It is unrealistic to expect the U.N./IPCC, a political entity, to recognize that climate change is for the most part an ongoing natural process and that covert weather weapons have aggravated it.
NEW YORK – It does not matter that a U.N./IPCC document from 1966 titled “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate.
It does not matter that another document titled “The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System” warns about the dire consequences of toying with Earth’s natural weather processes.
So-called climate scientists who support the unproven notion that humans are solely or mostly responsible for the changes that Earth’s climate has suffered since the industrial revolution will not look at evidence before claiming once again, as they have done, that humanity is the root of all evil and that what they call weather calamity is because of us, humans.
Climate science today does not look at evidence to support their claims because science and evidence do not show what the manipulated computer climate models show, so the corporate elite behind most climate change propaganda simply decided to create climate models that automatically conclude than humans and CO2 are responsible for global warming.
Fortunately for humanity, Jules Verne had already warned about the elite using weather weapons -geo-engineering- to turn weather into a weapon, so we all knew what to expect.
In 1877, Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic. That is why warming the Arctic via geo-engineering has been the plan of corporate industrialists for at least 100 years.
If you do not want to believe Verne because his observations are too old, you’ll be happy to know there is yet another report that confirms global warming, climate change and all other fantastic corporate creations are the result natural process, which were hijacked by the military industrial complex to further its domination goals.
Back in 2008, a report titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Controls the Climate saw the day of light. This report published by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), presented an in-depth analysis of peer-reviewed papers and other published literature which purportedly studied climate change and how humanity contributed to the phenomenon.
A total of 24 independent scientists participated in the review, which resulted in a 50 page document on the causes and consequences of climate change.
This study was different because it included papers that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignored in all its assessments and also because it did not start with the assumption that human activity is the main cause of climate change or global warming, which the UN climate models do.
The NIPCC report concludes, among other things that looking at melting ice as a sign of global warming or damning climate change is naïve at best. Such a claim seems even more naïve today, as ice shells, despite the secretive, continuous geo-engineering program- appear to grow larger every winter season.
Rather than judging human influence on climate as the only cause of severe change, the NIPCC study shows that there have been periods of extreme warming and precede the Little Ice Age, such as the Medieval Climate Optimum, which, without any human influence, experienced much warmer temperatures than on the 20th or 21st centuries.
Perhaps the most profound conclusion that non-corporate or UN funded climate scientists have found is that evidence, you know, the thing that science used to be all about, shows that the UN climate models greatly exaggerated not only the level of rising temperatures but also the consequences of such increases.
Simply put, the correlation that scientists have attempted to draw between CO2 and climate change is as invalid as the conclusions that the mainstream scientific community and climate alarmists use to invalidate the questions raised by many skeptic scientists.
Scientifically speaking, there is no conclusive prediction that any man or woman of science would make that could be taken seriously given the “novelty” of the influence of human activity on Earth’s climate.
As pointed out before, climate has been historically driven by a series of factors, not one or two, and those same factors have been able to balance climate disruptions caused by forces that were greater than human CO2 emissions. Carbon, water vapor and other gas emissions are only one piece of the puzzle.
No mainstream scientific analysis has comprehensively taken into consideration the proportional influence of the various factors — such as the ones cited above and others — that determine the present or future of climate and so any attempts to predict the future of climate is scientifically useless.
Credible climate analysis needs to take into consideration aspects such as 70-year old geo-engineering practices that have been performed as open-air experiments, data about solar radiation and its influence on climate, the role of more powerful green house gases and the influence of fracking and crude oil extraction from on-shore and off-shore platforms on planetary stability, among other variables.
Despite people like Abby Martin who say climate change is still open to debate, in an age where information is key to resolving social, political and scientific problems, it is necessary to look at data, not talk show hosts opinions, very carefully.
CO2 emissions have certainly increased for the past 800,000 years; no climate skeptic argues against that reality.
It is important to highlight that much of the alarmism regarding climate change, which by the way has now been renamed as ‘climate disturbance’, is based only on CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration for the last 30 years or so.
A closer look at CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for the previous 25 to 30 years shows that from 1960 to 1980 the presence of CO2 increased steadily, not exponentially, as corporate-supported propaganda would have you believe.
“Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention…”, remembers Dr. David M.W. Evans, a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
According to Dr. Evans, “the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006″, causing him to go from being a warmist to being a skeptic. Perhaps Dr. Evans saw what other scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer, a satellite researcher and NASA Climate Scientist have observed:
Scientists who side with climate alarmism and skeptics basically disagree not because they are looking at different science, but because they are not looking at the effects of The Feedbacks, the unscientific belief that more heat supposedly generated from more CO2 in the atmosphere would cause more evaporation from ocean surfaces -as much as three times- which according to mainstream science, would lead to even more warming, as water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas.
Such unscientific belief is what we reference before as being built in all computer climate models, which is why they all conclude that CO2 increases in the atmosphere will inevitably cause more global warming. While mainstream climate scientists and the corporate funded media tell us that CO2 is to blame for runaway global warming, they omit that the unscientific ‘disastrous’ predictions they talk about are not a direct consequence of CO2 increases, but of amplification by Feedbacks.
Unfortunately, scientific readings of historical records do not support the runaway global warming alarmism and consequent dire climate change.
Another fact that most climate scientists ignore or refuse to disclose or talk about is what I mentioned at the beginning of this article: Seventy years of Geo-engineering.
In 2009, the organization led by an international panel of non-government scientists and scholars published another report to rebut of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The 2009 rebuttal took three years to be put together before being released in June of that year.
The document was coauthored and edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Craig Idso, Ph.D. and complemented by the work of contributions and reviews by a group of scientists from around the world. The paper titled “Climate Change Reconsidered” not only described the limitations of the IPCC’s attempt to forecast future climate, but also studied empirical data on past temperatures, reviewed observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise, summarized the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change, investigated and debunked the widespread fears that global warming could cause more extreme weather, examined the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures, examined the IPCC’s claim that CO2 increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions and challenged the IPCC’s unscientific claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health.
As the following timeline put together by Chemtrails Planet shows, Geoengineering projects suggests were and are mediating arctic climate geo-engineering, just as the fossil fuel industry planned years ago:
1877 Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.
1912, New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200 mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth. The New York Times characterized the proposal as “amazing”… but not insane.
1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors.
1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.
1946 Village Voice article from 2005 reporting on theMay, 1946 issue of Mechanix Illustrated that featured several arctic-warming geoengineering proposals. One “brave new idea” was proposed by Julian Huxley, then the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and brother of Aldous Huxley, that would detonate atomic bombs to warm the Arctic.
1958; M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist; Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice.
1958; Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer; Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive.
1958 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s proposed melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice, creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat and to divert warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions. This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960?s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959.
1958 Atlantic Richfield geologist L.M. Natland, proposed exploding up to 100 underground nuclear bombs to mine the Alberta Oil Sands. Heat from the detonations was expected to boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard drilling operations could be used. The plan was encouraged by US efforts to find “peaceful uses” for atomic energy. The project was approved in 1959 but the Canadian government reversed their decision in 1962 and declared that Canada was opposed to all forms of nuclear testing. In 2012 the Canadian Tar Sands are, again an issue of international concern.
1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute.
As Climate Planet points out, it is still unexplained “why decades of optimism for warming the arctic was suddenly replaced with a campaign of fear and doom for the consequences of warming the arctic under the name of Global Warming”. Perhaps, because they planned to use the anthropogenic global warming hoax as a tool to push for more centralized control and the adoption of globalist policies that provided complete control of Earth’s natural resources, including the oceans and the forests to multinational corporations by way of the United Nations itself.
Another reason is because weather geo-engineering was supposed to be kept secret, as its main intent was to develop and use weather weapons on political enemies. Since about 1958, Congress and the military had already been working on exotic weather warfare systems that involved electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.While the reality of natural climate processes and covert weather modification programs stare us all on the face, it is hard to believe that there are people out there who still expect -and lately demand- that governments act to stop climate change. That just ain’t going to happen because governments cannot control weather, they can only manipulated it. But even if they could control it, the slightest attempt to do so would immediately uncover the massive weather modification programs they’ve been perfecting for almost a century.