weather warning

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Not Global Warming

From: joel carlinsky <joelcarlinsky@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:04:48 -0800 (PST)
To: bigraccoon@earthlink.net
Subject: Not Global Warming

(1) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.
(2) The rate of rise is comparable to the amount of CO2 man is putting
into the atmosphere
(3) CO2 blocks infrared light, hence changing the energy balance
(4) The mean surface temperature of the Earth is rising

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be rising because plants would remove any excess from the air. If the level of CO2 was rising, there would be an increase in plant biomass because of extra CO2 availability. Since there has been no increase in plant growth, there has been no increase in CO2.

But even if there was an increase in CO2 in the air, that would not affect the temperature of the earth noticeably. Water vapor is far more important as a greenhouse gas, and the albedo of the earth is much more important in affecting the surface temperature than greenhouse gases. The possible contribution of CO2 is negligible.

The mean surface temperature of the earth is not rising. The polar and temperate regions are warming up due to the use of nuclear power.

The melting of the poles and the warming of the temperate zones is giving the false impression that the whole earth is getting warmer because the poles are the most conspicuous place to notice warming and the temperate zones happen to be where most of the human scientists live.

The spurious greenhouse gas theory was invented by Arhenius in the late 19th century, true, but it was Carl Sagan who revived it in recent times as a political plot to undermine enthusiasm for nuclear war. If not for his publicizing it, the idea would have remained forgotten.

The term "global warming" is misleading. It conceals the vast scope of the atmospheric breakdown and trivializes it. It opens the way to bogus arguments such as if the same thing has happened before in the history of this planet, or if a slight rise in temperature would really do any harm.

Let us be clear about what we are talking about. A slight rise in temperature would not be a bad thing if it ever did happen. In many past ages the earth has been quite a bit warmer than it is now and no harm resulted. On the contrary, the biosphere florished in the warmer temperatures.

If I thought the earth was getting warmer as a result of greenhouse gases, I would celebrate. It would be a wonderfull thing to have happen.

The earth is not getting warmer. The atmosphere is undergoing a catastrophic destabilization. All life on earth is in grave danger from the increasing randomness and chaotic instability of the atmosphere. It is getting hotter and colder. It is getting wetter and dryer. There are more frequent and stronger storms. There are long periods of stagnation, durring which there are no storms.

Life can adapt to a change in climate. It can even adapt to a drastic change in climate. But nothing can adapt to randomness and chaos.

If the greenhouse theory of the atmosphere were correct, more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would indeed make the earth warmer. And if the greenhouse theory of the atmosphere were correct, a warmer atmosphere would indeed produce more frequent and stronger storms. But it would not also produce longer and drier droughts that would cover larger areas than before. Droughts are a symptom of stagnation in the atmosphere. A drought would not last as long if the atmosphere was moving more rapidly from increased heating.

The greenhouse theory is not correct. Droughts are not caused by warmer air masses. Storms are more frequent and stronger, but that is not because of warmer air either. The temperature at the poles is rising because the poles are getting more charged from the reaction going on there as radioactive gases released all over the world concentrate at the poles, attracting tropical storm tracks.

There is no such thing as global warming, but there are plenty of phenomena that are being mistakenly taken for it.

It is ironic that nuclear power is being promoted as a solution to a non-existant problem,while it is the actual cause of a very real problem whose symptoms are being misinterpeted as those of the false problem. Despite the fact that almost all environmentalists are solidly opposed to nuclear power and insist that it should not be seen as a solution to the so-called global warming problem, the nuclear industry has been the main beneficiary of the global warming scare.

If a significant number of new nuclear plants are built under the guise of preventing global warming, they will probably be enough to tip the balance against the possibility of survival of life on this planet.

But there is also a further reason to oppose the global warming hoax. Some people, ignorant of how the atmosphere functions, have proposed absurd and fantastic geo-engineering stunts like dumping large amounts of iron dust into the oceans to stimulate plankton growth to increase absorbtion of CO2, or dumping various substances into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth, or placing huge mirrors in orbit to shield the earth from sunlight, or other similiar schemes.

So, at the very time the planetary ecosystem is under unprecedented assualt, it is also likely to be attacked by fools trying to "solve" a fake global warming problem which does not exist.

These "solutions" are just another form of pollution with which the already beledgered life energy of this planet will have to cope, another assault on the environment by mankind in its' 5,000 year long war against nature. None of them can possibly have any helpfull effect on the breakdown of the atmosphere.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

DOR Sickness

Many, perhaps even most, of the effects of nuclear radiation, both
short term and long term, are unknown to orthodox science.

