Global Warming Crises & 9/11 Awareness

This is an article that I solicited from Craig Hill, former US Senate candidate from Vermont and 9/11 truther. I asked Craig to write this article from heated debates on the 9/11 Boston Tea Party listserve. Some 9/11 truthers, like Alex Jones, advocate that Global Warming is a hoax. However, like 9/11 as a false flag operation, the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming.

This article was originally posted in the June 20, 2007 issue of - item 3 - Global Warming Crises & 9/11 Awareness – Building Coalitions - - Warming and 9/11 Related Danger Zones.

The bigger, more urgent reason to bring down the perps of 9/11 ~~
By Craig Hill

9/11 folk rightly consider themselves aware of the most chilling of conclusions: That not only can it happen here, it has happened here. Our government, including the Pentagon and the opposition party which refuses to oppose, hand-in-hand with the media and corporate power in general, have all combined to assassinate the Republic, by attacking its own citizens en route to world domination of dirty 20th century Middle East energy and by dismantling our constitutional and human rights, save, perhaps, the right to property.

We are a hardy bunch. We go where many, if not most, cannot bear to tread, even for an instant. We do so for we see that the only way to stop the cancer before it kills us is to address it, and the only way to address is to realize It has happened here, a fascist-military takeover of government and, increasingly, society. We are energetic in our desires to inform our more somnambulant fellow-citizens, as they sleepwalk through their semi-conscious days, so they can join us in our outrage and determination to stop buscism (the particular brand of American fascism we suffer), for we know we are powerful only in our numbers so long as we are actively opposing the tightening noose.

The damage done and the power abused by the perpetrators is not confined to the known effects of 9/11, however, but in many other socio-ecological-political realms. For a movement such as 9/11"truth", born of sensitive antennae, we bear signs of tone-deafness to other dramatic aspects of the oil uber alles bunch as they rampage the globe in suppression of freedom.

The single greatest fact of our time is that we are well into the 6th Great Extinction. Much if not most of all species currently living will die out over the next dozens of decades due to our anthropocentric Godzillaesque footprint. There is much we can do to stop it, by slowing it down before it takes us with it, but if we cannot loosen the grip of the lunatics in charge, and soon, much of what we think of as "Earth" will be unrecognizable to our distant descendants(---as if!).

The most palpable of the changes associated with the current Great Extinction is the one we are most immediately sensitive to, the weather. Global warming aka climate change, though easily tracked for many decades, as has been done, is still under the radar of many of otherwise mentally healthy 9/11-aware activists. That this is still occurring at this very late date is indicative that the closed-minded disease which plagues our 9/11unaware brethren is easily caught, though the victim never realizes it until, as is presumed, s/he is crushed by that which s/he does not know is coming home to roost, and it is too late.

It is not too late to lower the worst possible effects of continued warming, but barely. We have perhaps five years to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions, including the burning of coal and gasoline via internal combustion, before positive reinforcement of the growth of co2 in the atmosphere begins to blossom exponentially to what it has so far, and life become literally unlivable for all but a few tortured members of the species responsible.

Throughout human existence, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide has been atmospherically stable at 280 parts per million. Over the last 100 years, as that admixture has grown to 380 ppm, the greenhouse cap has been placed over the steeping pot and, just as it would on a tepid stove, the ice is melting, rapidly, from pole to pole, ice which is necessary to reflect heat and sunlight back into space. No ice, no reflection, and the poles act as a blotter of the trapped heat, increasing it to the point it releases, as will soon begin in earnest, methane trapped in miles-thick tundra around specifically the northern pole. Methane being about 20 times more powerful, albeit shorter-lived, than a molecule of co2, we near the conditions of a previous Great Extinction caused by equally massive releases of methane into the atmosphere. When co2 concentrations reach 1000 ppm, life as we think of it is pretty much kaput. Consider there are thousands of BILLIONS of TONS of methane trapped in Arctic tundra, and 1000 ppm does not sound at all far-fetched.

