News Briefs 20-12-2004

Lots of potential Christmas presents in today’s news. Ah, I love capitalistic holidays.

  • Lightning bolts on Saturn are a million times stronger than those on Earth. I bet Jim Caviezel is glad Mel Gibson didn’t shoot The Passion Of Christ (Amazon US or UK) on Saturn.
  • Manchester is England’s least church-going city. Is there a football game on Christmas day?
  • Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail (Amazon US or UK), are suing those responsible for The Da Vinci Code. I just want $12.99 and a day of my life back. If Santa thinks you’ve been bad, expect a copy of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons (Amazon US or UK) under your Christmas Tree.
  • Is the Indian Government/Military in contact with extraterrestrials? Or do extraterrestrials just like Bollywood movies?
  • A new species of monkey has been discovered in Northeastern India. Officials are puzzled there has been no hysterical mass-panic due to sightings of brain-sucking phantom monkeys. “Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey,” says local banana grower.
  • A UFO was witnessed near Jakarta, Indonesia. Officials say it may have been part of a meteor shower. You may remember I linked to a report of a similar event in China a week or so ago.
  • Thinking of going back to school? Enrol now in Paranormal 101. Subjects offered include clairvoyance, clairaudience, auras, and how to use a spirit guide. Students must provide their own ectoplasm.
  • Mayan folklore says whistling dwarves built the pyramids at Chichen Itza, and the latest scientific findings reveal surprising acoustics for the El Castillo pyramid.
  • Well-preserved Medieval and Roman artifacts unearthed in Hampshire, England.
  • Scientists take first step towards creating artificial life.
  • A compromise has been made over global climates.
  • Commercial applications of microwave frequencies, such as mobile phones, are ruining Meteorologists’ forecasting techniques. Meteorologists must hate going to the cinema then.
  • Marine biologists prove that sharks respond to magnetic fields.
  • Michael Crichton argues Global Warming is a myth in his latest thriller, State of Fear (Amazon US or UK). Yes, it may be, but that doesn’t mean we can continue raping and destroying the Earth.
  • For counter-balance, read The Coming Global Superstorm (Amazon US or UK) by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. Or watch The Day After Tomorrow for the real facts. Greenpeace never mentioned hungry wolves …
  • US space agency confirms there has been a dramatic thinning of Antarctic ice.
  • How to make (and sell) technology more human and avoid techno-rage.
  • Speaking of rage, there’s talk of lifting the ban on mobile (cell) phones on flights. Using mobile phones, and cigarettes, on flights and in cinemas, pubs and restaurants, should constitute an act of terrorism.
  • Pliable solar cells will revolutionise the way we live. I want a hover-board like Marty McFly’s.
  • Scientists use a nano-needle to operate on a single cell.
  • Do surgeons who play video games make fewer errors? Imagine being wheeled into surgery and seeing the Super Mario Brothers! Adults who play The Sims make better parents/partners. As for Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto …
  • Nigeria has been chosen to host the 2008 Genocides. Seriously, while the Left fight America, and the Right fight The Enemy, Africa slips through the middle, ignored and forgotten, especially what’s happening in Sudan and Africa’s AIDS crisis. Instead of wondering what you’ll get for Christmas, how about thinking about what you will give instead?

Quote of the Day:

There are potentially another 10 Afghanistans in Africa, and it is cheaper by a factor of 100 to prevent the fires from happening than to put them out

Bono, leadsinger of U2

  1. Michael Crichton
    I haven’t read State of Fear but no one is suggesting raping or destroying the Earth. The Global Warming theory has to do with an over-abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) collecting in the troposphere and causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Although we have produced large amounts of CO2, satellite and balloon data show that the temperature of the troposphere is actually slightly decreasing.

    The planet may be getting warmer, but science indicates it’s got nothing to do with CO2, SUVs, raping or destroying the Earth.

    Bill

    1. Better safe than sorry
      Bill,

      Isn’t it a case of better safe than sorry?

