MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Time and time again I always wish I could find some way to speak openly about Climate Change and not be bombarded by people who have some emotional investment in this end of the world scenario that has been exploited by political agents.
I think that what is most disconcerting is that time and time again the data is run over and over and each time the planet seems to be cooling as a result of geoenegineering processes that have actually changed the speed of the jet stream.
The jet stream is a river of fast-moving air high up in the atmosphere approximately 30,000 – 35,000 feet that steers storms, and can have a huge influence on our local weather patterns.
The jet stream typically reaches its highest speeds during the wintertime, when temperature and pressure differences across the mid-latitudes are at their greatest. In the summer, there is also a greater amount of rising air convection, which leads to thunderstorms which can disrupt the jet stream. In the cold months, the jet stream usually maxes out around 184 mph or 160 knots.
However there have been weather balloon tests that have at times clocked the jet stream this winter as moving exceptionally fast at a whopping 231 mph or 200 knots.
This means if you are flying east your plane will go faster – if you are flying west you can see a delay of 30 minutes or more. In the winter time that jet stream is always faster but these winds are unprecedented.
It looks as if major earth changes are unfolding, and the speed at which they are unfolding, are unprecedented in the history of our planet. As the former equilibrium of the biosphere is lost, chain reactions and feedback loops are accelerating.
If there is any anthropogenic hand causing the weather to get colder it is because we are seeing governments and militaries contracting geoengineers that are playing God with weather and climate.
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.
The operations are certainly creating a winter whiplash effect where the winter has been extended all over the country and the continued geoengineering of the arctic is creating problems for the lower latitudes.
If there is a silver lining to the ever-worsening destructive weather, it is the fact that people are finally beginning to wake up to the geoengineering issue because of it.
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.
According to the 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.
However, the political discussion about the climate has reached the point where there’s this bizarre universal agreement. For example, the wild fires in California last year were devastating and yet while there is evidence to the contrary – there were many political alarmists that blamed it all on anthropogenic Climate Change.
There have also been a number of devastating tornadoes recently that have also been thrown in as the result of Climate Change. On a hot day, the average person will tell you it’s because of Climate Change. Then, he might say that it’ll be 175 degrees here in 75 years if we don’t do something about the climate.
The discussion is always mired in unfounded numbers and ideas that are repeated as fact when they are far from fact.
Over a decade ago we were told that with Global Warming there would be less snowstorms and that some of the best places to ski would become year-round summer resorts. Well, we still are having snow; in fact, the east coast has seen plenty of it this year.
And yet the Global Warming brigade will tell you that the increase in snow is because of Global Warming – people say it so much they don’t realize how ill informed they sound.
Once again, the climate skeptic seems to be much more aware of Climate Change than those who push it as a political platform.
The average person has no clue. And yet, there’s now this hysteria around climate change. People are completely sure that humans are causing the planet to warm.
People want to believe it will be the end of us and every day we get through the seasons with outrageous weather patterns that are not part of some Co2 problem – they are definitely a result of geoengineering problems.
Engineering winter weather is one of the primary objectives for the geoengineers.
By manipulating upper level wind currents and with patented processes of chemical ice nucleation for weather modification, the climate engineers are and have been cooling down the most populated regions of the US backed by the most massive military industrial complex contracting and experimenting on the planet.
This process fuels the continued confusion and division of the population in regard to the true state of the global climate. Much of the cooler air is, in essence, robbed from the Arctic by jet stream manipulation via ionosphere heater installations. What happens then?
Well we begin to see the jet stream speed up abnormally and the most recent departure from normal high temperature maps are evidence of abnormal fluctuations in the jet stream.
This is accelerating abnormal ice melt. It also creates mass methane releases which increases heat buildup.
If enough formerly frozen methane hydrate deposits release into the atmosphere, it will very soon be game over. This is what is really happening.
But the usual suspects in politics, the media, and the entertainment business start quoting that 97% of scientists are in agreement about what is happening but the truth is, the 97% number was promulgated by an Australian blogger named John Cook in 2013 and really has no basis; in fact, none.
Out of hundreds of thousands of papers that have been done on climate, Cook chose 12,000 and manipulated and subjectively interpreted parts of their abstracts to support his beliefs.
Many scientists whose names were used subsequently protested. A subsequent recalculation showed that less than 2% of the papers cited actually believe mankind is mainly responsible for any Global Warming.
Truth in science isn’t determined by consensus. But, for what it’s worth, another survey was taken in 2009 among 31,000 hard scientists, including 9000 with PhDs, who explicitly stated they believed there was no evidence of significant anthropogenic Global Warming.
The planet goes through weather cycles. And these cycles have much more impact on the climate than humans. But people are uncomfortable with that because they like to think that they can control the weather just by eliminating cars, and cows and children and the elderly.
