Without a doubt, human beings are doing grave damage to the environment and the ecosystem. Recent reports not only on LewRockwell.com but also on alternative sites including Zerohedge.com reveal the dangers, including mass death of ocean life, plant life, and insects.

Here are selected postings:

• The Sixth Extinction: A Conversation With Elizabeth Kolbert
• Insect Apocalypse: The Global Food Chain Faces Major Extinction Event And Scientists Don’t Know Why
• Enviro-pocalypse Looms: UN Report Claims One Million Species At Risk Of Extinction
• The World’s Plants Are Going Extinct About 500 Times Faster Than They Should, Study Finds
• Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds
• Building blocks of ocean food web in rapid decline as plankton productivity plunges
• What are the effects of fracking on the environment?
• Deforestation: Facts, Causes & Effects

From the last article on plankton decline: Kicking the Sacred Cow James P. Hogan Best Price: $3.29 Buy New $199.99 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)

Phytoplankton and zooplankton that live near the surface are the base of the ocean’s food system. Everything from small fish, big fish, whales and seabirds depend on their productivity.

“They actually determine what’s going to happen, how much energy is going to be available for the rest of the food chain,” explained Pierre Pepin, a senior researcher with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in St. John’s.

Pepin says over the past three to four years, scientists have seen a persistent drop in phytoplankton and zooplankton in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Based on the measurements that we’ve been taking in this region, we’ve seen pretty close to 50 per cent decline in the overall biomass of zooplankton,” said Pepin. “So that’s pretty dramatic.”

Scientists say local testing reveals half the amount of plankton in a square metre of water today. It’s not just a problem here, declining plankton numbers are a global phenomenon.

It’s a difficult idea to convey to the average person who might not understand the ocean ecosystem, but Pepin likens it to walking into a grocery store and instead of seeing the shelves full, they’re only half-full.

“You know if you saw half the number of birds, if you saw half the number of fish in the water you’d pay attention. Well, this is a signal to say we need to pay attention.”

Alarm bells are going off

So what’s causing this dramatic decline?

Scientists here haven’t detected anything in particular that can be linked to the plunge in productivity, but they are worried.

I’m surprised that no one in the article blames “Climate Change” as the cause. Yet the purpose of my writing this piece is to show that while there are signs of environmental catastrophe looming, the causes are unlikely to be due to anthropogenic—that is, man-made—climate change. As physicist Wallace (Wal) Thornhill noted in a recent video on the topic (posted at the end of this article), “Climate change, including global warming, is part of the natural order. Anthropogenic global warming is an alleged consensus among climate scientists that we are causing global warming. But a mere show of ‘experts’ hands does not make it a fact.”

Hence my purpose in writing this piece: to explore the dogma that is “Anthropogenic Climate Change”: and present counter arguments for those who have an interest to consider, that the legacy media and big (government, oligarchy controlled) science considers taboo to even discuss. Yes, the climate is changing but astrophysicists using invalid mathematical models and lacking an understanding of the true nature of the sun are behind an agenda that appears less for humanitarian reasons and love for life on the Earth than the usual motive of the so-called elites to garner more money and power.

Thornhill quotes Jacques Barzun from his book, Science: The Glorious Entertainment:

Rampant specialism, an arbitrary and purely social evil, is not recognized for the crabbing guild spirit that it is, and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness.

Thornhill then comments “that ‘protected irresponsibility’ has allowed the waste of countless billions of dollars on futile big science [projects including] the pursuit of fusion power ‘like the sun’, the search for ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and ‘anthropogenic global warming,’ masquerading as climate change. The truth about global warming may be quite different when one or more of the premises on which it is based [are] found to be false.”

