Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on The Anti-Greta
- Gamecock on The Anti-Greta
- William Capron on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on “a persistent concern”
- conrad ziefle on The Anti-Greta
- arn on “a persistent concern”
- Margaret Smith on “a persistent concern”
- arn on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
80 Years Ago : 117 Degrees In The Midwest
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Thanks, Steven, for this reminder of information our government now wants to hide from the public.
George Orwell knew what was coming in 1946, when he moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura to start writing “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
He had already written “Animal Farm” about the rise of totalitarian communism under Stalin before WWII, but somehow he knew Stalin had acquired the ability to subvert western democracies and the rest of the world too after the end of WWII.
Steve,
The most popular cause of extreme weather phenomenon was apparently debunked in 1935.
“In fact, a single cause, the wide use of radio, is often advanced for both
drought and flood.”
US Weather Bureau scientist Dr Humphries denied that radio is the cause, but says that lighting huge fires could break the 1934 drought. Climate science has advanced so much – not.
“This method, Dr. Humphreys says, is correct in principle, but the cost of a fire big enough to break a drought would be prohibitive.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/150268556