December 1, 2009
For approximately the past 45 years, going back to the Kennedy assassination, I have been fascinated by what many have deemed to be “conspiracy theories”, but which I often viewed as the public’s blind acceptance of “official positions” put forth by the government or mainstream media. With the consolidation of control over our newspaper, radio and television interests, any semblance of a “fair and balanced” investigative approach to reporting could only be found by turning to alternative sources of information — often consisting of websites with scary names, repositories for sometimes rather bizarre accounts authored by what many consider to be “whackos”. In retrospect — I have concluded that you must be selective about what you read, but shouldn’t solely rely on sources that tend to share your point of view. And, most importantly, verify…verify…verify before you embrace any account as an absolute truth. In many cases, what was initially learned via the voice of the “whacko” proves to be accurate and becomes the mantra echoed by the masses. In other cases, upon further investigation, what at first appers to be completley ludicrous proves out to be worthy of complete disregard.
The difficulty in arriving at “truth” is a formidable task with respect to the core subject matter addressed at www.AWORLDALERT.COM — the climate related issues which are at the forefront of the news today. We are bombarded with information that is, at best, presented with a political spin, and more often just knowingly false — issues like the myths and realities surrounding global warming; the real reasons government, Wall Street, the utility industry and environmentalists have embraced the convoluted cap and trade scams now before our Congress and the Copenhagen Conference; the seemingly diabolical plots to geoengineer the world’s climate to mitigate global warming with little, if any, consideration of the collateral consequences; and the deliberate manipulation of the weather and covert “weaponization of the weather” by many governments, some friendly and some unfriendly to our nation’s best interests. In the past couple of years many issues that were formerly discounted by my friends and family as conspiratorial have come to the fore in the mainstream media, introduced by some of our most esteemed and trusted scientists and institutions. For example: Paul Crutzen, the 1995 Nobel Prize winner for closing the hole in the ozone layer, openly suggested creating a chemical blanket around our earth to stall the impact of global warming soas to allow us to extend our reliance on fossil fuels; the Council on Foreign Relations has held several seminars and published a major treatise on geoengineering schemes in its “Foreign Affairs” magazine; in his first days after appointment, the Obama Administration’s top scientist announced that geoengineering of our climate as a means to combat global warming should be given serious consideration. Talk about mainstream — the Number 1 best selling business book today, “SuperFreakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (see “Recommended Articles” for a quick overview) contains a fascinating chapter on how Microsoft’s former Chief Scientific Officer, funded by Bill Gates, is leading a team developing ways to suppress or steer hurricanes, as well as schemes to use giant hoses or coal-fired power plant mega-chimneys to emit sulphfur into the upper atmosphere to mitigate global warming. Not to disparage the noble intentions of Bill Gates, as we are well aware of all the good his family foundation seems to be doing for mankind, but do we really want businessmen with the power of almost unfettered control over what chemicals are in the air we breath? In the past weeks, the foundations of the CO2 focused crusade to combat global warming have been rattled by “ClimateGate” revelations suggesting the intentional skewing of scientific data with respect to the impact of greenhouse gasses on sustainable being.
I am not a scientist and I certainly don’t have all of the answers — but I do ask a lot of questions — hopefully, the kind of queries that should be raised before we accept some of the “truths” that are being thrust upon a trusting and unsuspecting public; the very ones that will bear the financial and health-related costs inherent in these schemes. In many cases, I will be posting articles and references to information that I don’t embrace, but which I feel is worth sharing. Whether you agree or disagree, email me at KCantw9473@aol.com and let me know what you think. I enjoy the luxury of being at a stage of life where I can devote time and other resources to researching topics I am passionate about, and would like to share my efforts with as many as possible. Absent feedback, both encouraging and challenging, from readers with a broad cross-section of perspective, however, my efforts will not be as meaningful as I hope them to be.