Monday, March 31, 2014

Apocalypse Pt. 1: The Sounds of Sebelius

apocalypse (n.) Look up apocalypse at
late 14c., "revelation, disclosure," from Church Latin apocalypsis "revelation," from Greek apokalyptein "uncover, disclose, reveal," from apo- "from" (see apo-) + kalyptein "to cover, conceal" ... from The Online Etymology Dictionary

See, this is what I love about the Apocalypse. Everyone and everything gets to reveal herself, himself, or itself -- whether they want to or not. It's finally the time of full disclosure.

In some ways, it's a great time to be here in this realm, in flesh and blood, and waking up. And it's also very, very precarious -- no matter which direction we turn, a "tipping point" confronts us.  Both aspects are covered in this terrific song:


Imagine Dragons – "Radioactive" lyrics

I'm waking up to ash and dust
I wipe my brow and I sweat my rust
I'm breathing in the chemicals
I'm breaking in, shaping up, then checking out on the prison bus
This is it, the apocalypse

I'm waking up, I feel it in my bones
Enough to make my systems blow
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!

I raise my flags, don my clothes
It's a revolution, I suppose
We're painted red to fit right in
I'm breaking in, shaping up, then checking out on the prison bus
This is it, the apocalypse

I'm waking up, I feel it in my bones
Enough to make my systems blow
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!

All systems go, sun hasn't died
Deep in my bones, straight from inside

I'm waking up, I feel it in my bones
Enough to make my systems blow
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Welcome to the new age, to the new age
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!
Whoa, whoa, I'm radioactive, radioactive!

Look Up, Everybody

The reality of stratospheric aerosol spraying first became evident to me above the Whole Foods in Plymouth Meeting, on an (otherwise) clear and sunny afternoon last October. I've been watching the sky carefully ever since, and have occasionally photographed what I've seen.

I won't comment on the nature, source, or purposes of these jet trails.There are lots of websites dedicated to this phenomenon, and I can't say that any one of them is the "best."

Here's a good place to start, if you are someone who is inclined to believe your own eyes and trust your intuition: .

By the way, "(otherwise) clear and sunny" is a persistent theme here with these "persistent contrails," as they are officially known. They seem specially designed to mar the sunniest mornings or afternoons.

Below is the first photo I took, above the Acme in Lansdale on December 8th, using my daughter's iPod. Although it's difficult to see because of the low quality of the image, there is a normal contrail appearing with all of the so-called "persistent contrails." Begin from the center of the image, then move your gaze to the right towards the thick trail going from the upper left to lower right. Very close to the left of that one, you can see, in a gap of blue sky, an ordinary (very short) contrail almost parallel to the thick trail. That is something I've often seen: a jet leaving an ordinary contrail at the same time that others are leaving the aerosol trails.

This one, taken on the morning of December 16, shows the aerosols in different stages of being sprayed or spreading:

Another view from the same day and time, in a different part of the sky, showing a different stage of dispersal. This shows how a clear sky can eventually be converted into a hazy one:

February 20, morning. That's a pretty tight turn for a commercial or private jet in ordinary flight. Nothing to see here; just go about your business, citizen:

Same morning, looking towards the rising sun. Well, well, what have we here? Just ordinary jets on ordinary flight paths:

Same time, looking in a different direction. Is this starting to look like some kind of assault?

Criss-crossing, again on February 20. The left-hooking trail is the same one as the earlier photo:


Looking down Columbia Ave., still February 20. I expected to hear "Ride of the Valkyries" booming from the sky. (Ref. "Apocalypse Now."):

The morning of March 25. The new normal:

March 25, above the pyramid atop Borough Hall. You just can't make this stuff up:

Thanks for viewing/reading. Leave you with the Coppola clip below. Think of it as allegory. The assault consists of jet trails, GMOs, fluoridated water, vaccinations, "gun control," "climate change," HFCS, SSRIs, fracking, and a myriad of other weapons. You and I are the Vietnamese peasants.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

This is your Truman-Show moment

We all know the narrative by now. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, aged 26 and 19, are the bombers of the Boston Marathon.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden-Gloves boxer and could play piano and violin. He was married and had a 3-year-old girl. But he was a devout Muslim, had been arrested for assaulting a girlfriend in 2009, and was once quoted as saying, "I don't have a single American friend." ...

Therefore, he made and detonated a bomb that killed and maimed innocent people, killed an MIT cop, and led police on a wild car chase in a carjacked SUV.

Dzhokhar was well thought-of by his friends, and had been captain of his high school wrestling team. But he was struggling in his studies at UMass, is a Muslim, and followed his older brother's lead...

And so he made and detonated a bomb that killed and maimed innocent people, killed a cop, led police on a wild car chase, and ran over his fatally wounded brother in a carjacked SUV.

And they were both of Chechen ethnicity. That seals the deal. Obviously terrorists.

Watch the three videos below, featuring interviews with the aunt, mother, and father of the boys. See them as people in shock and in denial about the heinous acts committed by their misguided sons.