      I side with the greenies when it comes to Global Warming, simply because I believe our Earth is being destroyed through man’s meddling with nature — agriculture, industry, overpopulation, etc. If fear of Global Warming gets people to start looking after our planet, then I’m all for propagating that fear. Geez, I must be a right-wing greenie! 😉

      I do however accept that Global Warming may not be scientifically justified. I’m seeing equal evidence for and against Global Warming, so in reality the jury is still out. Michael Crichton is entitled to his opinion and I support his right to do so — I just read Prey and he’s a damn good writer! I’m in awe of the man, being an aspiring writer myself.

      What I’m afraid of is if Global Warming is proven to be false and unfounded, then many will continue to pollute and plunder our planet without a care in the world. I want authors like Michael Crichton to add that just because Global Warming is false, it doesn’t mean our planet is in good shape; it’s not. However, I’ve already observed behaviour (in the media, in people I meet on the streets, everywhere), where people think that if Global Warming is bullshit, then our planet is fine. This worries me.

      I really should pick a side and stick to it, but as far as I’m concerned there’s good evidence FOR and AGAINST Global Warming. But how long can we continue to be inactive? I’d hate for my grandchildren to suffer because I made the wrong choice.

      Best,

      Rick

      1. Michael Crichton
        Rico, I hate to disagree with you but I will anyway.
        Crichton is a lousy writer.Prey is fiction.
        The only reason he has had such success with his books is that he wrote them for the screen and they were picked up at the right time by the right people.
        What the heck does he know about global warming?
        He is a fiction writer, and should not be allowed to come out with this sort of stuff, or at least people should ignore him.Oh I know he studied science or something, but I figure you lose a bit of credibility when you write some of the stuff he writes and then tries to get professional.
        The jury is still out for me on global warming.I see signs of it everywhere but history tells us that it has happened before and I don’t doubt it will happen again.
        I am disturbed by the destruction of rain-forests and think this contributes to global warming, but so did asteroids in the past, when they destroyed forests.
        I am almost sick with fury over the destruction of Tasmania’s old growth forests to make wood chip for the Japanese to make disposable chopsticks and in fact I keep pairs of these chopsticks in my house to show people what our old growth forests formerly looked like.
        But that is destruction just for the sake of destruction and money and politics, and if that Peter Garrett wasn’t mouthing off in Parliament at present he could be out there burning some beds in honour of the forests in Tassie.
        But I still don’t know over all if this is contributing to the greenhouse effect.

        shadows

        1. The one thing I dislike about
          The one thing I dislike about Crichton is he writes a better screenplay than a novel. His novels lately tend to be screenplays with a few adjectives added. He still knows how to structure plot, though.

      2. We’ll all be sorry
        Hi Rico,

        The ‘better safe than sorry’ is a philosophy fit for children. When it comes to the something as important as the environment, a better policy would be to determine if there is a problem, study the problem, and apply scientific principles to solve the problem. No, the ‘better safe than sorry’ method could spell disaster on several fronts. It’s a case of not considering all the consequences of your actions.

        Forty-percent of the world uses wood or dung for fuel. The resulting air quality kills far more people than industrial pollution. It’s too easy to live in a first-world country and not appreciate why a third-world country needs power, dams, generators, and electricity. All these things improve the quality of life and increase the standard of living and human life-span. Anything that reduces the ability of first-world nations to produce goods has detrimental effect on third world nations. Food, materials, and expertise will be cut to the third world nations first.

        Further, increased CO2 in the atmosphere could be beneficial. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere means increased crop yield and increased plant growth in general. Better crop yield means more food and fiber production, increased plant growth means an increase in forests, green areas and timber.

        As far as other pollution goes, things are not as dire as one might expect. Nobody dumps crud in the rivers anymore for fear of being fined out of existence. On average, the air in the US is cleaner than it was 10-years ago. Automobile emissions have been reduced drastically. Lake Erie was a dead lake 20-years ago; today one can swim and fish in it.

