Welcome to Sott.net
Sat, 04 Dec 2021
The World for People who Think


US: Multiple Eyewitness Reports of Fireball Sightings off Atlantic Coast

Summary: On March 29th, 2009, at approximately 9:45 pm EDT, people along the Atlantic coast of the USA between Maryland and North Carolina witnessed bright lights in the sky and heard thunderous rumbles. It was probably a meteoritic fireball--a small, random asteroid entering Earth's atmosphere and exploding. Although the event was widely seen (and even more widely heard), it was not widely photographed. Onlookers did not have time to grab their cameras before the meteor disappeared.

Eyewitness Accounts:

Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia

Comments: Mark Ost: "I am an amateur astronomer. I witnessed the fireball last night during an observing session. At approximately 2130 I witnessed the entry and what appeared to be an explosion of the bolide. The fireball was approximately 36 to 40 degrees above the horizon. I know this due to my telescope alignment and familiarity with the location of Polaris. The bolide was traveling in a north east direction. Initially the trace was the bright green of an ionization trail. The bolide then turned brilliant white fringed with an orange rim. I timed the arrival of the sound to two minutes after seeing the object explode and extinguish itself. I am located in southern Virginia Beach, Back Bay. Assuming the speed of sound at 600 mph, I calculated the distance to be 20 to 30 miles (direct line of sight) away. The event was also witnessed by Kent Blackwell, a very experienced amateur astronomer."

Comment: See: Atlantic Coast Fireball could not have been body of Russian Rocket?


Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation Part XIV

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that Satan's spell
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

Don McLean, American Pie
Once ensconced in the hills above Los Angeles, Gram Parsons and his band began recording what would prove to be their only album, Safe at Home, which some pop music historians regard as the first country-rock album, but others regard as a straight country album performed by guys who look like they should be playing in a rock band. Whatever the case, by the time the album was released, in 1968, Gram had disbanded the International Submarine Band and unofficially joined the Byrds, replacing the recently departed David Crosby, who had determined that there wasn't quite room in the band for both he and his ego.

Parsons' time with the Byrds was rather brief, just four to five months, after which he was replaced by virtuoso guitarist Clarence White, who had been part of the Cambridge folk scene. Despite his brief tenure, Parsons is credited with having a major influence on the album that the band produced during that period, Sweetheart of the Rodeo, which is also regarded by some music aficionados as the first true country-rock album.

Soon after leaving the Byrds, Parsons ran into Richie Furay, who was casting about for a new band after the breakup of Laurel Canyon's own Buffalo Springfield. Gram and Furay considered working together but quickly realized that they wanted to go in different musical directions, so Furay went to work putting Poco together while Parsons assembled the Flying Burrito Brothers. By 1969, Gram's new band had taken shape, with Gram supplying lead vocals and guitar, Chris Hillman also on guitar, Chris Etheridge on bass, and "Sneaky Pete" Kleinow on pedal steel guitar. With various other local musicians sitting in, the band recorded and released The Gilded Palace of Sin, which is probably also regarded by some as the first true country-rock album. Byrd Michael Clarke would later join the band, as would soon-to-be-Eagle Bernie Leadon.

Comment: Continue to part XV


What was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really about?

The largest academic conference that has yet been devoted to the subject of climate change finished yesterday in Copenhagen. Between 2,000 and 2,500 researchers from around the world attended three days of meetings during which 600 oral presentations (together with several hundred posters on display) were delivered on topics ranging from the ethics of energy sufficiency to the role of icons in communicating climate change to the dynamics of continental ice sheets.

I attended the Conference, chaired a session, listened to several presentations, read a number of posters and talked with dozens of colleagues from around the world. The breadth of research on climate change being presented was impressive, as was the vigour and thoughtfulness of the informal discussions being conducted during coffee breaks, evening receptions and side-meetings.