The discoveries of Wilhelm Reich resulting from his oranur
experiment in 1951 and the remaining years of his research until his
death in 1957 clearly demonstrate that it is not just the health of
individual oreganisms that is under attack by radioactivity, but the
health of the life energy field of the earth, which sustains all the
organisms within it.

The most obvious manifestation of this debilitation of the planetary
energy field is atmospheric DOR, the build-up of a stagnated, toxic,
and drought-inducing condition in the atmosphere which disrupts both
the weather, and the basic biological functioning of all the
organisms in the affected areas.

DOR has been increasing ever since the start of the Atomic Age. It
cannot be blocked or shielded by any thickness of any known
substance. It cannot be prevented by any shielding of the
radioactive source material. It can travel against the prevailing
winds.

It can become lodged in a specific location and form a barrier in
the atmosphere, preventing rain from reaching an area for a
prolonged time, hence causing a drought. It can also provoke the
atmosphere into a violent self-clensing reaction, such as a tornado
or other severe storm.

And even in low enough concentrations that the day-to-day weather is
not noticably affected, it can undermine the general health of all
living things within its' reach. It is this wide-spread, generic
tendency to illness, not any specific set of symptoms, that is
called "DOR-sickness" and is the true reason why any type of nuclear
technology, no matter where it is located on this planet, is
intolerable.

Most of the climate changes and severe weather anomolies that are
being popúlarly blamed on so-called "greenhouse gases" are in fact
due to the relentless build-up of DOR in the atmosphere over the
past 60 years or so. So are many instances of die-offs of wildlife
which are not understood by biologists ignorant of the life energy
and the role it plays in ecosystems.

So it is not just the illnesses officially known to be caused by
radioactivity that should be taken into account, but also the health
of the atmosphere and the general health of all life on earth.

There is a standard by which it is possible to measure the total
damage done to the planetary life energy by the use of nuclear
technology. Reich developed a blood test, known as the Reich Blood
Test, which can give an aproximation of the general overall vitality
of an individual. In reports published in the 1940s, the aproximate
rate of breakdown of red blood cells after removal from the body was
reported.

If the same blood test is done now, on a large enough sample of
people from widely-seperated areas, a random selection of people of
different ages, etc. will show about 40% less orgonotic charge than
was normal in the 1940s, before the start of the nuclear
contamination of the biosphere.

That, not diagnosed specific illnesses, is the true biological cost
of the nuclear age.

Climate Change Risks

I find it hard to understand how climate change could be such a threat to these whales. In the late Middle Ages there was a period of several centuries durring which the earth was warmer than it is now. At that time, England was wine country, the Norse had colonies in Greenland, and sailed across to Canada regularly in boats which would make it a very risky sail today.

Prior to about 6,000 years ago, there was a period known as the Climatic Optimum, durring which it was even warmer. There was no pack ice in the Arctic Basin at that time. The coastlines of both Greenland and Antarctica were free of ice, and the treeline extended right up to the shores of the Arctic Ocean in both Canada and Siberia. The shells of warm-water marine organisms are found in sediments dredged up from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.

So, if the whales, along with the other inhabitants of the ecosystems upon which they depend, could survive through centuries of warmer climate in the recent past, why would they not be expected to do so today?

Frankly, I suspect the answer is that the danger is being exagerated by people with the best of intentions. I think they are trying to get the general public to jump on the global warming bandwagon, and are using every possible argument to get that to happen, including exagerated and totally fictional scenarios of disaster caused by their global warming boogyman.

There is a serious ecological danger facing the whales of the Southern Ocean, along with the rest of the Antarctic ecosystem, however. It is not from CO2. It is not from "greenhouse gases". It is not from "global warming". It is from the oranur reaction going on in the upper atmosphere as a result of the build-up of KR85, a radioactive gas released from nuclear fuel rods durring the reprocessing process.

KR85 tends to travel to and accumulate at the poles, where it becomes concentrated enough to trigger an oranur reaction. The radiation from this, mistaken for ultraviolet comming from the sun, is wrongly taken as evidence of a depletion of an "ozone layer" in the upper atmosphere, which is thought to protect the earth from such dangerous sunlight.

It is this upper-level oranur effect, not the chemical compounds known as CFCs, that is causing the increase in radiation detected at the poles, and it is this, not a warming of the ocean water, that is the true threat to the marine life in the polar oceans.

But the warming of the sea water is a threat of a quite different kind. A threat to all life on earth, in fact. The polar oceans are the great sink for CO2 on this planet, far more of a potential source of CO2 than all the coal and oil on earth combined. And the amount of CO2 that sea water can hold in solution is temperature-dependent, the colder the water, the more CO2 it can hold.