        You can learn more here:

        http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm

        http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/hotproblem.shtml

        Bill

        1. As far as other pollution goe
          As far as other pollution goes, things are not as dire as one might expect.

          Famous last words. 😉

          Nobody dumps crud in the rivers anymore for fear of being fined out of existence.

          Utter rubbish. They now do it under the cover of darkness, when nobody is looking. It’s also happening right in front of our eyes. Here in Melbourne for example, effluent from sewage treatment plants are dumped into Port Phillip Bay quite legally, despite the damage it’s doing to the environment. And this is one of the cleaner examples. No Bill, fresh water sources, and oceans, continue to be polluted by industry and people, and it doesn’t just effect localised areas: take the Arctic wildlife that are being born with double genitalia, females with male genitals etc, due to what scientists believe are hormones and medicines that have travelled in currents from large cities. Fines may have stopped some, Bill, but others just do it when nobody is looking.

          On average, the air in the US is cleaner than it was 10-years ago.

          This is due to the effort of envionmentalists! If it wasn’t for people wanting a cleaner environment, this would never have happened.

          Automobile emissions have been reduced drastically.

          Uh-uh, and definitely not in other parts of the world. China, Australia, Europe. Geez, let’s talk about the Black Forest in Europe, utterly destroyed by acid rain, never to recover. Sorry Bill, but car emmissions continue to choke the air, especially in heavily populated areas.

          Lake Erie was a dead lake 20-years ago; today one can swim and fish in it.

          Yet there are other lakes in the US that will take generations to recover.

          For every piece of good news, Bill, there’s bad news. And for every piece of bad news about the environment, there’s good news. This is the point I’m making.

          I’m not saying we should stop progress. I’m just saying there are smarter ways to do it. Even you must agree that we’re not being smart enough. Saying things aren’t too bad so we don’t need to worry is wrong — “not too bad” isn’t good enough. We can do better than that.

          The Indonesian rainforest isn’t going to be gone in our lifetimes due to the people needing power stations and hospitals, Bill. It’s being destroyed by logging companies greedy for more money. It’s being destroyed to make way for soy bean crops, so Danish pig farmers can give Europeans pork and ham that’s been grown on a vegetarian diet. It’s being destroyed for stupid, stupid reasons, Bill.

          Dostoyevsky wrote that people are stupid. I’d like to amend that. People are heartless. They know the consequences of their actions, they just don’t care. That’s the sad thing. Ignorance, I could excuse. It’s the apathy that breaks my heart.

          1. GW & Pollution – Seperate issues
            Hi Rico,

            If you have understood that global warming is a separate issue from pollution, I congratulate you. Further, I will concede that the world is an absolute pigsty and we should shoot polluters on sight. ;o)

            I should have qualified my “nobody dumps crud in the river” statement, adding “in the US”. One might get away with a one-time dump, but bodies of water are monitored with chemical analyzers; the cover of darkness won’t help. Finding the pollution-source is fairly simple. I work for a large manufacturer where waste and hazardous materials are strictly controlled. Engineers must complete an environmental impact statement for all projects. Accuracy failures can result in heavy fines and prison terms. I even had to complete an environmental impact statement to teach a class. If you know of any body of water in the US that isn’t cleaner than it was 10-years ago, please name it.

            I do not dispute that some of the improvement can be attributed to the efforts of environmentalists. But extreme environmentalists have also done great harm. One of the cleanest, non-polluting methods of power generation is nuclear. No one has ever died due to a nuclear accident in the US. What happened at Three Mile Island? The fail-safe boron rods dropped, the reaction was terminated, and contaminants were contained. But nuclear power generation has been so over-regulated in the US that a new reactor can’t be built. New plants being built use oil or coal. Environmentalists loose credibility backing bogus issues like insecticides and global warming.

            I will agree with you that we need to be smarter. Global warming is a political and economic effort disguised as an environmental issue. Most of the pollution examples that you give pertain to Europe. Perhaps Europe would be better served to clean-up their own backyard rather than try to impede the manufacturing capabilities of other parts of the world with bogus issues.

