MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Whatever one may believe about the dangers of CO2 and risks of global warming creating a global catastrophe of 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius average temperature rise in the next roughly 12 years, it is worth noting who is promoting the current flood of propaganda and climate activism.
It is also important to note that the idea of Climate Change is now embedded in weather reports, television shows and children’s cartoons. It is now a foregone conclusion that we are being roomed into becoming a Green Economy- and it is because the media has placed agents in the seats to report whatever propaganda works. In case you had not noticed, there is a concerted effort to dominate an unsuspecting and unquestioning American public with a very specific reality that requires a consistent unanimity of thought.
That reality is necessary to continue the need for the retooling of our lives as we are told that the weather problems and Climate Changes are of our own making and so the solution is of course and global dominance, to create severe economic disturbance and disparities; a reality that relies on disinformation and hypocrisy while stirring citizens into a frenzied level of confusion, worry and anxiety about the future.
The technocrats have given the planet an expiration date undefined as if they are prophets spinning their apocalyptic priestcraft about science that they donundefinedt understand.
Money is what they understand, carbon credits are what they understand - new green swindles are what they understand.
If we just comply then miraculously all of the peculiar weather will stop.
The frightening part is that if they are able to stop the weather calamities if you pay your them your lunch money undefined then they must know how to control weather patterns and somehow manipulate the weather with geoengineering.
If consensus is not science, the scientist cannot always avoid being under its sway and, moreover, if the ‘truth’ is eventually to win out over our collective cultural intelligence, it must eventually tempt and enthrall the reasoning assent of more than just a few and thereby itself become the basis of a consensus. If consensus is not science, science cannot for all that dispense with it.
The ‘Global Warming’ debate, then, is fractiously multidimensional in its appeals and interests.
At the moment the dominant interest about the warming of the planet come from both business and politics.
First, the politics of competing for research funds and the politics of which business interests stand to gain or lose from policies that might be elaborated and instituted on the basis of the prognostications of ‘climate science.’ Most of what appears of the debate for broad public consumption is driven by these two highly politicized ferments.
On the one hand, scientific research must go begging for the resources it needs to further its inquiries, and it secures these resources to the degree that it can persuade prospective patrons or backers of the usefulness or necessity of its initiatives.
Depending on who is being wooed as a prospective supporter, his understanding of the ‘usefulness or necessity’ of the initiatives being proposed can be very different from that of another, because different ‘interest groups’ do have different and often conflicting interests.
What is ‘useful and necessary’ from a public policy standpoint is not always what is ‘useful and necessary’ from a business standpoint, and even between business interests, what may be an opportunity for one sector of the economy may portend catastrophe for another.
But of course, the people are too busy to see that the weather and the climate is big business and with every crisis -there is an opportunity to scare people into believing that the climate is out of control and that the technocrats have a solution.
A distracted population living on the edge is more easily stage managed to accept a further loss of civil liberties than a politically informed, diligent population of infinite consciousness.
News operations seem to focus on weather anomalies lately, particularly when they can get the opportunity to tell you that weird weather is the result of Climate Change.
This Winter again is having a peculiar beginning undefined one that would have you wonder if the jet stream has stalled.
The calendar says December but for much of the country temperatures are relatively mild, umbrellas, if not boats, are needed in the Pacific Northwest, while in the Rockies snow shovels are gathering cobwebs.
Meteorologists attribute the latest batch of record-shattering weather extremes to a stuck jet stream and the effects of a La Nina weather pattern from cooling waters in the equatorial Pacific. Itundefineds still fall astronomically, but Winter starts Dec. 1 for meteorologists. This year, no one told the weather that.
On Thursday, 65 weather stations across the nation set record high temperature marks for Dec. 2, including Springfield, Missouri, hitting 75 degrees Fahrenheit and Roanoke, Virginia 72 degrees Fahrenheit. Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Billings, Montana, broke long-time heat records by 6 degrees.
Parts of Canada and Montana have seen their highest December records in recorded history. On Friday, parts of South Carolina and Georgia hit record highs.