What intrigued me most, however, was the final conference statement issued yesterday, a statement drafted by the conference's Scientific Writing Team. It contained six key messages and was handed to the Danish Prime Minister Mr Anders Fogh Rasmusson. The messages focused, respectively, on Climatic Trends, Social Disruption, Long-term Strategy, Equity Dimensions, Inaction is Inexcusable, and Meeting the Challenge. A fuller version of this statement will be prepared and circulated to key negotiators and politicians ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in December this year - also in Copenhagen.


Discovery nears space station as debris nears, too

Seven astronauts raced to the international space station aboard space shuttle Discovery on Monday, while NASA debated whether the orbiting outpost will need to move aside to dodge part of an old Soviet satellite.

Space station astronauts had a close call last week with a small piece of orbiting junk, and NASA said Monday that debris from a satellite that broke apart in 1981 could come within about half a mile of the station early Tuesday.

NASA will decide later Monday whether to fire the space station's engines to nudge the complex out of the path of the debris.

Comment: Last month we were told that two satellites collided over Siberia. A few days later, fireballs were caught on video over Texas. Now in a week time we have heard twice of astronauts having to dodge 'space junk'.

Is there something we are not being told about what is going on in our atmosphere?

Bad Guys

The Pathological Mind: Without a Doubt

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion. "Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...

"This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts," Bartlett went on to say. "He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Bartlett paused, then said, "But you can't run the world on faith."


Destabilising Pakistan: The US-India-Mossad Connection

Both Israel and India aspire to become unchallenged military powers of Middle East and South Asia respectively. USA provides requisite backup support to accomplish their ambitions. In order to retain their regional ascendancy both have laid particular attention towards modernising conventional and unconventional military means far outmatching their neighbours. Apart from building their military power it becomes necessary for the duo to ensure that none of its neighbours acquires any weapon system superior to its own or is in a position to flex muscles or group together to pose a credible challenge.

Above all, they over ensure that no Muslim country possess nuclear capability and be in a position to avert blackmailing and bullying tactics. In other words, both desire weak and subservient states doing their biddings. Nuclear capability with any country is a death knell for their megalomaniac aspirations and hence a binding necessity to prevent its acquisition.


Did Mossad Mole Arrested in Lebanon Recruit his Cousin as a 9/11 hijacker?

A new Israeli connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 has recently been unveiled. Buried in a New York Times story on Feb. 19 was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who has been taken into custody by the Lebanon - which has accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for Israeli intelligence - just happens to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.

Although Ali al-Jarrah was - publicly - an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it now turns out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah.

Comment: The Mossad had more than 'advance knowledge' of 9/11. It was instrumental in its delivery:

Missing Links


Did Germany Commit Their First Holocaust Decades Before Hitler Came to Power?

This must be the most God-forsaken place on Earth. I'm standing on a dusty desert road in a desolate country on the south-west coast of Africa.

In front of me is an unspoken border. Summoning the courage, I prepare to step across.

For the past 100 years, this simple act would have got me arrested, beaten or shot. Because the region I am about to enter is the Sperrgebiet, or the 'Forbidden Zone' - a place whose savage emptiness conceals the terrible secrets of a Nazi past, adorned with the tainted beauty of blood diamonds. I pause. A Lanner falcon wheels above me in the silence of the African wilderness. Then I walk into the unknown.


"Apocalyptic Climate Predictions" Mislead the Public, Say Experts

Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions.

Ice berg
© unknown
Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.

The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.

In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

Comment: This is a rather lengthy commentary separate from the article itself. It is intended as such to let the reader read the above article as it is written. Then we are going to attempt to practice a little perspicacity, seeing if we can really see what is actually being said through another pair of eyes.

This is a great article. It appears on the face of it to be a call for reasonableness in the climate research field, a rebuke of both scientists and the media for promoting alarmism and the hystericization of the public.

Well think again. Let's take another look at the entire article, top to bottom.
Title: 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
Right off the bat we are lead to believe that experts are calling for some reasonableness in this issue and it must be very important as the public is being misled.
Summary: Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
We are given a hint about what this article is really about.