            Bill

          2. Tezcatlipoca’s smile broadens..
            There once was a man from the west,
            Who thought that his land was the best;
            “We don’t fear pollution,
            And here’s the solution:
            We just do not foul our own nest.”

          3. this is not pollution
            This is not pollution.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

            It will not remain radioactive for 1000 or more times your lifespan.
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html

            There is no problem with storing it.
            http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/state01.htm

            Yes, environmentalists keep making up these things out of nowhere.

            BTW, Bill, I’m not opposed to nuclear energy — I support the following, since it is, in fact, actually nonpolluting.
            http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html

            It remains cost prohibitive, but I believe there have been one or two people who think this was not a hoax, in which case it might not be.
            http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html

            I already know your feelings on global warming and nuclear fission, Bill; would you tell me what’s “bogus” about insecticides?

            (I do agree the RAID stuff is bogus – doesn’t work nearly as well as on the TV commercials – and that Deep Woods OFF stuff is crap, too.)

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          4. warning noted!
            Definitely, Bill. The main problem seems to be if you mix it. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened in Gulf War I.

            http://members.tripod.com/airtech/gulfwar.htm

            Remember, Agent Orange never hurt a human soul, that was all Vietnamese propaganda.

            One final question: do you drink it regularly? You should, I mean, it’s as harmless as water, right? You should note the warning label:

            Immediate Health Effects

            If SWALLOWED, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide is Very Highly Toxic.

            If ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide is Very Highly Toxic.

            If INHALED (SNIFFED OR BREATHED IN), N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide is Very Highly Toxic.

            Longterm or Delayed Health Effects

            This chemical It is considered a Unclassifiable Carcinogen by the World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or another agency.

            Slight skin irritation. Eye irritation. In sensitive individuals, may cause allergic dermatitis.

            If ingested, may affect the central nervous system.

            In some, but not all, studies, test animals fed high doses of DEET experienced kidney and liver damage, and decreased body weight and food consumption.

            In a recent study of prolonged exposure to rats, damage to brain cells was noted.

            Applying DEET to skin has occasionally produced blisters, sometimes followed by severe scarring.

            There have been 18 reported cases where DEET exposure caused seizures and encephalopathy in children since 1960. Three died as a result.

            Oh yeah, I know, it’s those godless Canadians, they keep sending us all those untested generic drugs for U.S. consumption, why bring it up. Nevermind.

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          5. read the label
            No Steve, I don’t drink it. I suggest that you don’t either. Read the label. I never suggested Agent Orange either.

            What have you got against Canadians?

            Bill

          6. oh yeah and one more thing
            If we’re going to quote casualty figures based on hypotheticals, here’s my response.

            I take it your argument is based on the idea that the DDT ban led to a proliferation of insect-borne malaria.

            OK, seems to me that then we should hold responsible for the deaths of millions anything that causes proliferation of such insects.

            We should start by ending the practice of people who don’t do crop rotation and allow agricultural water runoff to form pools where mosquito larvae breed.

            In my opinion, millions more deaths are on their hands (based on your logic, anyway) since they are not practicing one of the safest and most non-toxic forms of insect control.

            http://www.thisland.uiuc.edu/60ways/60ways_42.html

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          7. DDT
            Hi Steven,

            Tell it to the people in South America. They were the ones that died because the US was the DDT source. It took them a couple of years before they could make it themselves. That’s what they do now.

            Bill

          8. and you missed my point…
            … which is if you want fewer mosquitos, and less malaria, you can get there more easily and more abundantly by using crop rotation than by using insecticides.

            I know you don’t like man accepting the results of man’s own actions, but the insect problem of most of the world is a result of our agricultural practices. I would prefer to fix the way we do agriculture, than to get mad at the U.S. for banning a bandaid solution to the way we do agriculture.