Computer models of the growth of warming since their inception in the late '80s have been consistently understated, which is to say predictions made for 2020 have appeared in 2005, and conditions predicted for 2040 have been up ticked to appear soon. The poles and Greenland, which is the island along with Antarctica which will raise sea levels some three dozen feet worldwide, are melting at a rate 3 1/2 times faster than was predicted as recently as May 2007 (that's right). Every glacier on Earth is melting completely away; that 40% of the world's fresh drinking and growing water is dependant on streams soon to go dry is precursor to monumental dislocation, famine and death on a horrifically global scale. One glacier in Bolivia will cease to exist in 2008. The 200,000 consumers of its soon-vanished water have nowhere to go. Rainfall patterns are shifting, which means even more increased drought in many more places than the few we are currently ignoring.

The oceans can absorb no more of the heat we are so idiotically creating. They have reached the suffocation point to the degree the plankton, that basic foodstuff of the seas, is dying. The oceans will eventually emit more greenhouse gases than they are soaking up unless we stop our furnace-blast activities and institute renewables immediately, an imminently achievable short-term goal.

Deserts around the world are spreading north and south from the equator. Earthworms, a reliable canary in this coal mine, are dying as the soil turns to sand. High nighttime temperatures, the hallmark of warming, are parching the formerly moist Midwest soil. Beijing has a desert right outside the city limits because its top-down beauracracy of political control is too institutionally myopic to grasp what it's doing to itself. While the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, is being rapidly clear cut, the soil is desertifying, and once soil goes to sand (see the Sahara) it doesn't come back.

Despite all of this, or because none of it is being recognized, we think our most important goal is to get the perps destroying our rights, and we are right, but for much greater reason than the merely wimpy human one that one form of governance is superior than another. As our fight goes on the world shrivels and desiccates. The realizations of 9/11 go hand-in-hand with warming in that, as we press our prime issue to bring down corporate government in toto---like a skyscraper in its own footprint---we do so, unknowingly, to stop the wars for oil responsible for the bipartisan policy that caused traitors to orchestrate 9/11 in the first place: So that we may move into the Age of Biology, to eliminate dirty 20th century energy in favor of clean green 21st century sustainable energy, to get a handle on warming, to ameliorate the great death-wish of its apocalyptic promoters, who are no less than the perps of 9/11, and who as with 9/11 have shrouded the evil effects of warming in unscientific myth and lie as they have poorly though successfully covered up the vast multiplicity of their other crimes.

Imagine how much more urgent and, yes, even energetic we would be if we understood even more the good cause we must win.

An idiot.

That's a sure-fire way to generate a flame-thread, Nunyabiz, and we just don't need it.

Maybe some people are misinformed?

There's a thread on the go over here;

Make your points w/o using insults

2 comments that used insults just got removed. Make your points w/o insults; not only does it violate the rules, using insults doesn't add to an argument- it makes the person using them look bad.

the rules:

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)"

"Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."

Global Warming

Mr. Hill should think twice about equating the seeking of truth about 9/11 with Global Warming. I recommend that he apply the same skepticism that brought him around to 9/11 Truth to the debate on whether the Earth is actually going through a warm period, not to mention whether or not un-politicized science supports the contention that CO2 levels are increasing due to human influence.

Whatever the cause, suffering will be the result

I don't have any recommendation one way or the other about Craig Hill, but I recommend -

Global Warming is Real and it's a Big Deal
(so are other environmental issues)

"We are talking about an issue that does not lend itself to clean science. As I've said, no one understands the environment well enough to perfectly predict what will come of both natural and human-caused factors.

While we may not be able to predict exactly what our impact will result in, our over-consumption and waste are most certainly leading to the degradation of our biosphere in many ways. Natural causes of environmental change can not be discounted, but neither can our impact on the planet."

. . . . .