As the polar seas warm up, CO2 will come up out of the water into the atmosphere. Contrary to what the "global warming" alarmists will tell you, it will not have any significant effect on global temperatures. Even if their absurd greehouse gases theory were correct, and it is not, the excess CO2 would simply not remain in the atmosphere long enough to cause any important temperature rise. It would rapidly cycle through the atmosphere into the biosphere, as plants removed it frrom the air and turned it into biomass. There would therefore be a vast increase in plant growth all over the planet.

And all animal life would starve to death.

There is a phenomena known as "nitrogen dilution", which means that plants must have an amount of nitrogen compounds sufficient to balance the intake of carbon, or they cannot make protien. If plants get more carbon, in the form of CO2, they do indeed grow faster and larger, but they are of less use to animals who eat them.

And plants cannot use the free form of nitrogen found in the atmosphere. They need it "fixed" into nitrate compounds. These compounds are formed in nature by two processes: nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil, and lightning.

And unless there is a great increase in one or both of these, the excess carbon would be a disaster to animal life.

And the very same increased radioactivity that is causing the radiation at the poles, is also making the atmosphere of the earth more conductive, bleeding off small charges continually, so they do not build up to the pouint of a sudden, sharp discharge as a lightning bolt.
The amount of lightning is therefore declining, at the very time we need it to increase.

And that, not global warming, is the real threat from climate change in the Southern Ocean.

"Global Warming"

There is no such thing as "global warming". That is just a political slogan and a media buzzword. It has no real meaning in relation to anything actually going on in the atmosphere.

There ARE real changes going on in the atmosphere, and they ARE caused by human activity. But they bear little or no relationship to the political "global warming" movement that so monopolizes the popular media.

The REAL atmospheric crisis is mainly caused by nuclear and electromagnetic technology, via effects discovered by Reich and that remain unknown to the scientific community and the popular media. But other human actions play a part also. These include dam-building, deforestation, cattle-grazing, and numerous others.

The constantly increasing DOR/oranur produced by use of radioactivity, and to a lesser extent by electrical generation and transmission facilities, is causing a generalized stagnation of the atmosphere, which leads to droughts. Typical of deserts and areas on the way to becomming deserts is that rain, when it does come, is exceptionally heavy. Deserts are not just dry; they are characterized by alternating droughts and floods, at least until the desertification is well-established.

Superimposed on this tendency is the increase in charge at the poles as a result of radioactive KR85 being drawn to the poles. This greater charge of the polar regions attracts tropical storms more strongly, so hurricanes, etc. travel farther north (or south in the Southern Hemisphere), bringing more severe weather to the temperate zones.

Severe storms are a response of the healthy atmospheric energy to irritation. When the DOR-build-up gets too strong, the atmosphere reacts with a strong movement to re-mobilize it and clean it out. This causes tornados, etc. When a region is blocked by a DOR-barrier for a long enough time, the atmospheric stream trapped behind the barrier builds up a head of pressure and often finally breaks through, leading to excessive rains.

On top of all this, the proliferation of cloudbusters in recent years, and thier use by incompetent individuals, is another major cause of frequent weather anomalies.

This is the natural-scientific picture of what is happening in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with any so-called "global warming". It has nothing to do with any emissions of alleged "greenhouse gases".

"Global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are nothing but political slogans used by scientificly ignorant people with a socio-political agenda. Global warming has nothing to do with the weather.Global warming is a socio-political movement. It has no natural-scientific meaning.

But the followers of this movement see it as being behind every weather event, just as the Christians see the hand of their god behind everything that happens. No matter what the weather does, they will find some way to link it to global warming, because they are already convinced that global warming is behind whatever happens in the atmosphere.

And meanwhile, with so much attention focused on the falacious "global warming" scenario, nothing is being done, or even mentioned about the genuine atmospheric crisis that is a threat to all life on earth.

It would be interesting, as a psychological and sociological study, to explore the psychology of this movement. If we could learn more about it, we might learn how to prevent such movements from causing so much disruption in the future.

Radioactive Climate Change

The total effects of so-called "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere are very little compared to the relatively unknown effect of radioactivity on atmospheric dynamics.

KR85, a radioactive gas released durring the reprocessing of nuclear reactor fuel rods, has more influence on the atmosphere than all the so-called "greenhouse gases" put together. Being radioactive, it is transported by the earths' magnetic field to the poles. There it builds up and the resulting extra charge attracts tropical storm systems, carrying tropical heat with them, farther towards the poles than they would otherwise travel.

The warming up of the polar oceans then causes CO2, held in solution in cold polar waters, to be released. Ultimately, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is taken up by plant life, and there will be a big increase in biomass.

But unless there is a corresponding increase in availability of "fixed" nitrogen compounds, plants that gain in growth from the extra carbon will lack enough nitrogen to form protein and animals will not be able to live on them.