And then watch the videos again, and put the following possibility in your mind as you watch: these three people do know their own sons/nephews, they are not in denial, and they are correct.

Maybe you don't have to watch the videos more than once. It may take only one viewing, not two.

This may be your Truman-Show moment....

(Their aunt -- there is a longer version of this interview.)

(Their mother)

(Their father)

I couldn't find the full-length interview that I saw yesterday, so here is a link to a page containing what I think is all of it, in two parts:

If you're still not convinced, find the video of an interview with two of Dzhokhar's friends, and ask yourself if this sounds like the description of a homicidal terrorist bomber.

(The button worn by "Silvia" (Natascha McElhone) in "The Truman Show.")


Friday, March 1, 2013

Climate change: Can we find our way home?

This is part 4 and the final essay of the Climate Change series. I recommend starting at the beginning: Confessions of an Unbeliever (part 1 of 2)


Why does it matter what you or I believe about anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? Why does it matter what anyone, or everyone, believes? The previous posts in the Climate Change "trilogy" (in four parts), for which links are provided at the end of this post, implicitly addressed those questions, in so many words. (Perhaps too many words...) In this final post in the series, we'll wrap up by addressing it more frankly.

Universal deceit

Who was it that said that "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."? (Apparently it wasn't George Orwell, but someone coined that expression.) Deceit is pouring from so many corners of officialdom, "authority," and mass media that it's almost impossible to hold your own against the torrent; the temptation is to surrender, to "turn off your mind, relax and float downstream."

Telling the truth, even discovering the truth, is a revolutionary act; it's also exhausting as hell. And there's the opportunity cost: the price of not-doing all of the ordinary things that you want or need to do, but you aren't because your quest to understand and align your thoughts and actions with reality commands too much time and energy.

But, too bad; it's a moral obligation. This is a true instance of "sho ga nai," to use a Japanese expression: it can't be helped. That's just the way it is.

The function of lies

Every one of the lies that are constantly being catapulted into the public mindspace has one or more purposes. They are meant to divide people from one another. They are meant to discourage independent thought and action. Or to appeal to base emotions or drives. They are meant to induce a sense of fear, paranoia, or dread. And to convince us that the "authorities" know what they're doing and have our best interests at heart.

Or they are intended to convince us that our existence is meaningless beyond self-serving consumption and pleasure-seeking. They aim to erase our cultural memory of past wisdom and experiences that could potentially light the way forward.

They serve to weaken our natural inclinations to think for ourselves, and our confidence in our own judgement compared to that of supposed experts.They alienate us from our natural, autonomous selves and turn us towards obedience to illusive "authorities." These law givers and enforcers believe they know best for us -- while the "higher authorities" at the commanding heights of global economics and politics see themselves as the farmers of humanity, and you and I as the livestock.

These deceits conspire to cause us to believe in things that are not true, and conversely to think that things that actually are true cannot possibly be. Cumulatively, they induce us to act against our best interests, and in a way that serves those who already have power but are participating in a generations-long effort to grab all of it.

Who cares?

Why does it matter? Can't everyone believe what they want to about AGW?

Nope. For one, as was covered in "Confessions part 2," "belief" in AGW by default carries some unsavory corollary doctrines. I have almost never heard a believer disavow any of these doctrines. The first is that nuclear energy is needed as a bridge to a "carbon-free" future (a bizarre notion itself). The second is that "geo-engineering" projects are needed to "stop climate change" (another bizarre notion). And the third is a doctrine of denial: weather warfare either does not exist, or if it does, it has no relation to the weather changes or anomalies we have already been experiencing.

Furthermore, belief in anthropogenic global warming inevitably leads to asking for more "authority" over our lives, and more so-called "global governance." There's no way around it. If people kept their beliefs to themselves, and only modified their own actions, it would almost be a non-problem. But they don't. They ask for more rules. They demand that others be forced to change their lives. And the people they ask to institute more rules, to control the lives of everyone, are the least trustworthy people on the planet. It's like sheep begging the wolves to come and lead them to safety.


It's probably long overdue to say that all of our major forms of centralized energy extraction and production have become highly destructive in both sociopolitical and ecological senses. This includes coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. We need to evolve past reliance on these forms, and quickly. But "carbon footprints" are superfluous to the issue. That's a trap that too many of us are willingly strolling into.

Also, it probably shouldn't have to be said, but just in case: Just because I agree with someone's positions regarding "climate change," it doesn't mean that I agree with other positions they take.

Far from home

I said it would "almost" be OK if people believed in AGW, but didn't act on it except to make changes in their own lives. But in reality it's not. This is because belief in falsehoods, no matter how seemingly benign, damage us individually; they stand in the way of an internal coherence or balance that it is otherwise possible to achieve. They can lead us far astray -- further and further from our home...

