Maybe the rain

Over at Chemtrails North NZ, Clare Swinney makes the claim that

Evidence suggests that rain clouds approaching Northland are being handicapped by human intervention, probably, in part, to promote the perception of “climate change.”

…and provides evidence of this by posting some satellite imagery of cloud cover covered in arrows pointing to (supposedly) man-made ‘holes’, which are (presumably) evidence of manipulation.

Putting aside the problem that the water in these holes still has to go somewhere, and that there’s still millions of tonnes of water left in the remaining cloud cover, the main problem with Clare’s argument is that her main point…

Rainfall levels appear to being reduced significantly.

…is plain wrong. Here’s the last two years of rainfall data from Whangarei Airport, measured against the historical average.


In fact, in the last five months, rainfall figures have been above or about average. June, July and August were really wet: double the average.  Before that March/April/May were drier than usual (May especially so), but that was after a wet February. And before that, a dry January, and a slightly above-average December. In other words, natural variability at play. There’s certainly no way you could make the argument that rainfall levels have been ‘reduced significantly’.

Well, I suppose you could, but…


Republicans miss “Climate Change is real” memo

Something that all the local conspiracy sites seem to agree on is that Climate Change is a sham: some sort of trumped up NWO-orchestrated campaign designed to aid-and-abet in the forthcoming World Government, depopulation, increased taxes, whatever…

And, of course, the governments of the world are right in behind this: carbon credits, carbon taxes and multinational treaties that limit pollution levels are (amongst other things) ‘evidence’ that the ‘elite’ are having their wicked way with us, the unsuspecting ‘sheeple’.

So, what are the Republicans thinking when they vote down legislation that acknowledges the existence of climate change? Surely a party full of NWO-insiders, Bilderberg Members and Illuminati faithful, the very same party that was in power on 9/11,  would be wholeheartedly behind the climate change hoax? But no…

House Republicans also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) Tuesday that called on Congress to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring in large part due to human activity. The amendment failed in a 21-30 party-line vote. No Republicans voted in favor of the amendment.

Who’d’ve ever thought our own local ‘Truth’ seekers and the US Republicans would be singing off the same song-sheet?

(And, hey, you Americans out there, this now means that a vote for Sarah Palin is a vote for Truth!)

What in the world are they smoking? [part 1]

The chemtrail community is abuzz with a new documentary doing the rounds: What in the world are they spraying?

So, what’s the hullaballo about? Have the film-makers really stumbled across something that breaks the story open? Or are they just rehashing the same old misinformation and logical fallacies that are typical of other chemtrail believers? Let’s take a look…

00:00 – 00:55
Ohhh, scary music. A Delta airlines plane (not leaving contrails?). Some credits. Shaky hand-held video of some contrails.

00:55 – 01:50
Clips of some news shows reporting on the ‘chemtrails’ phenomenon. Oh god, someone just said: “A contrail would be dissipated by now.” They’re not going to go down the “persistent contrail = chemtrail” path are they?

01:50 – 02:15
We’re off to San Diego. There’s a ‘Geoengineering’ panel at a scientific conference. They’re discussing the ‘plausibility’ (I really like the way he said that, you totally know he believes they’re actually doing it) of blocking sun-light with substances sprayed into the atmosphere.

02:15 – 02:20
When asked about existing programmes they stated clearly that no such programmes have ever been implemented.

02:20 – 02:30
Oh, but people still think geoengineering is happening, because they think that’s what contrails are.

02:30 – 03:45
Some journalist is interested in geoengineering. The scientists are sceptical that there are any existing chemtrail programmes. Nick Smith! NZ FTW! Some guy: “the government doesn’t seem that capable to do something on such a large scale.” Indeed.

03:45 – 04:50
What? Chaff? Why are we talking about chaff? Why are they showing a plane leaving contrails when we’re talking about chaff? And now some cirrus cloud? Could they not find any file footage of actual chaff?

04:50 – 05:30
Nick Smith again! Lockwood! NZ FTW! “This conspiracy theory does not have an iota of truth.” Much amusement in the House.

