 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
136
–
The Contact by Royal Atlantis Film GmbH, Munich, Germany, Tel. 089-850 5494.
There is
also an interview with Thomas E. Bearden).
WEATHER WARFARE is another subject most people don’t know about. Before we look at
it though, let us deal with the weather in general.
We assume that the main problem causing today’s weather anomalies is the fact that the
Earth gradually cools while the doubling up to now of the CO2 content of the atmosphere
causes a warming up (greenhouse effect). An article in the Neue Solidaritat (New Solidarity)
of February 24, 1993 adds:
“Recently one could read in the well-known magazine Nature that there is a vast
discrepancy between the ‘ climatic breakdown’ predicted by the most expensive mainframe
computers and reality.
In the January 28 issue we published an article by Jonathan D. Kahl
titled ‘ The Absence of Any Signs of Greenhouse Warming over the Arctic Ocean over the
Last Forty Years’.”
The beginning of the article shows already what this is all about:
It states that the general circulation model of the atmosphere predicted an increased
greenhouse warming in higher latitudes.
They published temperature measurements in the
lower troposphere over the Arctic Ocean made between 1950 and 1990.
They had
analyzed more that 27,000 temperature profiles. Most trends were statistically not
significant. In particular they had not noticed any large-scale warming of the surface as
predicted in the (climatic) models; indeed they discovered a marked cooling for the seasons
of autumn and winter over the western Arctic Ocean.
This discrepancy suggests that
today’s climatic models do not correctly represent the physical processes that influence the
polar regions.
Moira Timms writes in The Six O’Clock Bus (Turnstone Books, London 1979) that
observatories at the polar circle report that during the last thirty years the temperature had
fallen by about 6 degrees C.
The Neue Solidaritat goes on:
“It would be hasty now to conclude that the greenhouse models were proved wrong, and this
for a very simple reason: The greenhouse models cannot be disproved by any
measurements or any other scientific facts.
They are irrefutable because they have nothing
to do with scientific statements. Climatic models are sociological manipulative instruments
that allow to construct from a sufficient number of external parameters and arbitrary
observation data disaster scenarios with a maximum political ‘ potential for being put
through’. Therefore we predict that the very data from Kahl’s study – which today
apparently contradict the climatic models – will in just a few weeks belong among the best
confirmations for the greenhouse theory. The flexibility of those models should not be
underestimated.”
A subject that never appears in the media is that of a possible new ice age. After studying
rock and soil samples over decades many reputable meteorologists and geologists have
come to the conclusion that during the next fifty years an ice age should establish itself.
According to their views an ice age is independent of the greenhouse effect caused by the
pollution of the atmosphere. In only a few decades the cooling would equal the warming
presently occurring.
It is even more worrisome when we consider that only 1% less sunlight could cause the next
ice age.
The reduction of irradiation through environmental pollution is less disturbing than
the fact that a gigantic volcanic eruption could diminish sunlight considerably. Clouds of fine
ashes from such an eruption can stay in the stratosphere for years and lower the
temperatures on the surface by several degrees. Very little of this ever appears in the
media. You should not believe everything appearing in the media about environmental
pollution. It is advisable to also lend an ear to the other side.