In Washington state, Seattle, Bellingham and Quillayute all set 90-day fall records for rainfall. Bellingham was doused by nearly two feet of rain. The Olympic and Cascade mountains got hit harder, with more than 50 inches in three months, according to the National Weather Service. Forks, Washington, received more rain in 90 days than Las Vegas gets in 13 years.
On top of that, there is a blizzard warning on Hawaii’s Big Island summits with up to 12 inches 30.5 centimeters of snow expected and wind gusts of more than 100 miles per hour.
Meantime, snowundefineds gone missing in Colorado. Before this year, the latest first measurable snowfall on record in Denver was Nov. 21, way back in 1934. Thereundefineds a slight possibility of snow tonight according to the weather service. Yet, with no snow since April 22, this is the third longest stretch the city has gone without it.
It appears that the jet stream has stalled undefined something that I feel is important to discuss as we are being bombarded with climate change propaganda.
That means low pressure on one part of the stream is bringing rain to the Pacific Northwest, while high pressure hovering over about two-thirds of the nation produces dry and warmer weather, I am not saying that aren’t places getting snow undefined I see that Michigan and Wisconsin have been seeing the white stuff- but the anomalous warm and atmospheric rivers are now becoming a problem.
If the jet stream moves more or bends differently, rain and other extreme weather wonundefinedt be as concentrated.
I remember last year the air was saturated undefined with cold air, and now it is bizarre to be enjoying bike riding in December while the west coast that has been complaining of drought now needs to do the backstroke to get into work,
A new study finds that the jet stream could shift outside the bounds of its historic range within just a few decades undefined the reason is warming they say undefined but it cannot be overstated that geoengineering has been steering storms using microwaves and Stratospheric aerosol injections for many decades undefined weather control is not something that is science fiction undefined it has been a project that has been underway since way before World War II.
The jet stream has a powerful influence on weather and climate patterns throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and changes in the strength or the position of the air current can have big ripple effects around the world.
The jet stream tends to move around a lot as it is, shifting north and south and wiggling up and down as it moves around the globe. It can be hard to parse out whether recent fluctuations are within its normal boundaries or not.
But now the stalling of the jet stream is a very interesting anomaly especially if you believe that scientists have been tinkering with it undefined and steering storms in order to create scarcity.
The jet stall has devastated British Columbia.
Vancouver saw weather bombs, seven atmospheric rivers in a month and a tornado, among other things. And along with all of that came the rain.
The City of Vancouver, pelted with near-constant rain for three months, smashed its record for rainiest fall on record which meteorologically speaking runs from Sept. 1 to Nov. 30.
Hundreds of thousands of livestock have perished in floodwaters in Canada’s westernmost province.
Back-to-back deluges from atmospheric rivers have damaged major transport routes, forced evacuations and briefly isolated Canada’s biggest port. The agricultural region of Sumas Prairie, near the nation’s third-largest city, Vancouver, is one of the hardest hit flood zones.
So far, 628,000 poultry have been reported dead, as well as 420 dairy cattle and roughly 12,000 hogs. Additionally, 110 bee hives were submerged.
The truth is that we may be seeing a weather war scenario where our adversaries have managed to melt arctic ice undefined but what is most confusing is that there have been many boats that have claimed to be stalled in the ice that apparently has been melting undefined you see that climate models are non linear and there is a lot of confusion. One moment we have ships stuck in ice and then as if by some strange miracle the ice melts and the jet stream stalls.
Are climate intervention operations being utilized to control food supplies and thus populations? The answer to that question is not hard to find for any that are willing to examine available data without ideology, bias, and programmed preconceptions. How long do we have until converging collapse scenarios are upon us?
It appears so undefined but to say so makes you sound crazy even though we are hearing that science has been involved with chemtrail studies or the use of Stratospheric aerosol injection, pumping sulfides and nucleic ice into the atmosphere.
It’d actually be much cheaper and easier to artificially change the world’s climate than you probably think.
