rolleyes:
yap

Anyway, Ra (the Sun) won't be letting a few balloons deflect his rays. He has been a shining star indeed :D by fucking up many satelite functions with his sun storm activities, go bro! How can these hermoncules expect us to take this crap... it's a global scaled comedy / tragedy. God help us!

but, but but... we need to fix sun you see?!
Sun, I mean Ra, I mean Sol, I mean Om, I mean On
needs to be fixed you see!

Those 'scientists' know what they are talking about, just like those 'scientists' in time of Mayan civilisation, or even in time of Solomon.
after all -- it is all about Sun worship, innit?


The names of nearly all the great gods and saviors have always been
associated with either the element of fire, the solar light, or its
correlate, the mystic and spiritual "light invisible"--what you may now
call "the ether".

Jupiter, Apollo, Hermes, Mithrais, Bacchus, Dionysus, Odin, Buddha,
Krishna, Zoroaster, Zarathustra, Fohai, Eow, Vishnu, Shiva, Agne,
Balder, Hiram Abif, Moses, Samson, Jason, Vulcan, Uranus, Allah, Osiris,
Ra, Bel, Baal, Nebo, Serapis, and King Solomon--Sol Om On--are some of
the numerous deities and supermen whose symbolic attributes are derived
from the manifestations of the solar power; and whose names, ladies and
gentlemen, indicate their relationship to light and fire.

For Solomon--Sol-Om-On--is the name of the sun in three different
languages. Most of you were not aware of that.
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/astrlflm.html





ROTFL

[cataleptik]

Yep, more confirmation that WE'RE FUCKED!

THIS IS MERCURY IN GEMINI SAYING:

it's not that 'we' are fucked --
it is that the people who do nothing -- them. they are screwed.

it's kind of like -- 'without a vision the people without a vision perish.'
there is always someone with vision and lately it is r. buckminster fuller, who foresaw these peak petrol, non sustainability times and had an ANTICIPATORY perfect vision.

his view is being HATED by those who work covertly for the civil disorder that will come with peak-oil emptying out, the very rich who figure they will wait out food strikes and roving bands of cannibal corpse rapers such as were in New Orleans when all the power went out.


there is a vision to deal with the problems...and it is solar in nature. at least, that's what my x-prize mission statement says. i have to get to work on that soon too. but the point is the sun is an endless cheap source of power. every lie that has been told about how going solar is not an option can be traced back to those petrol hegemoniasts and they of course want to run the oil out, create wars and divide the spoils of a ruined world.

that is their plan, and they will say stupidly that any alternative (like solar or hydrogen or geothermal) to running out of oil and the world going mad --


they'll say it's a hoax, they'll run it down. Men like Bush and his cronies, their minds made of solid Bushcronium -- they want to wind down the clock and force global catastrophe...so if people were going to LET them do that, they'd be FUCKED by allowing such arrogant stupidity to run the planet into the ground.

[cataleptik]

as in - they were paid to say that

and also NOT TO ADMIT that the US and other governments are daily HEATING THE IONOSPHER purposely.

see, when people say 'that's just a conspiracy theory' -- if you simply buy it and don't check for yourself -- can i say "fucking fool" here? is that allowed?
i know it's not punx.com, i don't want to get banned for speaking my heart.

[cataleptik]

blocking out the sun would cause problems.

but for all those "scientists" on pay from Big Oil it would serve to shore up their false claims that solar architecture is not enough to solve the problems.

My x prize proposal has to do with solar farming in desertified regions, placing HUGE solar gatherers in the part of the world where there is desert -- and using the power to create economic ease and leverage, depovertizing a large part of the world, and giving some people who feel that waging terror is their only option some much needed slack. my question to you is:

who do you think would DISLIKE that?

but I ask that you message me personally if you really have an opinion.

[cruise4]

Apparently when CO2 levels go up deserts recede.

[cruise4]

Analyzing Global-warming Science
By: William F. Jasper
February 18, 2008
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009
Interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson by William F. Jasper

Dr. Arthur Robinson is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was created in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. As part of his work, he edits the newsletter Access to Energy.

Dr. Robinson, in collaboration with other scientists, was one of the early critics of doomsday global-warming theories. He has authored articles and created video presentations demonstrating that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is wrong, showing that the hypothesis is not supported by the observable evidence. To come to this conclusion, Professor Robinson and his colleagues brought together the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies about all aspects of the global-warming hypothesis.

THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it’s clear we are being bombarded with the message that the Earth is warming. Is there any merit to this claim?

Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity.

TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.

http://thenewamerican.com/files/2404-F1.jpg

Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years.

Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3).

TNA: Those same people would say that science has spoken, that CO2 is the cause. What do you say?

Dr. Robinson: Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible. All of the carbon in our bodies originates as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plus, we’re only adding moderately and temporarily to CO2 levels. Carbon dioxide moves through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere. Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century — from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans.

TNA: Which come from?

Dr. Robinson: Which are just there — created as part of nature. Between 1880 and 1890, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 295 ppm [parts per million]. For comparison, this office right now is rising toward 1,000 ppm because we’re all exhaling carbon dioxide.

http://thenewamerican.com/files/2404-F2.jpg

The human-caused increase in the atmosphere is not permanent, but temporary. This increase is only being maintained by our production and, as soon as we stop producing at some later time when our technology advances, it will go back to its naturally controlled level.

When we use hydrocarbons, the resulting carbon dioxide goes through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere, so there is a rise in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere. However, while it is in higher concentration, it is wonderful for us because it makes our plants grow faster, which markedly increases the amounts and diversity of plant and animal life.

TNA: Al Gore also says that the UN’s IPCC has spoken, and the debate is over, because there is a consensus. What do you say to that?

Dr. Robinson: Right now the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people involved in this and about 600 scientists seriously involved. This is what Al Gore would point to today.

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

TNA: But when looking at the pronouncements of the United Nations — IPCC and the media, the average viewer would be led to believe that they’ve figured global warming out.

Dr. Robinson: Climate science is a very primitive science. The atmosphere is a complicated system, somewhat similar to human biochemistry. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. As you know, climatologists have trouble predicting the weather a week or two in advance. They surely cannot predict climate many years in the future.

There are some very fine scientists, like Richard Lindzen at MIT, who work on the details of climate theory and attempt to understand the atmosphere in detail. They are inching forward toward the eventual solution of this very complex system. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood.
We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.

TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.

Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.

First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.

At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.

TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.

If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

http://thenewamerican.com/files/2404-F3.jpg

TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies.

Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest.

TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession.

Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers.

So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.

The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening.

TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm?

Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4).

TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?

Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.

My favorite is the part where Gore says that “the scientists who specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.” He then displays a graph of their alleged “predictions” and the claimed actual temperatures.

This graph is bogus in several ways, but the most striking is that the computer-predicted curve begins in 1938 — before either Al Gore or the computer had been invented. Unless Al Gore invented the computer before he was born, and didn’t show it to anybody but climate modelers until after WWII, this is impossible, because there were no computers in 1938!

TNA: Speaking of computers, allowing the UN to take over the world’s energy would have a big effect on our higher standard of living, would it not?

Dr. Robinson: An estimated nine percent of the energy of the United States is now used to power computers and the Internet. This technology cannot exist without energy. Automobiles require energy. You cannot warm your home without energy.

If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.

When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.

The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.

Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.

http://thenewamerican.com/files/2404-F4.jpg

If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.