Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #272 ” . . .They Shall Reap the Whirlwind”

MP3 One Seg­ment
NB: This RealAu­dio stream con­tains FTRs 271 and 272 in sequence. Each is a 30-minute broad­cast.

Record­ed on 1/26/2001
Intro­duc­tion: Dur­ing Jim­my Carter’s admin­is­tra­tion, a treaty was rat­i­fied by the U.S. and for­mer U.S.S.R. ban­ning the manip­u­la­tion of envi­ron­men­tal dis­as­ters for mil­i­tary pur­pos­es. Cov­er­ing earth­quakes, tsunamis, tor­na­does and oth­er weath­er events, the agree­ment was real­ized in order to pre­vent the devel­op­ment and use of a tru­ly insid­i­ous gen­er­a­tion of WMD’s. In inter­views with Dr. Nick Begich, co-author (with Jeanne Man­ning) of Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, we ana­lyzed Project HAARP, the patents for which specif­i­cal­ly refer to appli­ca­tions alter­ing the weath­er for mil­i­tary pur­pos­es.

In this pro­gram, we exam­ine the pos­si­bil­i­ty of anoth­er appli­ca­tion of weath­er mod­i­fi­ca­tion tech­nol­o­gy with poten­tial mil­i­tary appli­ca­tions. A project fund­ed by the Euro­pean Space Agency and par­ent­ed by a “Ben” East­lund uti­lizes micow­ave beam tech­nol­o­gy to neu­tral­ize tor­na­does. (The descrip­tion of East­lund as a for­mer Star Wars sci­en­tist sug­gest strong­ly that he is the Bernard East­lund who devel­oped HAARP, which also has poten­tial mis­sile defense appli­ca­tions.) In addi­tion to the fact that tor­na­does are a very rare occur­rence in Europe, they had pre­vi­ous­ly been known to kill an aver­age of 100 Amer­i­cans a year–a rel­a­tive­ly low casu­al­ty rate that has moved crit­ics to sug­gest that it would­n’t be worth the expense of devel­op­ment.

One won­ders why this project would have been of inter­est to the Euro­pean Space Agency or Euro­peans in gen­er­al.

Feared to car­ry the poten­tial to make tor­na­does worse, the tech­nol­o­gy might very well have poten­tial mil­i­tary appli­ca­tions.

In the wake of a dev­as­tat­ing tor­na­do sea­son in the Unit­ed States, it might be worth­while to inquire as to whether such tech­nol­o­gy may in fact have been devel­oped and uti­lized. Note that, in addi­tion to the ini­tial dev­as­ta­tion and loss of life inflict­ed by these dev­as­tat­ing storms, the fed­er­al funds for aid and recon­struc­tion place fur­ther strain on the U.S. bud­get at a time when the nation­al debt and deficits are at the fore­fron of polit­i­cal debate in the Unit­ed States and else­where.

An ene­my of the U.S. could inflict both loss of life, prop­er­ty dam­age and fis­cal destruc­tion on the Unit­ed States through the appli­ca­tion of such tech­nol­o­gy.

(Note that it is more than thir­ty years since the envi­ron­men­tal treaty was con­clud­ed. Just con­sid­er the advance­ment of mil­i­tary tech­nol­o­gy in the thir­ty year peri­od from 1918–the end of World War I–and 1948, when the atom­ic bomb, jet bombers designed to deliv­er that weapon and long range bal­is­tic mis­siles were devel­oped and/or in and advanced state of R & D. It would be unwise to assume that sim­i­lar advance­ments in mil­i­tary tech­nol­o­gy have not tak­en place in the last thir­ty years.)

It is also impor­tant to remem­ber that earth­quakes, tor­na­does, tsunamis and sim­i­lar cat­a­stro­phes are nat­ur­al phe­nom­e­na that have always exist­ed. Cli­mate change experts are of the belief that the destruc­tive effects of glob­al warm­ing are already being man­i­fest­ed, sug­gest­ing that the severe tor­na­do sea­son may result (in part at least) from CO2 lev­els in the atmos­phere. When an envi­ron­men­tal cat­a­stro­phe does occur, it would be fool­ish to fall into the trap of auto­mat­i­cal­ly con­clud­ing that “Oh my God! It must the Project HAARP! [Con­trolled by “The Illu­mi­nati”, no doubt.]