05:30 – 06:00
What? Cloud seeding now? Oh, we’re back to geoengineering. More clouds = more sunlight reflection. Picture shows some giant mirrors in space. Here’s John Holden, adviser to President Obama for Science and Technology: “There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geoengineering. Classic example is injecting reflecting particles into Earth orbit.” Earth orbit? Not just dropping it out of a plane then into the stratosphere then.

06:00 – 06:25
Who’s this guy talking about aluminium in the stratosphere? Turns out aluminium is quite shiny and reflective. Who knew?

06:25 – 08:30
Someone else talking about aluminium. Yes, it’s shiny. Uh-oh, turns out aluminium is even shinier than sulphur, and the authorities are trying to hide this fact? More talk about aerosol engineering possibilities. Actual scientist: If we do more research, then it’ll probably turn out that it’ll be harder to do that we imagine. We need to look at the environmental impacts.

08:30 – 11:00
Question to the scientists: What are the effects of sub-micron sized particulates and aluminium on human health, waters and soils? Scientist answer: we haven’t researched that yet. “There could be something terrible that we find tomorrow that we haven’t looked at.” Fair enough. Video shows some research done with aluminium nano-particles on rats. Ok. Documentary maker is, for some reason, excited by the fact the scientists haven’t researched this yet. “They’ve let the cat out of the bag!”

11:00 – 11:34
Random and illogical leap of faith #1: “They’re proceeding because they have an agenda that’s separate from trying to thwart this crisis of global warming. There’s obviously…” (obviously?) “…several other objectives: depopulation, control, weapons aspects, communications aspects, all kinds of things, wild cards we know nothing about.” Where did all that come from?

11:34 – 13:30
More discussion on ins and outs of geoengineering, from actual scientists: “We might get desperate enough to want to use it.” “What would we do in the year 2040 or 2060 if there’s a severe climate crisis…” “You don’t want people going off and doing things that involve large radiative forcing, or go on for extended periods, or for that matter, provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.” “It’s hugely risky.” Well, the scientists don’t seem that keen on the idea.

13:30 – 14:30
The doco-makers look at the benefit/risk breakdown of large-scale geoengineering. Yep, it’s risky. Random and illogical leap of faith #2: the doco makers now seem convinced that the scientists, despite all they’ve just said, want to forge ahead (or already are) with geoengineering, regardless of the impacts.

So, Murphy writes a story about it. Turns out aluminium (mentioned in the geoengineering research), is turning up in massive quantities way above normal levels in rain, soil and snow.

End of Part 1.

So, to summarise…

Scientists are talking about geoengineering. They think it’s risky, and there’s more research to be done. It might, possibly, be a last-resort measure to counter global warming in the future. From this, the documentary makers have concluded that they’re up to ‘something’. Turns out aluminium is turning up in the environment. What’s up with that? On to part 2

Disinformation agent

Apparently I am one!

I think, mostly, because Clare Swinney (anti-NWO campaigner extraordinaire) seems unable to answer simple questions regarding the contradictory ‘facts’ she posts.

For example, she seems to be a long time believer in the ‘global warming hoax’. There is no global warming, it’s all a scam by the NWO and whatnot to do whatever it is the NWO want to do this week.

But she’s also a strong believer in chemtrails. And when those beliefs are at odds, what does Clare do? She ignores it. Here’s some irrefutable proof posted by Clare on the existence of chemtrails

Environmental consultant Mike Castle discovered the primary purpose behind chemtrails when he came across a practical patent for “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming”.

There ya go. Chemtrails are being sprayed to reduce Global Warming. But, wait, doesn’t Clare dispute the existence of Global Warming? How does this contradictory position sit with her? Asking, it seems, brings out the famous cry of ‘disinformation agent!’

It’d be nice to try and nut these ideas out with her on her own blog, but, apparently, I’m banned. I’ve been thinking I should just start up my own conspiracy theory blog for ages now anyway, for, as much as I try to let it go, arguing with crazy conspiracy theory cranks is an itch I just can’t seem to stop scratching. Clare suggested I start a blog. I took her up on her suggestion.