And another of the effects of KR85 in the atmosphere is that it reduces the amount of lightning, which is the major source of fixed nitrogen and vital to many plants anyway.

So nuclear reactors are far more of a threat to atmospheric/ecological stability than any mere increase in CO2 could ever be.

Cloudbuster

Wilhelm Reich had several built by Southworth Machine Co. in Portland, Maine in the 1950's.

U F O s

Reich did think UFOs were one of the main causes of DOR. He knew DOR was created by atomic bombs and reactors, he saw it over Oak Ridge, Tenn. when he went past there, and he mentioned in Contact With Space, "In the Atomic Energy Commission the debate seemed to center around the wisdom of destroying what was left of our atmosphere by continuous demonstrations of power".

But Reich also saw numerous events of lights in the sky which co-incided with specific instrument readings and symptoms felt by him and his crew. He interpeted these lights as spacecraft from some other planet, and the increase in DOR while they were around as a weapon being used against earth.

This belief was constructed from the widespread sightings of such lights in the sky that were being reported all over the world at that time. It was a subject that was in the news nearly every night, and many, perhaps most, people thought they were spaceships from some other planet. Reich was simply following in the path of the culture around him.

Now, more than 50 years later, there has still not been any proof of any such space ships. None has been shot down or captured. None has landed and made themselves known. And most people have forgotten about the whole thing.

But in the meantime, many new findings have been made in geophysics, one of which is that so-called "earth lights" exist. These lights are often seen under weather conditions of unusual types, and just before a tectonic disturbance.

Upon careful reading of the literature on "earth lights" I have come to the conclusion that the most probable explanation for the lights Reich thought were space ships is that he was seeing thse lights, which are an orgone energy phenomena. That is why they seemed to be attracted to the site of cloudbusting operations and that is why they responded to the cloudbuster.

Reich was a very observant person and normally very carefull about drawing conclusions from what he saw, but on this ocassion he made a mistake. The lights were not space ships. They did not come from another planet. They were a lumination of the energy field of this planet, possibly triggered into a state of excitation that could be seen by his own cloudbuster operations.

The earth lights hypothesis fully explains all the data, and is a more conservative hypothesis that the space ship hypothesis. Untill further data becomes available, I will continue to accept it as the most probable explanation for what Reich saw.

But that interpetation means that it is man and man alone who is responsible for the increase in the amount of DOR on this planet over the past 50 years. In the 50 years since Reich noted the DOR clouds that he considered even then to be a global emergency threatening all life on earth, the amount of DOR has increased so much that it cannot be denied any longer. Nearly everyone sees it now.

The existence of DOR is so obvious now that nobody is denying it any longer. Instead they are trying to find some, anyone, to blame it on instead of admitting what it really is and what is causing it. So we find some people blaming it on CO2 from smokestacks and exhaust pipes. Others are blaming it on some secret government plot to spray chemicals out of airplanes. Some are blaming it on invisible shape-shifting reptiles from some other dimension.

And nobody is trying to do anything about it.

All the mass
hysteria worked up by the anti-fosil fuel movement by scaring folks
over "greenhouse gases" and "CO2" has had the entirely predictable
and inevitable result of making nuclear reactors look safe, clean,
and green by comparison. A decade ago nobody would ever have thought
nuclear power could ever stage a comeback. Now, thanks to misguided
environmentalists and a big scare campaign over "global warming", it
looks like there will be hundreds of new nukes built. Nukes that
among all the other bad effects they will have, ARE THE MAJOR CAUSE
OF ATMOSPHERIC DISRUPTION AND DESTABILIZATION, the REAL climate
change that is not even being noticed despite, or rather because of,
all the mad hype about "global warming".

Nuclear material is an
irritant. The atmosphere is responding to the constant irritation by
running a fever. The fever will continue until the irritant is
removed, it is transformed by the constant bombardment of orgone
into relatively harmless material that will no longer trigger a
fever reaction, or the atmosphere gets exhausted and can no longer
continue the fight.

On a small scale, that means an increase in the
total planetary burden of DOR. On a global scale it means death for
all living things including the atmosphere. Next time you hear some
idiot mention global warming, greenhouse gases, or CO2, tell them
that, please. It cannot be said too often or in the wrong company.
But if you do say something to some idiot, especially one with a
degree in some branch of science, DON'T follow up by telling him
about "Wilhelm Reich", "communist plots", "government
conspiracies" "books being banned or burned", "UFOs", "sex", "body-
oriented psychotherapy", or any other such trade-marked nonsense.

The Reichians who have locked themselves into tall tales and
spurious claims are as counter-productive as the environmentalists
who have created a pro-nuke movement. By making Reichs' very solid
and real scientific findings look like fairy dust, they ensure that
nobody except lunatics will follow up on them.