Such think­ing and action exhibits “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry at its worst,” and plays in to the hand of cyn­i­cal crit­ics, in addi­tion to obscur­ing real, sub­stan­tive inquiries into the pos­si­ble mil­i­tary appli­ca­tion of envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tion tech­nolo­gies.

1. Past broad­casts have explored the use of envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tion for mil­i­tary pur­pos­es. Those pro­grams are the foun­da­tion for this broad­cast. The title is a Bib­li­cal ref­er­ence (Hosea, 8:7), and refers to those who “. . . sow the wind” as being doomed to “. . .reap the whirl­wind.”

2. Ben East­lund, described as “a for­mer Star Wars defense pro­gram sci­en­tist,” has pro­posed using an orbital, space-based microwave beam to neu­tral­ize tor­na­does. (“Could Tor­na­does Be Pre­vent­ed?” by Jer­ry Bowen; CBS News Online; 1/16/2001, www.cbsnews.com/now/story.)

3. East­lund appears to be the “Bernard” East­lund who devel­oped the HAARP sys­tem, described in the broad­casts enu­mer­at­ed above. The alter­ation of the weath­er for mil­i­tary pur­pos­es, and the destruc­tion of incom­ing ene­my mis­siles are among the stat­ed appli­ca­tions of the HAARP sys­tem patents. (The destruc­tion of ene­my mis­siles would, obvi­ous­ly, be a “Star Wars” appli­ca­tion.)

4. Crit­ics of East­lund’s pro­pos­al believe that his “tor­na­do pre­ven­tion” sys­tem could, in prac­tice, make tor­na­does worse and/or kill birds or knock down air­planes. (Idem.)

5. Mr. Emory dis­cuss­es the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the same tech­nol­o­gy could be used to cause tor­na­does. In that con­text, it should be not­ed that East­lund’s research has been fund­ed by the Euro­pean Space Agency. (Idem.)

6. It should be not­ed that Europe rarely has tor­na­does and only 100 Amer­i­cans a year are killed by these storms. (One won­ders why the Euro­pean Space Agency would fund such research.) The pro­posed tor­na­do tar­get­ing sys­tem would require “pre­ci­sion tar­get­ing” sys­tems. (Idem.)

7. Next, the pro­gram exam­ines the pro­posed sale of a key Sil­i­con Val­ley firm to a Dutch hold­ing com­pa­ny, ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy. (“Spy Tech: The U.S. Edge” by Alan Tonel­son; San Jose Mer­cury News; 1/9/2001; p. B7.)

8. Sil­i­con Val­ley Group Inc. has Tins­ley Lab­o­ra­to­ries as a sub­sidiary. (Idem.)

9. The lat­ter “has been the sole man­u­fac­tur­er of many of the state-of-the-art mir­rors and lens­es in the high-pow­ered cam­eras car­ried by Amer­i­ca’s spy satel­lites-sys­tems that the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion has called ‘among the most valu­able nation­al secu­ri­ty assets.’ ” (Idem.)

10. Mr. Tonel­son wor­ried “that ASM’s far-flung glob­al oper­a­tions and cor­po­rate alliances with com­pa­nies like Ger­many’s Carl Zeiss and Schott Glass could make it more dif­fi­cult to keep SVG/Tinsley’s advanced optics and lith­o­g­ra­phy capa­bil­i­ties from migrat­ing to unfriend­ly coun­tries.” (Idem.)

11. By way of empha­siz­ing the his­to­ry of the firms to which ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy is con­nect­ed, the pro­gram illus­trates that the Zeiss firm was among the char­ter firms pro­posed by SS Gen­er­al Scheid as a par­tic­i­pa­to­ry ele­ment in the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal pro­gram. (Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Man­ning; copy­right 1981; Lyle Stu­art [hard­cov­er]; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; p. 25.)

