Conversations: Global Warming, HAARP, 9-11 etc

Note: Richard K. Moore runs several blogs and interactive sites and welcomes comments at rkm@quaylargo.com

Greetings,

I realize that many of you are probably tired of hearing about global
warming, but I really must report on a breakthrough.

What began as an informal essay, intended to show there is reasonable
doubt about global warming, has now evolved into the strongest
argument against the IPCC models that I've seen anywhere. It's so
simple that I can explain it briefly. All of the statements are based
on official data from the climatologists. For graphs and details, see:
http://rkmdocs.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-science-observations-vs-models.html
___________

Consider that 2,000 years ago the Northern Hemisphere was much hotter
than today, and the Southern Hemisphere was much colder. So in 0 AD
the 'average' global temperature was close to zero, relatively
speaking. In 1900, on the other hand, both hemispheres were relatively
close to zero, and so again the 'average' global temperature was close
to zero, just as 2,000 years ago. Hence the hockey stick, based on
'average' global temperatures, shows the years 0 and 1900 at about the
same temperature level.

But showing them at the same level is very misleading. In the north it
was hot, and in the south it was cold. In the north we were closer to
a global warming crisis then than we are now, and yet the hockey stick
shows 'all is well' then. It turns out that the two hemispheres have
very different climate patterns, often at opposite extremes from one
another. In fact, Antarctica emerged from the last ice age a full
1,000 years earlier than Greenland.

It also turns out that in 1800, both hemispheres happened to be on a
temperature upswing at the same time, starting long before human-
caused Co2 was relevant. So in terms of global averages, this
confluence of trends looks like an unusual increase over the past two
centuries. But in terms of what's happening in each hemisphere, both
are now about 2 degrees cooler than they have been in the past few
thousand years -- but each achieved their maximums at different times,
when the other hemisphere was having a cold spell.

Global warming (in the alarmist sense) is an illusion created by the
failure to recognize that a global average temperature is a very poor
indicator of the actual conditions in either hemisphere.

There is no need to challenge any of the climatologists data, we can
accept it as valid, and we can ignore the emails. The entire flaw is
in the claim that a global average has some relevance to global
temperatures. It doesn't. The actual fact is that both hemispheres are
relatively cool at the moment, and in the north we can expect two
centuries of global cooling, just as rapid as the past two centuries
of warming. Increased Co2 levels have had no discernible effect on
long-term, natural temperature patterns.
___________

You folks have been very good about sending in comments, articles, and
sometimes even your own essays, related to the topics we've been
talking about. There are far too many to post. What I'll do for now is
pick the main points from a few of them and see where that leads us.

---

Thomas Schley sent in a quote attributed to Alexander Tytle, an 18th
Century Scottish historian, including this excerpt:
> A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist
> as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to
> exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote
> themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment
> on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
> most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every
> democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is
> always followed by a dictatorship.

I can see how this would sound reasonable on first reading, but it
actually doesn't make much sense. First of all, it is a common pattern
for nations to fall into loose fiscal policy, and it always has been.
It's part of the life cycle of most nations, whether they be
democracies or whatever, ever since civilization began. It usually
comes from the poor sense of leaders, and particularly over-extension
in warfare or empire, whether they be Presidents, Prime Ministers, or
Kings. Second, the statement attributes far too much influence to
voters, and far too much faith that candidates follow through on their
promises. Campaign promises are generally not kept, partly because the
candidate never really meant them, and partly because of the realities-
of-state that confront the candidate when he's actually in office.

In the case of the US, its economic demise had nothing to do with
social spending. It had to do with a costly war machine, inane
budgeting, de-industrialization, and financial rape by the banksters.    None of these things were asked for by the voters.

---
Omas Schaefer took exception to an article by Tom Burghardt. Omas
says, and I condense:
> Burghardt appears to be falling into the simplistic notion that
> capitalism is bad and socialism is good. As I see it, this is the
> primary issue: The banksters have created a black hole of fictitious
> 'debt'. They have proclaimed that humanity owes them that fictitious
> debt. To frame the debate as if it is a discussion of the failures
> of capitalism is a monumental disservice to the pursuit of truth.

I'm not sure what debate is going on, or which article you're
referring to, but I do think some reframing is in order. In
particular, we need some clarity on the nature of capitalism.
Capitalism is not about any particular way of operating an economy.
Rather, capitalism is about who decides how the economy will operate.
In particular, capitalism is a system in which the very wealthy --
capitalists, those with excess capital to invest -- determine the
destiny of society.

It is easy to assume that peacetime economic growth, based on
investments, entrepreneurs, new technologies, etc. is the 'normal'
form of capitalism, while wars and depressions are 'unfortunate
exceptions', which might with better foresight be avoided. That would
be, however, an erroneous assumption. Capitalism, particularly in
nations where the most capital has accumulated, the 'wealthy' nations,
has been universally characterized by cycles of economic boom and
bust, and cycles of peace and warfare.

These cycles drive the engine of capitalism. This works much like an
automobile engine, with a fuel-input cycle, a compression cycle, an
ignition cycle, and an exhaust cycle.