"Whatever the cause, suffering will be the result. I wish people would recognize more clearly, that the environmental movement is very much about saving lives. Without huge environmental reforms on a global scale, hundreds of millions of people will starve, and die of common diseases. Between continued industrialization, and the growth of global population, something is going to give. The empty factories will still be standing. The people will be gone."

Global Warming, Craig Hill and the Kennebunkport Warning hoax

I haven't looked into the science supporting human-caused global warming, but i'm skeptical that a conspiracy to game the scientific debate involving many nations w/ diverse interests, thousands of scientists using mostly open sources, and with many lines of evidence is being rigged. Huge money interests have been doing their best to cloud and derail the debate, but have not been able to expose the science as a fraud- afaik.

Certainly, the leak of the emails and the controversy over the missing source data for some of the reports is pushing the debate into the mainstream- if human-caused global warming is a fraud, it's going to be established- and if it isn't, that will be seen as well.

Carbon-trading is a for-profit scam and a half-measure at best.

Craig Hill, however, was involved w/ Tarpley and other Larouchites in attacking Cindy Sheehan and the others during the KW controversy

The Kennebunkport Warning was no hoax

It appeared on 25th August 2007, and was posted online two days later.

On September 5th 2007 there were news articles like these:

"On Aug. 30, a B-52 bomber took off from Minot Air Force base in North Dakota with between five and six nuclear warheads.."

“Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible..”
“..absolutely inexcusable..”
"..deeply disturbing.."

I would have thought you of all people would know about this story!

However CAGW is, to put it crudely, a hoax :)

FYI - Truthaction thread.

Guys, please refrain from name-calling.

And, there is a thread on the go at Truthaction dedicated to the Global Warming debate:

If you want to have it out with someone, invite them over there and get it out of your system. Or go to a message board designed to facilitate a lengthy debate.

Dead thread?

The last comment posted there was over two years ago, and Nunyabiz (the agitator above) features prominently.

you are replying to an old comment

look at the date

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Ah yes

I suppose that explains it.

Maybe I need to recharge.

Mounting Evidence of Extreme Global Warming

mixing the non-science speculation that oil men used to knock global warming..
with all the data and consensus not by governments.. but by scientists..
those who talk about the science around 9/11 lose some credibility when they make an argument to deny what has been measured..

freedom and survival are of interest.. and together.. science and society can live in ideals of virtue.. but not denial of the evidence.. i have been documenting and learning of this issue since 1990.. soon i won't be so
far ahead of our time on warming reality and 9/11 truth..

Check these resources:

Mounting Evidence of Extreme Global Warming

If we can only learn from our ancestors, we could find a balance on Earth.

*In mindful time past, we honored our grandparents;
in mindless time present, we threaten our grandchildren."
-- Bart Jordan