12. When con­sid­er­ing Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that they are con­trolled by the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion. This insti­tu­tion has per­pet­u­at­ed its pow­er in an effec­tive, clan­des­tine, and dead­ly, Mafia-like fash­ion in the years since World War II. Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions are dri­ven by the prof­it motive, and coor­di­nate poli­cies on labor, envi­ron­men­tal, mar­ket­ing and tax­a­tion issues–they are oth­er­wise rel­a­tive­ly apo­lit­i­cal. In con­trast, Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions (under con­trol of the Bor­mann group) func­tion as coor­di­nat­ed ele­ments of inter­na­tion­al eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal con­trol, not unlike the divi­sions in an army. Although they, too, strive to make mon­ey, prof­it is sub­or­di­nate to the goal of nation­al hege­mo­ny.

13. The Schott firm also has a his­to­ry of work­ing against Amer­i­can inter­ests. The pro­gram excerpts Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Shows M‑11 (orig­i­nal­ly record­ed on 5/23/80.) Dis­cussing the car­tel arrange­ments which per­mit­ted Ger­many to restrict the pro­duc­tion of strate­gic mate­ri­als in oth­er coun­tries, M‑11underscores the role of the Schott firm in such arrange­ments. (All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; copy­right 1950 [hard­cov­er]; Lit­tle, Brown & Com­pa­ny.)

14. Because of its role in arm­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein, the Schott firm was also among the defen­dants in a class action law­suit brought by vet­er­ans of the Per­sian Gulf War. (See also: FTR-87.) (The role of the Bor­mann group in arm­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein is dis­cussed in FTR#155.)

15. Next, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that ASM has Intel as its largest cus­tomer. (“ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy Will Wait to Acquire Sil­i­con Val­ley Group” by Glenn R. Simp­son; Wall Street Jour­nal; 1/9/2001; p. B7.)

16. The com­pa­ny will wait for approval from the U.S. gov­ern­ment before com­plet­ing the sale, hav­ing delayed the trans­ac­tion until after George W. Bush takes office. (Idem.) It remains to be seen whether the Bush admin­is­tra­tion will approve the sale.

17. In the dis­cus­sion of ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy, the broad­cast high­lights the fact that the com­pa­ny’s full name is “ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy Hold­ing.” (Idem.)

18. Mr. Emory notes that hold­ing com­pa­nies have been one of the finan­cial cloak­ing vehi­cles through which the afore­men­tioned Bor­mann group has hid­den its own­er­ship of key com­pa­nies around the world. (Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Man­ning; pp. 134–5.)

19. Sil­i­con Val­ley Group has an inter­est­ing his­to­ry as well. One of its founders, Carl Sto­ry, has become a key finan­cial backer of the Aryan Nations. (“Com­put­er Mil­lion­aires Fund Hate: Carl Sto­ry, Vin­cent Bertolli­ni and 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger”; pp. 1–2; accessed from the ADL’s web site at www.adl.org/tycoons.)

20. It should be not­ed that SVG has dis­avowed Sto­ry’s beliefs. (Ibid.; pp. 4–5.)

21. One of the off-shoots of the Aryan Nations was the Nazi ter­ror­ist group the Order.

22. The broad­cast points out that the group received fund­ing from “Ger­man fam­i­lies liv­ing in South Amer­i­ca.” (Unholy Alliance; by Peter Lev­en­da; copy­right 1995 [soft­cov­er]; Avon Books; p. 338.) Those “fam­i­lies” were, in all like­li­hood, the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion.

23. The broad­cast asks (and jux­ta­pos­es) sev­er­al piv­otal ques­tions. First, is ASM a Bor­mann com­pa­ny? Is (or was) SVG a Bor­mann com­pa­ny? Is the Bush admin­is­tra­tion (as seems prob­a­ble) con­nect­ed to the Bor­mann group? Could East­lund’s tor­na­do tech­nol­o­gy be mar­ried to the opti­cal espi­onage tech­nol­o­gy of Tins­ley lab­o­ra­to­ries to cre­ate weath­er weapons that could be used against the Unit­ed States?

24. In that con­text, it is impor­tant to con­sid­er what the Nazi phi­los­o­phy espoused by Sto­ry pre­dicts. His pub­li­ca­tion, The 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger fore­casts the destruc­tion of the Unit­ed States as pun­ish­ment for its racial and reli­gious “heresy.” (“Com­put­er Mil­lion­aires Fund Hate: Carl Sto­ry, Vin­cent Bertolli­ni and 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger;” p. 6.)