 And collectively-held false beliefs, if they are large and numerous enough, lead us inexorably toward catastrophe. We are walking right into the arms of the globalists, who hold the ultimate "trump card" against any notions we may have of retaining our individual self-sovereignty. That is, as a fear factor and a means to control populations, nothing beats the "end of humanity" (and polar bears), from which only politicians can rescue us. You'd better let us rule you, or the planet gets it!

As a culture, we are very far from home, and it is anybody's guess as to whether we can find our way back there. I have my own opinion. 

As individuals, however, certainly we can. It is said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The first step is opening a door.

The Truth will out

It may appear from mass media that, except for some mopping-up of resistance from Big Energy-funded politicians and scientists, there is a broad consensus about AGW; the science is "settled" and the politics, nearly so. That's how it's reported anyway. But it ain't over till it's over. Slowly, over time, inexorably, the Truth seeps out. It can't be held back forever. I might even express that as a tenet of Natural Law; i.e., the world works this way: The Truth will out.

Who hears it, and recognizes it as truth, is another matter entirely, of course.

There's plenty of it "out there." Here are some sites where you will find many of the elements of the counter-story to AGW dogma: 
 Real Science    Climate Depot    Climate Debate Daily

Open doors.

Previous posts in the Climate Change trilogy: 

Confessions of an Unbeliever part 1  &  part 2 ; Climate change: Let's call the whole thing off


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Climate Change: Let's call the whole thing off

See Confessions of an Unbelieverpart 1     part 2

This post won't prove anything about climate change. It's not the final word, because there is none. The climate changes, and "Climate Change" also changes. What I am trying to do, for the discerning reader, is provide more context for querying the dominant meme that purports to explain all of this change.

This is part three of the Climate Change trilogy, in which we have been examining the nature of climate change "belief." In the spirit of Douglas Adams, there will be one more post after this, and that will complete the trilogy.

The dominant meme mentioned above has no room for questions such as: How reasonable is it to make confident pronouncements about the weather half a century from now? or, How useful have the IPCC's climate models been in predicting changes in the climate so far? Or even, What are the main scientific objections or weak spots in the AGW meme?

No, the dominant meme is that the globe is inexorably warming, this will lead to disaster, humans are to blame, and only humans can fix it and save the world. To put a finer point on it, only politicians can save us from ourselves.

Anyway, let's strap ourselves into the Time Machine -- actually the Newsweek Machine -- and journey back to an article in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek magazine. I will post some excerpts from this article and comment on them. A link to the full text is at the bottom of this post.


I can vaguely remember that "climate change" was being mentioned during the mid and late 1970s. I don't recall that anyone I knew was particularly exercised over it, but I know that the meme was out there for a while. Then it dropped out of sight, as I recall, until it came storming back as "global warming" about 10 years later. Anyway, on to the article:

[opening sentence] There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.

The disastrous scenario was nearly upon us already, 38 years ago:

The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.

It seems that "the science was settled" even then:

...The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
Does this sound familiar?

[since 1950]...the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.
Before there were modern computer models of climate, the IPCC, or Al Gore, the trend was still clear:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the earth's weather.

OK, here's the punchline, the "inconvenient truth" of its day. Wait for it:

[emphasis added] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century

So there you have it: "almost unanimous." Here's the doomsday warning: 

If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
Among the weather-related trends mentioned in the rest of the article are a half-degree drop in average ground temperature in the Northern Hemisphere from 1945-68, a sudden large increase in snow cover during the 1971-2 winter, and a 1.3 percent decrease in the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the U.S. from 1964 to 1972. It cites University of Wisconsin meteorologist Reid Brackin that the temperature decline had "taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average."

Although the phrase "fight climate change" had not yet entered the lexicon, the article closes in doubt as to whether politicians will be equal to the task of addressing the situation:

[emphasis added] ...Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create far greater problems than they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take simple measures of stockpiling food... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.


If we were humble in drawing conclusions about a phenomenon so complex as global climate, we would move very carefully and look askance at simplistic diagnoses and fantastic "cures."  The idea of "fighting" climate change or "stopping" climate change, which are the rallying cries of the AGW movement, take hubris to a new level. I read a recent interview with the article's author, Peter Gwynne, in which he expressed regret that "the deniers of global warming were using my Newsweek piece to support their position." He said that "It was at the time an accurate representation of what was going on in the field. It was an accurate representation of what climatologists believed, and what was actually happening,” but that the scientific understanding is much better now, and " didn’t portend all the impending disaster the way global warming now does."

The reasons why the global warming prophecy, which, like the Bible's book of Revelation "portends impending disaster," has gained such a large following with the public is what this series has been about. How did "belief" in anthropogenic global warming gain such prominence in the collective mind?

By the way, on Wikipedia I found this 2007 quote from the late Reid Bryson, who was quoted in the Newsweek article, and who was Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin and a UN "Global Laureate":

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

You say warming, I say cooling. Either, neither, who knows? Let's call this whole campaign off. There is important work to do. We'll wrap up with that in the fourth and final installment of the trilogy.

(Final installment: Climate Change: Can we find our way home? )

"The Cooling World" --  Newsweek, April 28, 1975