The undermining of the agenda to control carbon emissions!
Article: Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.
Notice we get the 'Experts' are speaking meme once again and not only are they experts but from a top climate research centre.

Was it really a blistering attack? No. It was 'Dr. Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met office,' speaking and trying to salvage damage to the 'global warming' and 'carbon emissions control' effort.
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
Again, emphasis on the elite nature and authority of who is speaking, 'most prestigious research facilities in the world'! And once again, why they are speaking, which is to shore up the image of the 'carbon emissions control' effort.
In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
The undertone here is that radicalism on both sides of the 'Global Warming' science issue is not doing anyone a service, but especially it is doing a great disservice to the promoters of global warming and the promoters of the control of carbon emissions. It is nice that Dr. Vicky Pope at least includes her side in the rebuke. But I think the reader can get the flavor of where this article is going even in the subtle backhanded way that it accomplishes it.
She adds: "Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically."
Did you grasp that? Radicalism on both sides undermines the foundation of one side of the equation. It undermines the global warming cause. It undermines the efforts to 'control carbon emissions'.

But that is the pro-Global-Warming alarmist side to begin with!

Nothing alarming here!

The implications are profound if super human drastic efforts are not undertaken immediately!
Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues. "You just can't do that. You have to look at the long-term trend and then at the natural variability on top." Dramatic predictions of accelerating temperature rise and sea ice decline, based on a few readings, could backfire when natural variability swings the other way and the trends seem to reverse, he says. "It just confuses people."

And why has it taken so many years for the Met and the global warming camp to come out with this? It is the very process of 'Dramatic Predictions' in the global warming camp that brought us Kyoto, that created the political wind and mind signal that man made carbon emissions are going to doom the planet.

But that is the point of this article and Vicky Pope's concern, is it not? To preserve the radical predictions of global warming and to preserve the mind signal that is being broadcast to all, that it is man made carbon emissions which will doom us all.
Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as some reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed by frozen sea water, has collapsed in recent years, with ice extent in September last year 34% lower than the average since satellite measurements began in 1979.
So why didn't Pope speak up when the 'sea ice is melting tipping point' alarmism was foisted on the public tens of thousands of times in multiple waves in the past 4 years? Search Google arctic ice "tipping point".

The Tipping Point Broadcast

Dec 16, 2008
Oct 28, 2008
August 2008
Apr 24, 2008
Dec 12, 2007
Sep 28, 2007
March 2007
May 15, 2006
Sep 16, 2005

And is this really just "as some reports have suggested"? Really? Some reports? What kind of idiots does Pope and the media giant creating this article think the readers are?

Do you feel the signal coming through?

Notice how even though Vicky Pope mentions the sea ice drama, this article then turns around and makes sure the reader knows that sea ice has collapsed in recent years and this past September it was 34% lower than average.

Let's not promote alarmism, but by the way you should be alarmed!

Isn't that a little backhanded? Write an article pronouncing that scientists and media need to stop presenting skewed views and then skew the view in the article that says "play nice".
"The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again over the next few years," she says.

"It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change."

How about "the record breaking losses"? Does Dr. Vicky Pope mention that the record breaking losses in the past two years were accompanied by record rapid recoveries of sea ice extent? Nope! But she finds it necessary to throw a skewness in to the signal being broadcast to the public. Is this a psychological technique of some kind? Or is it just hypocrisy?
"This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off."
It seems that the problem in the global warming camp is that too many people in the wider audience are switching on, waking up, and that is her problem and a threat to the global warming camp.
The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the global warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests. It comes ahead of a key year of political discussions on climate, which climax in December with high-level political negotiations in Copenhagen, when officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
Now the issue of global warming is cast by the media author as the "global warming debate", and the global warming debate is being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests. In literal terms this means the "human caused global warming" due to the "human caused carbon emissions" is a fact that cannot be disputed, that cannot be examined and called into question. That is what the 'Met Office' and Vicky Pope and the media author of this article are saying is at risk. What else is at risk of being hijacked? The science on the threat of global cooling? The science on the threat of climatic catastrophe due to a quiet sun leading to lower ozone levels, negative ocean oscillators and shifting transporters of water vapor to the poles?