25. The pos­si­bil­i­ty that such an “Armaged­don” could be man­u­fac­tured using the East­lund tech­nol­o­gy, guid­ed by Tins­ley equip­ment, is one to be con­sid­ered. The pos­si­bil­i­ty of the mar­riage of tech­nol­o­gy, fas­cism and reli­gion to cre­ate a world-wide fas­cist theoc­ra­cy is explored at length in L#2.)


14 comments for “FTR #272 ” . . .They Shall Reap the Whirlwind””

  1. “Cli­mate change experts” — inter­est­ing con­cept. Despite the author’s hor­ror of “con­spir­a­cy think­ing at its worst,” the truth is that “cli­mate change” (for­mer­ly known as “dis­rup­tive cli­mate change,” “glob­al warm­ing,” and pri­or to that “glob­al cool­ing”) is most prob­a­bly the work of a con­spir­a­cy. I refer you to the excel­lent cli­mate site http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly based dis­cus­sion of cli­mate sci­ence, its uses and abus­es.

    “Cli­mate change” is almost cer­tain­ly a pro­pa­gan­da smoke­screen for weath­er mod­i­fi­ca­tion projects being car­ried out by numer­ous gov­ern­ments, though to what end is unclear. If the hoax results in big trad­ing prof­its for the invest­ment bank­ing bunch and tax rev­enues for founder­ing poli­ties, so much the bet­ter.

    Posted by SnowballsChance | June 1, 2011, 4:20 am
  2. My mind is not set entire­ly on this but I would tend to agree with Snow­ballschance. Every time I hear about glob­al warm­ing, I can’t help but to feel some­thing is bogus. But don’t get we wrong. I am not some­what of a Koch broth­ers type to deny glob­al warm­ing because it hurts my invest­ments in oil. I have none any­way. My point is, I don’t buy the expla­na­tion that we are sold. Are humans, just by CO2 and CO, capa­ble of chang­ing the weath­er of a whole plan­et? It seems a lit­tle extreme.

    Is this a coin­ci­dence if glob­al warm­ing has been “dec­o­rat­ed” with car­bon cred­its, which will soon become an impor­tant part of the econ­o­my? Who is ben­e­fit­ing from glob­al warm­ing? I agree that HAARP is not respon­si­ble for every tor­na­do, earth­quake, flood, etc. But it is con­ceiv­able that some­times, it is. And is it con­ceiv­able that glob­al warm­ing is a con­ve­nient hoax, scam, front to cov­er for the fact that nations ARE con­duct­ing war­fare through weath­er mod­i­fi­ca­tions and elec­tro-mag­net­ic waves?

    Of course HAARP has a large num­ber of appli­ca­tions and the mil­i­tary ones are impor­tant. But because we are not spe­cial­ists in arms and WMD, changes in weath­er pat­terns are eas­i­er to notice.

    Have a great day.

    Posted by Claude | June 1, 2011, 9:42 pm
  3. @Snowballschance:
    I guess you haven’t seen who’s been fund­ing the cli­mate change denial pro­pa­gan­da, then.

    Here, take a look at these arti­cles, and try to tell me there isn’t some sort of pro-denial con­spir­a­cy:







    And there’s also a user on Above­TopSe­cret by the name of ‘TheSword’ who’s done his own research.

    I used to be a big-time AGW skep­tic myself, until I start­ed find­ing this out. It also has become more and more appar­ent that these same forces pro­mot­ing cli­mate denial have also been try­ing to repress clean ener­gy; solar & hemp in par­tic­u­lar.


    It is also becom­ing more & more appar­ent that ‘weath­er control’{Unfortunately, most of the weath­er con­trol the­o­ries are pret­ty much bull­shit, par­tic­u­lar­ly the direct stuff, involv­ing the steer­ing of hur­ri­canes, manip­u­lat­ing of Gulf mois­ture, and direct­ly cre­at­ing and manip­u­lat­ing tor­na­does, etc., although a few indi­rect forms, like what cloud seed­ing does, cer­tain­ly do seem to be plau­si­ble, how­ev­er......} is also being used as a last-minute des­per­ate effort to dis­cred­it legit cli­mate change research.