            I once attended a talk by Cesar Chavez. He said the growers in California used to spray the fields with pesticides WHILE the Mexican workers were out their picking the produce – and gave them no masks or gloves. Guess they also thought the stuff was as harmless as water, but, a funny thing, they had a 300% higher rate of cancer.

            Mosquitos breed in standing water. Sure, as long as there is rain there will be pools of it, not much we can do about that. That said, it doesn’t help that modern agriculture gives them a much greater abundance of it. If you want to save more lives than ending the DDT ban, end factory farming, and encourage crop rotation.

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          9. and you missed mine
            …….which is South America is doing quite well at mosquito/malaria control now that they are manufacturing their own DDT.

            Bill

          10. ok fine
            I agree with this group’s position:

            http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

            — that there should not be a total DDT ban until better, safer, less expensive alternatives are developed. Please note, though, they do say they will support an eventual ban.

            That said, I also agree with this position:

            http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/64/

            That the suggestion of DDT as a sole factor for causing reduction in malaria deaths is overrated, and that it’s just one of many other tools that need to be used (including changing agricultural practices, as I keep suggesting, as well as GM crops.)

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          11. ok fine – agreed
            Hi Steven,

            Had these DDT-positions been adopted rather than the green-friendly, ‘better safe than sorry’, extreme environmentalist, knee-jerk DDT-ban that was adopted by the EPA, millions of lives could have been saved. That is the point.

            We also agree on GM crops.

            Bill

          12. I never said that
            Hi Steven,

            >This is not pollution.

            No, it’s nuclear waste.

            >It will not remain radioactive for 1000 or more times your lifespan.

            Yes it will.

            >There is no problem with storing it.

            Yes there is.

            >Yes, environmentalists keep making up these things out of nowhere.

            Did I say that somewhere? No, I didn’t. What I did say was that no one has ever been killed in the US by a nuclear reactor. Have you got a link to refute that? There hasn’t been a fission reactor built in the US in 10-years. Why do you think that’s true? Why are you refuting things that I didn’t write?

            When you get a sustainable fusion source, I’ll join you. Until then, if you don’t want more oil, don’t use any electricity.

            Bill

          13. I want electricity from this.
            Unlike nuclear fusion, these sources exist and are quite sustainable indeed.

            http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/

            As to why there haven’t been fission reactors in the last 10 years, you should read this report.

            http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/index.cfm

            It has as much to do with lax safety practices by the industry, as it has to do with mean ol’ nasty enviros. You will note that even France and Russia are better at using the newer, safer plant designs than the U.S. is. It’s like Chernobyl never happened here…

            And until we have a solution to the problem of radioactive waste disposal, which we don’t, I am not the least perturbed by the lack of plant ‘progress’.

            And, to me the argument is also political, insofar as the other thing nuclear power does is (even more than fossil fuel) centralize power production. Renewables people can do for themselves. Because nuclear power is centrally produced and also hazardous, nuclear plants are high priority terrorist targets. (Look at that in the report also). It also tends (please note my libertarian colleagues) to reinforce centralized government and political power.

            And take a look at this if you can —
            http://www.ieer.org/reports/npdc.html

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

          14. I agree with you on nuclear p
            I agree with you on nuclear power, Bill. If done wisely, it’s a good thing. Even the founder of Greenpeace … geez, I feel awful, I forget his name … now advocates nuclear power over fossil-fuel-based power sources.

            I grew up in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria’s power station and coal mine heartland. The place is a mess. It may also be a coincidence, but the area has the highest incidences of asthma and cancer than anywhere else in the state.

            On the other side of Melbourne, near Port Fairy, locals protested against a wind farm, saying it was ugly. Gee, maybe they’d like to visit the Latrobe Valley and admire how pretty the open-sky coal mines are, the chimneys belching pollution into the air, and see where they get their power from? I detest people like them, only thinking of themselves and not giving a shit about anyone else. Wind farms may not be viable, and they might be a waste of time, but I detest how they base their protest on aesthetics. The Latrobe Valley has suffered for decades, with low unemployment and high pollution — as I said, it’s a mess. And nobody cares, so long as they have power for their hairdryers and high-definition tvs.