What is it that is at the risk of being hijacked? In literal terms "the risk of being hijacked" refers to one thing only; the risk is to the suggestive signal being broadcast to the global populace of "human caused global warming" being due to the "human caused carbon emissions". That is all that the Met and Vicky Pope are talking about.

And this article just shows how those in the positions of power and influence maintain the state of hystericization of the public, in anyway they can, not least through backhanded psychological manipulation.

By the way, where was the voice of Vicky Pope asking for calm and reason in the media and amongst scientists when various global media representatives called for meteorologists to be stripped of their credentials for being critical of "global warming"? Where was Vicky Pope when various global media mouthpieces likened global warming critical analysis to "Holocaust Denial" and called for Nuremberg style trials to bring critics up on charges of crimes against humanity? And where is Vicky Pope's call for reasonableness when James Hansen goes on one of his many tirades calling for petroleum executives to be brought up on charges?

Enforcing the Global Warming Signal

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Nazi Style Silencing of Global Warming Skeptics - Strip Them of Their Credentials
Life Is Convenient When You Define 'Truth'
As Predicted: Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial
CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers
Witch Hunt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
Search "global warming" "holocaust deniers" 43,800 hits
Search "global warming" "crimes against humanity" 118,000 hits

As long as the media serves the enforcement of the signal, as long as it serves the agenda that Vicky Pope broadcasts, it is good. At least as long as they can get away with it.

Perhaps the Met Office and Dr. Vicky Pope are just trying to cover their hind ends for the latest faux pas from the global warming promoters at RealClimate. Read the Steig Paper links for more practice with your perspicacity skills.

The Steig Paper

That famous consensus on global warming
Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery of Error in Study Garners Op-Ed in One Paper
West Antarctica warming data flawed and manipulated
All's Fair in Love, War, and Science

This article and the behaviors displayed by its author and the behavior displayed by Dr. Vicky Pope are excellent examples of what Andrew M. Lobaczewski calls ponerization.
Lobaczewski writes: The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such "bad times" is an exacerbation of society's hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.
Here is a final quote from Vicky Pope from her original article that this article we are examining refers to:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
No bias here? No reinforcing of the "global warming is caused by man" broadcast signal here? No hystericization of society here? No alarmist hysteria here? Is this person, Vicky Pope, really this blind to her own manipulations? Chastising the media and scientists for being dramatic and apocalyptic and then broadcasting the signal that man is the cause, the evidence is overwhelming. Notice how she unequivocally speaks for everyone through the subliminal doublespeak - "scientists like me" - "Our concerns". And the tone is emphatic, there can be no other view, the evidence is indisputable. There can be no dissent.

The global warming agenda has certainly created a mass hystericization of society. The question is who created it and why are there so many examples of it in our current day? We have the "the terrorists are out to get us" hystericization. We have the "Iraq has WMDs" hystericization of society. We have the "Iran are terrorists" and the "Palestinians are terrorists" hystericization of society. We have the "Global Warming - CO2" hystericization of society. We have the "Worldwide Depression" hystericization of society. The one thing it does accomplish is to provide cover for the pathologicals to act while the masses are distracted and traumatized.

Whether Vicky Pope knows it or not, she is part of the problem or at the least, a tool of its implementation. The global warming and carbon emissions control issues long long ago abandoned true science and joined the likes of "the terrorists are out to get us" hystericization.

See Related stories:

The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science
UK Met Office Issues 'Blistering Attack on Scientific Colleagues' For 'Apocalyptic Climate Predictions'


Global warming is not our fault ... it's nature

Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.

Next week the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.

Dr Buckee believes human behaviour has no effect on the climate and the vast sums spent by governments trying to promote renewable energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being wasted. Far from being a key cause of climate change, he says, carbon dioxide emissions have little or no impact. His views are contrary to those held by governments, the Royal Society - an independent science body - the Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.