The fuel is capital, from capitalists, invested at the beginning of a
growth cycle. The fuel is sucked in by developers who need financing
to set up their growth-oriented enterprises. During this cycle,
capital and credit are readily available, on relatively attractive
terms.

Compression is the development of new technologies and productive
infrastructures, the ramping up of new production lines, the creation
of new products and markets, etc. Capital and credit continue to be
supportive of the process.

Ignition is when the new production regime begins operating at
capacity, the new products are being sold to growing markets, profits
are being made, and capitalists can begin extracting their returns.
This is the phase of real economic growth, when greater value is being
added by increased production, and many boats are rising.

And always there comes a point of diminishing returns, from the
capitalist perspective. Yes the growth cycle could be kept going for a
while longer, and yes more profits could be made, but the rate of
profit for the capitalists is becoming disappointing. Industry may be
humming along very well, perhaps so well that it doesn't need much in
the way of capital or credit. Increasing production capacity is
getting ahead of growth in demand.

Just as a stock-market investor might sell a stale blue-chip stock,
planning to reinvest elsewhere, so capitalists make the decision to
put an end to the growth cycle. Of course they don't wait until growth
turns downwards, they strike when markets are still bullish. As
stealthily as possible, they begin liquidating their long holdings and
taking up short positions instead. In various ways they position
themselves to minimize their bull losses and maximize their bear gains.
And then comes the exhaust cycle, when they pull the plug on credit,
open the exhaust valve, and burst the bubble. Out of the exhaust pipe
come derelict factories and mines, unemployed workers, repossessed
homes and farms, homelessness, and bread lines. Meanwhile, with their
coffers full, the capitalists engage in a feeding frenzy, buying up
inherently strong businesses and assets at crisis-sale prices. At that
point a new war is usually launched, to create the conditions for the
next four-cycle process. Sort of like burning the fields before
replanting.

The Great Depression and the recent Financial Collapse were not
'failures' of capitalism, they were normal cycles within the engine of
capitalism, the two most-recent exhaust cycles in the global
capitalist economy. The problem this time around is that the same
engine cannot be restarted. The limits to growth have been reached.
The four-cycle engine itself has reached the point of diminishing
returns. It's time for a new engine, a new world order, but still
under the control of the capitalists.

The nation state was an important part of the four-cycle engine. In
order to have profitable wars, you've got to have two or more nations
fighting one another, each with a population that wants to 'defend its
nation'. Nations are being abandoned along with the old engine, so
this time around, nations themselves were among the 'inherently strong
businesses and assets' that have now been bought up at crisis-sale
prices. Indeed, the nations actually paid for the privilege of being
repossessed by the banks. That's what the so-called bailouts were
about. Wall Street has now taken up permanent residence in the White
House, so that it can run the affairs of its new acquisition directly
and conveniently.

Capitalism isn't just bad, it is evil.

By the way, there's a great video by a young woman who made a Youtube
that went viral. It's about refusing to pay the banksters:
Ann Minch
DEBTORS REVOLT BEGINS NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC1mCS4OVo&NR=1

---
Joey Hart, from Miami, was disturbed by suggestions that HAARP might
have caused the Haiti earthquake. His message included this paragraph:
> In regard to 911, I have seen the videos of the suspected
> demolition charges and know about the buildings evacuation prior to
> the event (suppossedly to install those charges.
> I must ask, has everyone involved in those "installations" been
> killed? I find it difficult that no one to my knowledge has come
> forward, not even anonymously, to collaborate those suspicions. And
> given the financial situations that 911 eventually has made occur,
> either someone miscalculated the negative impact 911 would have in
> the long term or there is an agenda that really does not make sense.
> Educate me if you will.

Suppose there was a bank robbery, and the gang of masked robbers gets
away. And suppose you watch a video of the robbery. I don't imagine
that you would say, "Well I saw the video, but I find it difficult
that none of the gang members have come forward to corroborate my
suspicions".

There is a lot more evidence for what happened on 911 than just the
videos, although those videos by themselves are enough. The pulverized
dust has even been analyzed, just like on CSI, and exotic military-
grade nano-thermate has been found in samples collected from different
locations. No one outside the military could have fabricated that
evidence; it requires amazingly complex machinery to make that stuff.
Just as with the hypothetical bank robbery, the actual facts need to
be accepted first, and then one can entertain theories about who the
masked gang might be. Just because you don't have a theory of the
bandits, isn't a reason to think a crime didn't take place.

When you're recruiting people for such a project, the last thing you
would want would be someone who would be inclined to feel guilty
later, and might 'come forward'. You'd recruit people who've already
gotten their hands dirty in secret operations, and who sincerely
believe what they are doing is for the 'greater good', in their
perverted little minds. Mossad would have been a good choice for the
operation, not because Israel controls the US, but because Mossad has
very good internal security, and not being Americans, they don't have
the conflict of sentiments that US intelligence personnel might have.
And they'd feel quite comfortable that they were 'doing good', by
getting the rest of the world lined up against what Israel sees as
their national enemy, the Muslims. It is actually quite understandable
that no one has come forward, from Cheney on down. That lying bastard
can be taken as the 'face of 911' -- think of him, and the likelihood
of him stepping forward and saying, "I did it and I want to pay for my
crimes".