Kate Ricke, a climate scientist and researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told Wired that since geoengineering is actually so affordable, countries will inevitably choose to do it. However, the consequences of doing so might be — well, complicated.
To geoengineer the planet, all a nation has to do is inject aerosols like sulfates into the stratosphere. There the aerosols would disperse throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, where they’d would bounce back the Sun’s radiation — thereby, in theory, cooling the planet.
Conspiracy theorists have talked about chemtrails for at least two decades and have been told that they are crazy undefined and yet the answer to climate instability is to somehow lay down these trails to cool the planet.
This is obviously a legitimate process that can create the problems we are seeing now in the weather.
Geoengineering results in worsening weather conditions in certain parts of the world. It can also cause a global reliance on geoengineering — which means if we’re ever unable to spray sulfates into the atmosphere, we could see mass extinction events and crops die out.
It is the forbidden science to point out that since geoengineering is happening already in China and Russia undefined and even more forbidden to think that the United States is participating in weaponizing the weather undefined to extort money for green economies.
If we were to see private industry get into the geoengineering business, the world would become an ugly place where a filmy veneer would stretch across the sky. In fact some say that with chemtrail spraying it is rare to see a blue sky anywhere.
This world is one where humans have decided to dim the Sun—just a bit—allowing less energy to reach Earth’s surface so that there’s less to be trapped here by rising carbon emissions.
Research into blocking the Sun is one of those very uncomfortable topics. The studies that have been done suggest it could pose dangers, including unleashing crop die-offs and essentially being impossible to stop once a solar dimming program begins.
There are real risks in not knowing what would happen in the model world where sunlight is dimmed. There’s real value in democratizing data access.
People like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates wish to geoengineer the planet and dim the sun. No one is stopping them undefined even though we are seeing the results form chemtrail spraying.
Amazon Web Services is being used to model the the period from 2035 to 2070 using NCAR’s s Community Earth System Model Version 2 and Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, both considered among the world’s top climate models. NCAR itself has run these models on its supercomputers, including Cheyenne, which clocks in among the top 100 fastest supercomputers on Top 500undefineds list.
If it works, then the project opens up the possibility for future efforts to model any number of climate variables on the cloud. In doing so, it also puts power traditionally reserved for a few research institutions in more people’s hands.
However , if we find that the planet is changing into a cooling cycle do to changes in the sun undefined this experiment could trigger a new ice age.
A group of scientists has claimed that the Earth could in a little over a decade be hit by a undefinedmini ice ageundefined that would freeze major rivers. The startling prediction is based on a mathematical model of the Sunundefineds magnetic energy which also suggests that Earthundefineds temperature will start dropping in 2021.
The plummeting temperature will then lead to something called the undefinedMaunder minimumundefined, which is referred to a previous mini ice age that occurred between 1646 and 1715, turning Londonundefineds Thames into a frozen river, scientists claimed. The latest research, led by math professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University, is built on a previous research that predicts the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun. It also foretells rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles that will begin in 2021, and last for as many as 33 years.
According to the model, the two magnetic waves will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26 between 2030 and 2040, the waves will become out of sync, causing reduction in solar activity by as much as 60 percent.
Engineering operations are now being carried out in bigger frequency and Stratospheric aerial injections are now common place, replacing the idea of chemtrails which have already been condemned by climate alarmists as a hoax.
However, the chemtrails are not and never were hoaxes to begin with.
Willful blindness and denial still rule the day even though climate engineering operations can constantly be seen in skies all over the world.
I have noticed lately that Climate Change skeptics seem to know more about real Climate Change than the political bureaucrats that are using it to push their “Green Economy.”
The consensus of scientists who allegedly support the idea that the planet is heating up is diminishing and the truth is becoming a painful wake up call to the deception that has created the push for planet cooling.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted Global Warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
According to a recent Forbes magazine report, only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed, Organization Studies.
Furthermore, a newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist Global Warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe Global Warming is human caused and a serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists.