    Posted by Steven | June 2, 2011, 1:35 am
  4. Also, as for weath­er manip­u­la­tion, it should be point­ed out that East­lund & com­pa­ny did try to research the pos­si­bil­i­ty of halt­ing tor­na­do for­ma­tion using microwave pow­er, which could actu­al­ly make things worse under the right con­di­tions, as seen here{I don’t think it’d fall out­side the ‘indi­rect’ cat­e­go­ry, though. When I say direct, I mean tru­ly hands on stuff, instead of just putting the ener­gy some­where and let nature take care of the rest}.

    And if the crit­ics are correct{I would high­ly sus­pect they are.}, then why haven’t we seen hard­ly any plane crash­es right after major severe weath­er events? Some­thing to think about, IMHO, espe­cial­ly if anoth­er out­break occurs and we DO see a sud­den rash of plane acci­dents, either just before, dur­ing, or after said event.

    Posted by Steven | June 2, 2011, 1:41 am
  5. I will go fur­ther with my thoughts. What if, for exam­ple, glob­al warm­ing was a nat­ur­al phe­nom­e­non? We know that, in the his­to­ry of the Earth, there were ice ages and much warmer peri­ods. What if the “solar year” is respon­si­ble for changes in tem­per­a­tures? The pre­ces­sion of the Earth­’s axis takes 26 000 years to com­plete. The axis takes that time to meet again a fixed point in space from where it depart­ed. It is not far­fetched to think that the Earth is expe­ri­enc­ing “sea­sons” that last for mil­lenia.

    Is pol­lu­tion aug­ment­ing this phe­nom­e­non? Pos­si­bly. I might be wrong but I think that what we are wit­ness­ing is a com­bi­na­tion of this nat­ur­al phe­nom­e­non with weath­er mod­i­fi­ca­tions induced by elec­tro-mag­net­ic waves, for var­i­ous pur­pos­es. The the­o­ry of glob­al warm­ing is con­ve­nient because the peo­ple have to believe what is said at face val­ue, leave their crit­i­cal think­ing at the door...and car­bon cred­its will be good for busi­ness.

    Ques­tion: do sci­en­tists have the data about tem­per­a­tures going back to Antiq­ui­ty? I don’t think so. They prob­a­bly have only a few decades and that’s not enough to draw con­clu­sions on the effect of pol­lu­tion. The Earth exist since mil­lions of years.

    Your thoughts? It’s a team work. Togeth­er, we have a chance to get clos­er to the truth.

    Posted by Claude | June 2, 2011, 10:31 pm
  6. @Steven:

    But BOTH sides are fund­ed. The AGW cause is advanced by Wall Street, opposed by Big Oil. So what else is new? In a mature cap­i­tal­ist econ­o­my, the big boys play for big stakes, and the truth be damned.

    Fund­ing may — or may not — influ­ence the “sci­ence.” Not all sci­en­tists are cor­rupt­ible. By the same token, not all are pure as the El Nino-dri­ven snow, either.
    If I were a sci­en­tist with a strong opin­ion on AGW, pro or con, and was offered fund­ing to advance my point of view, I’d take it; that does­n’t make me cor­rupt. If I then fudge the data to hide incon­ve­nient truths, such as the Medieval Warm­ing Peri­od, that makes me cor­rupt.

    So we are left, as always, to trust our own judg­ment. In mine, AGW is high­ly unlike­ly. Con­sid­er: there’s no con­sis­tent link­age between CO2 lev­els and temp (CO2 lev­els have been many mul­ti­ples high­er than at present yet temps were only slight­ly high­er than now; con­verse­ly, temps have been much high­er than at present yet CO2 was not ele­vat­ed). Con­sid­er: one vol­canic erup­tion can influ­ence weath­er glob­al­ly for years; yet the cumu­la­tive effect of human emis­sions remains debat­able: This tells me, human­i­ty’s effect on weath­er must be much less than the vol­cano’s. Yet bio­log­i­cal process­es and the plan­et con­tin­ue to thrive despite vol­ca­noes and oth­er nat­ur­al sources of green­house gas­es. (If any­thing, the future looks cold­er, not warmer; we’re liv­ing at the end of an inter­glacial peri­od.)