          15. Insecticides, Manufacturing, and People
            Insecticides are a problem Bill. Whole legions of third-world farmers are suffering from nerve damage, sometimes extensive. Also, bugs become resistant, so more and more chemical is needed to do the job. This becomes harder on the humans and animals that live near the fields, due to run-off, and the chemicals don’t break down as advertised, and can still be sampled years after they’ve been discontinued. Long chain polymers that don’t break down are never a good thing. . .

            The largest manufacturing country in the world today is China. What do you think of their environment? Oh, you don’t know about their environment you say? How could you, the Chinese aren’t talking. But satellite photos show a grim picture. . . . their headlong rush to beat us is costing them their future. I see so many people wringing their hands over China, but I say, where are they going to get Water? They are already running out and are taking desprate measures, imagine what another 20 years and 80-100% population growth will do.

            The world is dying. If you can’t see that I say wake up and smell the $9/lb coffee and the $500/lb Tuna. What’s the answer? Three little letters. ZPG (Zero Population Growth). There are just too damn many of us. If there were only 1 billion (or even better, 500 million) people on the Earth, cars and planes and fossil fuels wouldn’t be such a big deal. Now, with nearly 6.5 billion folks (and growing at an astounding rate with 8 billion projected by 2020) any system that tries to provide for everyone will be unsustainable and will fail. Forget Nuclear, not even Fusion Power would save us at 10 billion population. . . If we can’t control our population, we deserve what happens to us.

            (Mourns for the loss of the multi-child family, but oh well . . .)

            AncientSkyman

          16. state of the world
            If you want to know how the world is doing (ecologically), there is no better reference than here:

            http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2003/

            State of the World Atlas 2003 — the PDF version for 2003 is now free.

            They show what trends are getting better, and which are getting worse, and with little axe to grind in any direction. And, unfortunately, one has to have their head firmly in the sand not to see which trends are continuing negative.

            As one poster once put it, just facts, data, good science, and sensible theories. All should read it.

            Steven Mizrach
            Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

  2. Gawd struth
    Why on earth are Baigent and Leigh suing Dan Brown?
    The information has always been out there for those who wanted to use it.
    From people I know who have read TDVC I hear that they are now eager to read Holy Blood Holy Grail.
    Why don’t they just relax, have a little egg-nog like I’m having now, and re-think the whole business.
    They might end up making a big profit from people wanting to read further.

    shadows

    1. Baigent and Leigh are wrong t
      Baigent and Leigh are wrong to sue Dan Brown, but I think they’re right to demand more recognition.

      I once accused Stel Pavlou of plagiarising John Anthony West and Robert Bauval for his book Decipher, and I immediately regretted it. Stel pointed out to me that he had to fight tooth and nail to keep the bibliography in his book: his publishers wanted to scrap it, and Stel thought this was wrong. He had also written a foreword, explaining where he got his theories from, a kind of thank you to those whose theories he used for his fiction, but his publishers did not allow this to be printed.

      I’ll write up a blog about all of this. I just want to sleep now, and stop thinking.

    2. HBHG Suing Dan Brown
      My sentiments echo that of Shadows’. HBHG has been out for so long that most people had forgotten about it (and the other books) until Dan Brown’s novel came out. Now, not only has DaVinci Code re-peaked the interest in the original generation out there that read HBHG when it first came out, but there is also a whole new generation of young adults out there who are being introduced via Dan Brown’s book. I am sure that sales of HBHG and all of the other books have been jump-started again. Since my original introduction to HBHG when it first came out, I have acquired quite a few other books into my library; Messianic Legacy, Laurence Gardner’s books, Elaine Pagel’s Gnostic Gospels, Schonfield’s Passover Plot, to name a few. Since reading TDVC, I have now added de Vere’s The Dragon Legacy and Twyman’s Meovingian Mythos to my library, and will continue to look for other books out there.

