CONNECTICUT SKYWATCH


EXPOSING THE WHITE-WASHING OF CONNECTICUT

Billionaire funds projects aimed at injecting upper atmosphere with sulphur particles

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

Monday, February 6, 2012   (Excerpt)

Microsoft founder Bill Gates continues to pour millions of dollars into high-risk geoengineering projects that purport to offer a solution to global warming yet have been savaged by environmentalists as potentially posing a greater threat than climate change itself.

“Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy,” reports the London Guardian, quoting critics who allege that Gates’ funding has enabled geoengineering advocates to “dominate the deliberations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

In 2010, Gates was criticized for ploughing $300,000 dollars into a sea trial of cloud-whitening technology which involved spraying clouds with microscopic particles in an effort to make them reflect more sunlight, an experiment dubbed “dangerous” by environmental campaigners.

The report reveals that Gates has backed Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, to the tune of $4.6 million dollars to fund studies based around the premise of injecting sulphur particles into the upper atmosphere designed to reflect sunlight.

Source: Wall Street Journal 1/27/2012

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

No Need to Panic About Global Warming: There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

(Related Video Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.)

I've posted the inserted video to the video section. See "Opinion Journal: The Global Warming Hoax" - Watersign25

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

This article was provided by the New American back in June 2011. This is in keeping with the theme of Agenda 21, as various groups in Connecticut support the campaign by the John Birch Society, to raise awareness on this radical environmental agenda. For information on the next Agenda 21 presentation scroll down to the entry:  Agenda 21 Presentation, CT

READ ARTICLE

New NOAA Data Debunks Establishment Science & MSM Claim of Dangerous 'Accelerating' Warming

Source:  Marc Morano of Climate Depot - click HERE

This is what children in public school are reading: The following is a link to an overview of a James Patterson book geared toward pre-teens called Witch & Wizard:

CLICK HERE

In order to read this report (by Subcommittee on Global Change Research) and understand it, the reader needs to do 3 things:

  1.Search on the word “aerosol” and you will see that its context is clearly chemtrails.

2.Look for the word Anthropogenic.  Anthropogenic aerosols is code for chemtrails.

3.You won’t find references to airplane spraying but the planes as delivery vehicles have been defined in the list of definitions as “sources.”

Here are the definitions listed last but that should be understood first:

Aerosols - Tiny particles suspended in the air. Anthropogenic - Human-induced.

Sink - In general, any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere; in this report, a sink is any regime or pool in which the amount of carbon is increasing (i.e., is being accumulated or stored).

Source - In general, any process, activity, or mechanism that releases a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol into the atmosphere; in this report, a source is any regime or pool in which the amount of carbon is decreasing (i.e., is being released or emitted).

The thinking man recognizes that an aerosol container is a source.  I searched for the word sources and found this statement:

Technology transfer and science delivery for Forest Servicemanagers and partners (USDA-FS). The Forest Service is developing strategies for climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Research and Development branch of the agency provides scientific information and the tools that help land managers estimate carbon stocks or determine appropriate seed sources, for example.

This statement would be completely incomprehensible without this basic understanding of point 2.

More:

For example, an analysis shows that the observed decline in stratospheric water vapor of about 10% since 2000 helps explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last 10 years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s; a model-independent energy balance analysis confirms the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols from human-related sources (pollution, biomass burning, and other sources) previously estimated in the 2007 IPCC assessment; and another recent study shows that anthropogenic nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are now the highest of any ozone-damaging substance currently emitted, and are projected to remain so for the rest of this century.

Carbon Cycle Observations and Research (NOAA-OAR).  The U.S. scientific community coordinates its carbon cycle activities through an integrated interagency effort that aims to quantify, understand, and project the evolution of global carbon sources and sinks in order to better predict future climate.

The research focuses on determining the effects of climate change on the structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, understanding the processes controlling the exchange rate of CO2 between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, evaluating terrestrial source-sink mechanisms for atmospheric CO2, and improving the reliability of global carbon cycle models for predicting future atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

READ REPORT HERE

Credit: TBA

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN FILED IN THE DOCUMENTS SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE

We Are Change Connecticut will be hosting and Agenda 21 presentation called Agenda 21 Coming to your Neighborhood, in conjunction with Connecticut Skywatch. A representative from The John Birch Society Hal Shurtleff will be speaking to the public about the United Nations Agenda 21 program. Deceivingly called "Sustainable Development".  Agenda 21 threatens our sovereignty as a Nation and our liberty. Agenda 21 is already being implemented  town by town through covenants with organizations such as ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) and other NGOs. This presentation will include a slide show explaining the origins of the United Nations plan and discuss how it is deceptively being implemented. This event is free. Bring cash if you would like to purchase DVDs and other materials (at nominal costs) A representative from the Oath Keepers is expected to be present as well. This is a great opportunity for citizens to become educated and network.

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

-excerpt, UN Agenda 21

The event will be held in Waterbury CT

Where: Silas Bronson Library

267 Grand St Waterbury, CT

When: Saturday January 28

Time: 10:30am

For more information on Agenda 21 Visit:

www.jbs.org/issues-pages/agenda-21

http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

www.freedomadvocates.org/

Published in the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics: READ MORE

We could all use a joke today, I thought I'd share this one with you:

Cancer rates in U.S. keep falling: American Cancer Society READ MORE

Twelve girls from the same school in upstate New York have been stricken with a mysterious Tourette syndrome-like illness. Parents are demanding answers but told that it is a Federal matter and that HPPA prevents them from disclosing any information to parents.  Parents deny claims made by school officials at a recent open house that their children have been diagnosed and are being treated. Suggesting a cover up. Could the dangerous new HPV vaccine be the culprit?

As of late, in the state of NY there is no law mandating the vaccination. However Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Westchester County, has drawn up legislation that would require it. So far it has stalled Assembly health committee due to vigorous opposition by groups opposed to the vaccine and its dangerous side-effects but that has not deterred Paulin who is determined to force-vaccinate NY children.

READ MORE