in peace.. will link to this page..from FN


News fit to transmit in the post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~<>~ ~<>~<>~<>
~~~ for life's survival in the 21st Century ~~~

Science please!

It is extremely dangerous to link global warming theory with 9/11 theory. One should consider that they are two sides of a clever plot to keep the public in a state of fear, and hence easily manipulated. The argument goes like this:

The left supports global warming activism and is angry with the right for not paying attention. The right supports antiterrorism activism and is angry with the left for not paying attention. So the left and the right are angry with one another, that is just about everyone, while a proper understanding would have the public angry with the elites who run the country using misinformation.

So is global warming theory misinformation? The answer is that there is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on temperature. The medieval warming period was hotter. So was the Roman warming. Even the 1930s appear hotter if you avoid using shady data. Certainly the glaciers are shrinking but we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age when loaded wagons could cross the Thames river on the ice. There is no reason to believe that the present warming is unusual.

To get to the science, you never see in the mainstream media any reference to the debate on feedback. The IPCC models assume that there is a positive feedback to the effect of added CO2. Why is this important? Everyone agrees that the direct effect of man-made CO2 will be small, less than 1 degree C, nothing to be alarmed about. The IPCC models assume the feedback increases the effect of added CO2 by a factor of 3 to 6. But what if the feedback is negative? Roy Spencer has been studying the feedback for a number of years and has found evidence that the feedback is negative. He is using data from the Aqua satellite which have only been available for about 10 years.

It appears the only reason the IPCC models use high positive feedback is that it is the only way they can account for the recent rate of increase in temperature. They ignore the fact that previous periods without man-made CO2 showed similar rates of temperature increase. They ignore the fact that temperature is naturally variable, so we don't have to account for the recent increase. They don't properly measure feedback. There is no doubt that temperatures were warmer in earlier times. We didn't have thermometers then but we have the written record of what people were doing. Wine was made in England, impossible now. The Vikings settled in Greenland and grew crops and ran sheep, impossible now.

Be skeptical. Don't advocate extreme policy changes when the science is lacking.

Don't get me wrong! I am all in favour of taking steps to minimize harm but I don't see the harm proven as coming from man-made CO2. I see certain and grave harm coming from depletion of resources while population continues to expand. I am therefore in favour of a small carbon tax in order to stimulate research into alternative energy sources. I am against any scheme which allows people to trade carbon rights. This will be just a big game for the bankers to fiddle.

According to your "facts"

It appears that there is a problem... Unfortunately your "facts" and my "facts" differ. Isn't it true that CO2 levels were higher during the Medieval warming period? Isn't it also true that according to "the ice core samples" that the rise in CO2 came after the rise in temperature? Isn't it also true that although the ice in the arctic has decreased that we have actually had an increase in the Antarctic? Isn't it true that we have seen a decline in temperature for the last 10 years? Isn't it true that other planets in our solar system are seeing similar temperature fluctuations? If my facts aren't correct please let me know as this is second hand information for me. I am not a climate scientist just a lowly tool engineer, although I am familiar with computer simulations, some code and the scientific method. It could also be said that the data has been skewed as evidenced by the latest climate-gate scandal. My B.S. detector tells me that since this politically will result in a transfer of wealth from the middle class and give power to a world authority that it is mostly hyped. From a Hegelian viewpoint I side with the skeptics.


where did you get these facts from?

"Isn't it true that we have seen a decline in temperature for the last 10 years?"

correct me if I'm wrong, as I have not looked into the global warming science much- what seems to be agreed by both sides is the last decade is the warmest since precise measurements began, but the temperature hasn't continued to increase.

If global warming science is bunk, the wealthy industries and advocacy groups that have been trying to discredit it should be able to find and publicize the flaws.

Like I said,

I am no climate scientist but I have made it my own mission to be more educated about politics and this subject is highly political. I welcome debate because that helps to further my own understanding of the issue. As a result of your question I spent an hour or so researching where this "ten year decrease" came from that I have admittedly parroted. Well there are many references to the year 1998 as being a very warm year as far as global temperature and so since then because it has progressively gotten cooler the "anti-global warmers" use this date to prove that statistically it is getting cooler. Some "global warming alarmists" say that it only appears to be getting cooler because of El-Nina. Just google "global temperatures decreased 1998" and you'll find articles and statistics on both sides of the issue. You be the judge. I would like to also point you toward this video series on youtube called "Global Warming Emerging Science and Understanding." There is a lot of information here countering Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth." Here's the link.

Additional references

Two more references on this subject..

An article linked to this thread and review of Craig Hill's article was written by Jerry Mazza, published by OnLine Journal on December 21, 2009

One man's look at the global warming horizon,
How oil remains the culprit behind 9/11 and global warming,
the latter being a reality not an elitist scam.

also this recent article now posted at FN, originally published 20 August 2010 by The Guardian, UK newspaper.

Rising Temperatures Reducing Ability of Plants to Absorb Carbon, Study Warns

The way truthers respond to credible evidence regarding 9/11 WTC demolitions, is somehow lacking when it comes to a global conspiracy to control energy and hide the truth about its impact on our environment. For extensive resources, see FN's updated page on this at Energy Pollution's Impact On Our Environment