      I think Baigent and Leigh ought to re-think this strategy of theirs.

      1. It’s free publicity. I just r
        It’s free publicity. I just read that article, and suing Dan Brown is a remarkably good marketing move. Now they have all these newspaper articles comparing their work to a bestseller, saying it’s the basis of TDVC, etc. People are gonna go “hum, I should pick it up and check it out.” Did you know HBHG just got reprinted as mass market paper bound? Very clever. On top of that they manage to get the word out that their work is serious non-fiction. I think their strategy is very well thought-out.

  3. Forest/Trees
    You people make me shake my head. Brilliant minds, the lot of you, yet at times you still can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Did you even read the article immediately under the global warming article — the one on microwave frequencies? Did a light bulb come on for some of you? Or do you need an article spelling it out for you before you’ll consider it?

    “Meteorologists fear they are losing one of their essential forecasting tools – microwave frequencies uniquely able to “see” through clouds from satellites. They say commercial applications, for example mobile phones and collision avoidance systems, are ruining them. The use of the bands in this way causes interference and contaminates the data from the satellites, making it useless. Not only weather forecasting is put at risk, but also a better understanding of how climate change is developing.”

    Naturally, data supporting both sides of the global warming issue are “clouded” because of the microwave issue. But global warming is currently being used as a “bait” distraction. You all know that world governments use the techniques of “distract with a lesser evil” and “divide and conquer” so they can advance their own power agendas.

    Consider the past hurricane season: Richard C. Hoagland http://www.enterprisemission.com/ , asked, “Given the unprecedented oddities of this remarkable 2004 hurricane season, is “someone” experimenting even now with radical technologies for intervening with or preventing hurricanes?”

    Bear in mind that governments have been conducting “research” into controlling the weather since at least the early 1940’s with The Phoenix Project, which was an attempt to control the weather using information and technologies derived from the work of Dr. Wilhelm Reich, an Austrian scientist credited with discovering the highly controversial “orgone” energy. In the 1960s there was a U.S. government-appointed scientific advisory panel named Project Stormfury which performed a series of experiments to determine whether cloud-seeding techniques might work.

    After extensive research, Reich finally developed a device that would break up concentrations of DOR (dead orgone)energy. When set up with a weather balloon, this device would dissipate or deflect thunderstorms. Armed with Reich’s storm-buster, the US Government created a device called a “radiosonde”. This device consisted of several sensors and a transmitter that could broadcast across several bands to either build up orgone energy or to disrupt DOR energy. With it the government could control the weather.

    As an aside, it should be pointed out that any device capable of transmitting both orgone and DOR energy could be used to affect people as well. Supposedly, the Soviet Union had conducted extensive experiments on select populations by broadcasting orgone or DOR energy into the area to try and alter the emotion content of the population.

    In the early 1950’s the Phoenix project was merged with the remnants of Project Rainbow. The revised Phoenix Project was to delve further into the study of electromagnetic effects and their use in achieving ‘stealth’ technology. The problem the Phoenix Project faced was how to keep this new technology from having such an adverse affect on humans involved in the experiments.

    Project Rainbow, Phoenix Project, Project Stormfury, Montauk Project, HAARP — in my opinion all connected. When dealing with governments, always ask why and what is their bottom-line motive. We know by now it’s not about helping people or there would be no world hunger. It’s about power — perhaps about creating a hyperdimensional worm hole or star gate. You’ve got to start thinking outside the box like they do, or you’ll forever be their pawns.

  4. Global Warming
    I find it astonishing that some people still adamantly defend the idea there is no such thing as man made global warming, merely because they can quote one of the scientists who do not believe in this. What about the vast majority who DO think we are responsible?

    This reminds me of people who state matter of factly, as if God herself told them: “neutrons have no mass” “dark matter is a third type of neutrino” “The Fundamental particle is a string” when in fact all these issues are still hotly debated. Sure, you can find a scientist who agrees with almost any ridiculous idea. Art Bell had a guy on once who was a PhD in Biology from a respected US University, and held a teaching post at a small college in the South. He actually seriously thought that Satan “put” all those fossils there in Africa to fool us into thinking that there really were such a thing as cave men. He was certain that the Earth was only about 12,000 years old.