    As for the geo-engi­neer­ing capa­bil­i­ties of HAARP, con­sid­er the math:


    Posted by Snowballschance | June 3, 2011, 4:40 am
  7. @Claude: The prob­lem is, is that cer­tain types of weath­er con­trol the­o­ries are being used to try to dis­cred­it legit­i­mate cli­mate change research.

    I’m sor­ry, but as I said ear­li­er, direct weath­er con­trol, such as tor­na­do cau­sa­tion, steer­ing hur­ri­canes, etc. is still absolute­ly inconceivable{probably always will be, too}, and like it or not, there’s too much evi­dence in favor of human influ­ence of cli­mate change NOT for it to be fea­si­ble, and too lit­tle evi­dence for direct weath­er con­trol for it to even be remote­ly plausible{and no, East­lund’s microwave research does­n’t count as direct, either}.

    We real­ly do need to look at who ben­e­fits from cli­mate denial and direct weath­er con­trol bullshit{again, not refer­ring to indi­rect manip­u­la­tion like East­lund’s microwave research, which isn’t actu­al­ly so far-fetched}. And guess what? We find names like Koch, Exxon, B.P., etc.

    We also find that this also ben­e­fits those who would want to give a bad rep­u­ta­tion to actu­al hon­est researchers out there{even some who may have bought into some of the B.S.}.

    In any case, guess who gets screwed over, Claude? WE DO.

    Posted by Steven | June 3, 2011, 7:04 am
  8. Def­i­nite­ly Dave, you have opened a Pan­do­ra’s box with that post. This dis­cus­sion is mem­o­rable.

    Thank you Snow­ballschance, for pro­vid­ing that paper. It is so rare to have a sci­en­tif­ic doc­u­ment with which we can form an edu­cat­ed opin­ion on hard sci­ence mat­ters, such as elec­tro-mag­net­ic and oth­er types of waves occur­ing in our envi­ron­ment. I will post it on my blog, this is too excel­lent.

    I agree that we have to be care­ful not to fall into the con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry boo­by trap, but we have to avoid the oppo­site mis­take, i.e. dis­miss­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of any arti­fi­cial weath­er phe­nom­e­na.

    In the end, I think that if we put togeth­er all the good points that we have cov­ered here, we have made quite a good job.

    Thanks to all of you and thanks to you Dave for bring­ing out Pan­do­ra’s HAARP.

    Posted by Claude | June 3, 2011, 8:50 pm
  9. [...] is a sci­en­tif­ic paper that came up dur­ing a dis­cus­sion about HAARP on the SpitfireList.com web­site. We were talk­ing about the lev­el of cred­i­bil­i­ty that we should give to the hypoth­e­sis that [...]

    Posted by Scientific paper on HAARP and ELF electromagnetic radiation | lys-dor.com | June 4, 2011, 7:46 pm
  10. @Claude: ”
    I agree that we have to be care ful not to fall into the con spir acy the ory boo­by trap, but we have to avoid the oppo site mis take, i.e. dis miss ing the pos si bil ity of any arti fi cial weath­er phe­nom­e­na.”

    True, but we should also avoid falling into the trap of try­ing to find some­thing which sim­ply isn’t pos­si­ble, because as I’ve said, cer­tain things are being used to dis­cred­it real research.

    And, Claude, if you’d like proof that man-made influ­ences on cli­mate change are indeed real, then you’re in for a treat: A guy by the name of Peter Sin­clair’s been doing some fan­tas­tic research on the sub­ject for more than 30 years now. And here’s his YouTube chan­nel:

    Nobody has ever said that nature was pow­er­less, or that cli­mate does­n’t change nat­u­ral­ly. It does. But the evi­dence that human activ­i­ties have not only influ­enced cli­mate change in the past cen­tu­ry or so, but have even start­ed to cause some sig­nif­i­cant dam­age, is prac­ti­cal­ly all but infi­nite at this point in time{after all, it’s not just air pol­lu­tion; is it Nature who has been cut­ting down trop­i­cal rain­forests? What the deniers won’t tell you is that that is a major part of our prob­lem}.