The agenda has always been about global sustainability and human culling through reproductive laws and eugenics practices. It is obviously the cornerstone argument for the green economy that is now being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Greenpeace Co-Founder, Dr. Patrick Moore has been having a Twitter spat about how he believes that she along with her followers are pompous hypocritical and dangerous.
The Green New Deal calls for an ultra-progressive bucket list of environmental goals such as the elimination of all fossil fuels, nuclear energy, air travel, 99% of cars and the retrofitting of every single building in America for “state of the art energy efficiency.”
Cortez’ plan even throws in government-guaranteed jobs and simply hands cash to anyone “unwilling to work,” along with healthy food and a free house.
Dr. Patrick Moore has stated that the plan would eventually kill everything on earth.
After Ocasio-Cortez suggested in late February that she was “in charge” until someone comes up with a better plan, Moore fired back, tweeting: “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”
Several hours later, Moore explained: “You are delusional if you think fossil fuels will end any time soon, maybe in 500 yrs. AOC’s attitude is unjustifiably condescending. She is a neophyte pretending to be wise. Her kind bring ruination if allowed to be “in charge.”
Moore has continued his criticism, calling Cortez a “garden-variety hypocrite like the others” who has “ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know.”
He of course is referring to a recent New York Post Article that shows that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has a huge carbon foot print.
Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign relied heavily on combustible-engine cars — taking Ubers and Lyfts instead of hopping on the subway.
In her rebuttal, the Bronx-born Congresswoman said the Green New Deal is about systemic change, not about personal gas-guzzling practices.
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign logged 1,049 car service transactions totaling over $23,000 between May 16, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2018, The Post found her campaign once booked 26 car-service transactions in a single day.
Even though her Queens HQ was just a one-minute walk to the 7 train, her campaign only made 52 metro card purchases, spending about $8,300.
And despite a high-speed rail being the cornerstone of her green strategy, the Democratic firebrand took Amtrak 18 times, compared to 66 airline transactions costing $25,174.54 during the campaign season.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded to The Post’s report on her giant carbon footprint by saying she’s just “living in the world.”
“I also fly and use AC,” she tweeted “Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future.”
The question is why are people even standing behind her? Why do people still want the New Green Deal when its ideas are simply about state socialism and eugenics programs to curtail Co2 emissions?
The Warmists say Global Warming happens because of carbon dioxide generation. But carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It only accounts for about .04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen, on the other hand, makes up 80% of the atmosphere. Oxygen accounts for the other 20%. Water vapor, or H2O, has a far greater influence on the atmosphere than CO2.
Next thing you know they will want to pull water vapor from the air –and with geoengineering they probably could.
A group of Harvard scientists plan to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.
The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.
The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature.
The controversy lies in the inability to fully understand the consequences of partially blocking out sunlight. A reduction in global temperature is well understood and expected, however, there remain questions around this method’s impact on precipitation patterns, it could cause drought literally pulling water away which would affect crop yields globally.
This all needs to be stopped – from the 1990’s until now there has been many warnings that tinkering with the atmosphere and geoengineering will cause tremendous fallout.
The Harvard research team intends to spray tiny chalk (calcium carbonate) particles into the stratosphere in a controlled experiment. Computer models can only go so far in predicting the impacts this geoengineering technique, and so they are just going to try it and wait for the consequences later.
With funding in part by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Harvard team will begin to answer the remaining questions as early as the spring of 2019.
They are doing this even when they know of what negative effects can transpire.
We’ve had at least four major ice ages just during the Pleistocene, the last couple of million years. Glaciers several miles thick covered most of the United States. The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. Since then, the planet has been cyclically warming. But you have to keep this in context. Those were glacial periods that lasted 100,000 years or so. There have been times in the Earth’s history, like the Cryogenian period about 700 million years ago, that lasted 100 million years, when the entire planet might have been a snowball.
If we had a choice – and we don’t – we’d be much better off if the planet warmed a couple of degrees than cooled a couple of degrees.
But that doesn’t help the political know it’s all that someone needs to educate.
It should be telling that people don’t even use the phrase global warming anymore. They dropped that. Now, they say climate change. It’s an ongoing public relations machine. It keeps evolving.
When it doesn’t fit their agenda, they will change the name again and again and again and people will be duped again and again.
The Green New Deal is dangerous.
The Green New Deal people never, ever, mention the Earth’s geological history. Not even its very recent history, just since the invention of writing. There have been large fluctuations in climate, confirmed with ice core drilling in glaciers, sediments on the ocean floor, and tree rings.
Of course, there is no mention of geoengineering, so it easy to understand why most Americans have never heard of it.
However, one thing is for sure – people have survived and the planet is still here.