    Calling people ignorant or worse, because they happen to have read all sides of the global warming issue, like myself, and agree with the many, many scientists world wide that we are causing this problem is hardly the sign of an intellectually mature individual.

    Atmosphere getting cooler? Have you read the rebuttal to this? Or did you just read an article by some scientist somewhere, and because it was counter to the left, and you like being different, and confrontational, you bought the authors ideas hook line and sinker? And now, you presume that you “know”, and the rest of those scientists, some of them Nobel prize winners, are somehow not as quick on the draw as you, right?

    1. ucs
      I actually was working with Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) when this was issued so personally I could not disagree with Bill more. These people are good scientists with good credentials.

      http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009

      It doesn’t just deal with global warming, although that is one of the foci of the report.

      You might also be interested in this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_of_global_warming

      I find it interesting that the major dissenting view comes from a survey of U.S. (ONLY) climatologists, by the not exactly nonpartisan “Citizens for a Sound Economy.”

      One last thing — please go tell these people what they are experiencing is not real.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2219001.stm

      Steven Mizrach
      Academic, Pop Culture Junkie, Grail Recycler

    2. GW

      Hi Dashour,

      I find it astonishing that some people still adamantly defend the idea there is no such thing as man made global warming, merely because they can quote one of the scientists who do not believe in this. What about the vast majority who DO think we are responsible?

      I am equally astonished by people that believe that global warming, if there is any, is man-made. Ice core samples have shown that the temperature of the planet changes on a cyclical basis. The planet has grown much warmer and colder when there weren’t any men around. Earth’s temperature is externally affected by the solar radiation and our position in space. Internally, magma flow and volcanoes, both above and below lea level, influence the temperature. I have never seen any verifiable data that an enhanced greenhouse effect is taking place. Show me some data and I will reconsider.

      There are many scientists that don’t believe in man-made global warming. Here’s 15,000 scientists in the United States that signed this petition stating that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. Without a little research you might never know about this. The party-line in the popular press is the GW is man made.

      One has to be a little careful about scientists. Some people on the GW issue have degrees in other fields and bestow upon themselves titles such as ‘environmentalist’ and ‘climatologist. This greases the skids for grant money. This is not to say that all the scientists that push GW are frauds, just some of them.

      Calling people ignorant or worse, because they happen to have read all sides of the global warming issue, like myself, and agree with the many, many scientists world wide that we are causing this problem is hardly the sign of an intellectually mature individual.

      I don’t recall calling anyone ignorant. But many people that believe that global warming is man made are ignorant. Being ignorant doesn’t mean that one is stupid. Ignorance is just a state of being mis-informed or uninformed.

      Atmosphere getting cooler? Have you read the rebuttal to this?

      Yes several of them. One rebuttal said that the troposphere moved; another said that the satellite sensors were not calibrated. Another challenged the correction factor used for sensor-age correction. None of them had merit.

      You are right about my penchant for being ‘different and confrontational’. I seldom buy into the party line or follow anyone or anything like a sheep. I like to research an idea and think for myself. If I think an idea is bogus, or I believe there’s an agenda lurking behind the scene, I’ll be the first to challenge it.

      And now, you presume that you “know”, and the rest of those scientists, some of them Nobel prize winners, are somehow not as quick on the draw as you, right?

      No, I don’t presume to know anything. I am an engineer, not a scientist. I rely on data taken by scientists taken by scientists to determine if a product or process is useful, or if they have skewed the data to sell something. I’ve take a look at data gathered by scientists over years to see if what they are saying is true on global warming. Here’s some data gathered by Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center) and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) on conditions in the atmosphere. This is the testimony given by Dr. Christy to the US House of Representatives. This is a little more recent.

      Bill

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.