    And yet, we find that the oil indus­try & cer­tain oth­er spe­cial inter­ests are hard at work fund­ing cli­mate deniers to put out false and mis­lead­ing B.S. And guess who else ben­e­fits, btw? None oth­er than the Islam­ic fas­cists who’s prof­its and pow­er almost exclu­sive­ly derive from oil, as well as the West­ern oil barons!

    C’mon, you two. We’re sup­posed to be more knowl­edge­able than the Alex Jones crowd, but we can’t see thru the B.S.{including the crooks who invent­ed the ‘Cli­mate­gate’ so-called ‘scan­dal’} just yet?

    I used to be a CC denier, before learn­ing about the Koch Bros. and all the oth­er peo­ple behind the so-called ‘cli­mate skep­ti­cism’ move­ment.

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 12:45 pm
  11. Here, I’ll even put up a few videos of Sin­clair’s for you guys:

    The “Temp Leads Car­bon” Crock: Updat­ed


    What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Dis­tort it:

    He also went after the glob­al­ist flunky{and a pos­si­ble clos­et­ed fas­cist, as I’ve sus­pect­ed for some time}Lord Mon­ck­ton.


    “It’s so Cold, there can’t be Glob­al Warm­ing!”

    “In the 70s, They said there’d be an Ice Age”

    Birth of a Cli­mate Crock:

    And here’s a good one-US Navy Chief Oceanog­ra­ph­er: I Was For­mer­ly a Cli­mate Skep­tic:

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 1:06 pm
  12. And Snow­ball, if there is an ice age.........well, let’s just say that if HAARP tru­ly can cause indi­rect weath­er manip­u­la­tion, and I’m increas­ing­ly tempt­ed to believe so, then that’ll be what caus­es such an occur­rence, with­out a doubt, because the Under­ground Reich & the fel­low elites might get des­per­ate enough to try that at one point; the deniers are being slow­ly but sure­ly debunked every week, month, and year that pass­es by. And to the Under­ground Reich, that spells DISASTER.

    And final­ly, yes, both sides have been cor­rupt­ed, and sad­ly, the pol­i­tics on the AGW side are com­plete B.S. as well. But at least the hon­est pro-AGW people{such as Mr. Sin­clair here} do have plen­ty of qual­i­ty research to back up their claims. The hon­est skep­tics & the pro­fes­sion­al deniers? Not so much, even in the case of the for­mer group.

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 1:13 pm
  13. And of course, what’s even more inter­est­ing is that one of the pri­ma­ry CC denial push­ers, the ‘Heart­land Insti­tute’, also seems to have had a his­to­ry of defend­ing the tobac­co indus­try.


    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 2:06 pm
  14. Hel­lo my friends,

    I was lis­ten­ing again to the broad­cast and I could­n’t help to remem­ber a small detail that is on my mind for some time. If you think I am a con­spir­a­cy cook, don’t hes­i­tate to say so. For myself, I would pre­fer that this lead of inves­ti­ga­tion is bull­shit: I don’t like the per­spec­tives it opens. How­ev­er, I have restrained myself to share this thought but now, most­ly con­sid­er­ing the 11th Hour the­ol­o­gy of Sto­ry and Bertolli­ni, I think it is rel­e­vant.

    I am a great admir­er of pro­fes­sor Begich. I think he is just amaz­ing. He has a web­site called “Earth Pulse” ded­i­cat­ed to HAARP and elec­tro­mag­net­ic tech­nol­o­gy. Up to that, no prob­lem. But when I was brows­ing on the site, I saw the con­tact infor­ma­tion...

    The last four dig­its of the phone num­ber is...9111! Like in 9/11/01. Don’t you find it strange? Con­sid­er­ing Sto­ry and Bertollini’s the­ol­o­gy and the rest of the con­nec­tions any­way, is it far­fetched to envi­sion that elec­tro­mag­net­ic weapons could have been used to redi­rect the planes on 9/11 to hit the twin tow­ers? Is it rea­son­able to think that the “hijack­ers” could only have been acces­so­ry?

    If you think it is “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry at its worst”, please tell me, I will accept your call. And Dave, if you think it is pure non-sense, just don’t pub­lish it. I won’t mind.

    Have a great day bril­liant ones.

    Posted by Claude | June 8, 2011, 10:59 am

Post a comment