You mention 'negative impacts' from 911. I must ask, 'negative for
who'? For you and me, yes, negative. For the interests of the US as a
nation, yes, negative. But for the capitalists, the banksters, who
planned 911 and the 'war on terror' long before the neocons came to
power, the outcomes were positive and just as expected. 911 was a
major step toward the new world order. Domestically, they've managed
to set up a police state apparatus following very closely the Nazi
model, and internationally they're using the Pentagon to consolidate
their territorial position vis a vis energy resources. The collapse-
bailout project was another major step. Our discussion here merges
with the one above, about the dismantlement of the growth engine, and
clearing the decks for some new engine.

---
Lincoln Justice sends in more material on HAARP:
> Thanks for the information about HAARP and the Haiti disaster.
> Here is a video by Benjamin Fulford that expands on your information.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqACx1h4pBo&feature=related
> Plus more
> Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Climate Change
> The manipulation of climate for military use
> By Michel Chossudovsky
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2545

There are many people, when they hear this stuff about HAARP, who have
the reaction, "There they go again! Every time something dramatic
happens, they immediately come up with wild conspiracy theories.
They're obviously paranoid, because there hasn't been enough time to
look at the evidence, even if it is really a conspiracy." I must say a
few words in defense of Lincoln, if anyone thinks he is jumping too
soon into believing in a conspiracy.

I can understand the 'there they go again' reaction – by anyone who
has managed to dismiss every past conspiracy as having 'not happened'.
However anyone who digs at all into history soon finds out that
conspiracies and false-flag operations have been standard practice
among nations for centuries, indeed longer than that, going back to
ancient times. In fact people do eventually step forward, after
everyone else involved has died, leaving us death-bed confessions or
written memoirs, that provide the documentation that wasn't available
near the time of the events. Or we have someone like Brzezinski, who
later brags about how he stirred up the anti-Soviet resistance in
Afghanistan that caused the Soviets to invade, which was of course top
secret at the time and considered to be a wild conspiracy theory.

It is now well documented, for example, that the attack on Pearl
Harbor was arranged by Roosevelt, by a series of calculated
provocations against Japan, that could have no other result. We also
know the codes were broken, and Roosevelt knew the exact date and time
of the attack. We know it was no accident that the valuable aircraft
carriers were safely at sea, and that out-of-date ships were left in
the harbor as intentional sacrifices, along with their sailors. It was
no accident that the lookouts on Kauai were told to stand down just
before the attack. It was a day of infamy indeed, as Roosevelt
declared, but he is the one who deserves the label.

Those of us who have been digging into the evidence, tracing the trail
of false-flag ops over the course of US history, up to current day,
have learned there are certain tell-tale signs that always show up in
such crimes. Such things as no film in the CCTV cameras, security
procedures that are not followed, an exercise that happens to be
underway, a mainstream story line that is full of contradictions,
unanswered but obvious questions about the events, or the immediate
announcement of a perpetrator, with all kinds of details about them,
before the dust has even settled. But equally significant as these
false-flag signatures around the crime scene itself, is the nature of
the response to the incident. If the incident is being sold as a total
surprise, and yet a well-orchestrated response has already been
identified and is ready to be launched, then alarm bells should be
going off big time. Finally, one needs to verify that the launched
response reveals a motive for the incident.

The Haiti-earthquake incident had all the alarm bells ringing right
from the beginning. We had an exercise underway right in Miami, all
ready to go live just when the earthquake occurred -- and the invasion
was immediately launched when the incident occurred. We have a
mainstream story line about helping the earthquake victims,
contradicted by the actions of the invaders. And we have the obvious
motive: the immense oil deposits that are never mentioned in the
mainstream coverage of the events in Haiti. Perhaps the Inspector from
Scotland Yard would not recognize the signs, but Sherlock Holmes would
immediately focus on the key question: How did they know the
earthquake was going to happen? Even Dr. Watson would know to ask that.

Engdahl's theory is that Pentagon-related seismologists were able to
predict the exact time of a natural earthquake. I don't think so.
Perhaps they can predict a few hours or days in advance, who knows.
But for such an operation advance notice would need to be in terms of
months, not hours or days. HAARP is there, HAARP is battle-ready for
just such an incident, HAARP was expensive to develop, and HAARP is
the most likely explanation. Whether we will be able to dig up
concrete physical evidence that HAARP was sending appropriate signals
at the time is another matter, and the case does not really depend on
that. The case could go to court right now along with a discovery
demand re/ HAARP operations. That is, it could go to court, if this
was a nation in which justice existed, and where every crime couldn't
be covered up by hiding all the evidence behind a claim of 'national
security'.

rkm
___________________________
subscribe mailto:
cyberjournal+subscribe@googlegroups.com

blog for subscribers:
http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/