I’d like to examine some of those premises, one of which is that the Earth is an undisturbed, isolated system only receiving radiant solar energy. In addition, the simplistic solar model is over a century old and is unable to predict the observed features of the sun or how it behaves. John A. Eddy published a landmark paper in the journal Science in 1976 that introduced The Maunder Minimum, showing that the “solar constant” has not been constant at all. The Electric Sky Scott, Donald E. Buy New $9.99 (as of 11:45 UTC - Details)

In addition, observation of the most distant planets from the sun in the solar system reveal the most violent weather on those planets is taking place far beyond the orbit of the Earth, obviously not nearly as close to the sun as the Earth is, a fact that indicates the belief that our planet’s weather systems are driven by solar radiant heat has missed a key, alternative energy source. Since astrophysicists believe electricity plays no role in space, lightning “experts” following their lead view the earth as an electrically isolated system and cannot explain lightning and the huge red sprites etc. that stretch above storms and extend into space. Yet magnetic ropes have been found connecting the sun to the Earth that as Thornhill notes, “signify electric currents in the plasma between them. But this doesn’t fit ‘settled science.’” And the consequence of “settled science” is an inability to accept plausible reasons, in fact to fail to understand the true nature of the cosmos.

And here I have to introduce to readers a “paradigm shift”, a term innovated by physicist Thomas Kuhn: the sun is not an exploding hydrogen bomb formed from interstellar clouds of gas one billionth the density of cigarette smoke that somehow coalesced into a star, one of many billions in our galaxy, a star that is powered by unexplained, controlled thermonuclear explosions. To the contrary, evidence shows that the sun is externally powered. As Wallace Thornhill wrote in an article published in 2007:

What do we need to know before an informed judgement can be made in the global warming debate? What are the science myths holding us back?

It is crucial that we know what is really going on in space-and in particular how the Sun really works. By historical accident the theory of what makes the Sun shine was developed at the time nuclear energy was discovered and when plasma physics was in its infancy. The Sun, instead of being an aboriginal campfire in the sky with limited fuel, became a “thermonuclear campfire” with practically limitless fuel. Not such a big advance over Stone Age thinking!

It seems very satisfying—and safe. We don’t need to put coins in the meter to keep it burning. However, the reactions which are thought to generate heat in the Sun’s core are hypersensitive to temperature variations, and mechanisms to control the reactions are difficult to devise. In view of this, the steadiness of the Sun’s output is a puzzle. Furthermore, if thermonuclear reactions generated all the Sun’s energy, a certain number of subatomic particles called electron neutrinos would be produced. And critically—the number of electron neutrinos coming from the Sun is woefully inadequate.

Astronomers appealed to particle physicists to help patch things up. Particle physicists responded with a clever subterfuge, saying that all is well if you add up the different neutrino “flavors” and propose that some were electron neutrinos that swapped flavours en-route to the detectors on Earth. Astrophysicists grasped this lifesaver like drowning men and women. It became “proof” of their “thermonuclear campfire” model overnight. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven without a neutrino detector close to the Sun. Occam’s razor recommends that we take the neutrino data at face value and re-examine our assumptions about the Sun.

Meanwhile astronomers discovered that the Sun is an amazingly complex magnetic body—while campfires are not noted for their magnetism. So heroic attempts have been made to conjure up a “dynamo” inside the Sun to match its weird magnetic behaviour. Not surprisingly, all attempts have failed. It is simply assumed there must be a hidden dynamo because the magnetic fields are there and no one believes they could come from outside the Sun. The mysteriously generated magnetic fields are called upon to explain most of the puzzling observations about the Sun. It fits the astrophysicists’ maxim, “When we don’t understand something, we blame it on magnetism.” They then show their ignorance of magnetism by describing electric discharge phenomena in terms of the ‘snapping’ and ‘reconnection’ of imaginary field lines. The father of plasma physics, [Nobel laureate] Hannes Alfvén, wrote concerning the mistreatment of magnetism by astrophysicists:

“Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.”

The view of the Sun as an isolated, self-sufficient, self-immolating, magnetic body is the chief peculiarity and drawback of the campfire Sun.

But the refutation of this theory blazes down on us in plain view. Nothing seen on or above the Sun conforms to the “campfire” model!

—the odd solar magnetic field, the remarkable photospheric granulation, dark sunspots, the filamentary sunspot penumbrae, the sunspot cycle, the variation of rotation rate across the surface and with depth, the blisteringly hot corona above a cool photosphere (like boiling the kettle on a cold campfire), the solar flares and coronal mass ejections, the acceleration of the solar wind.

Simply put, we do not understand the Sun. And if we do not understand the Sun we have no basis for understanding its influence on the Earth’s climate.

But there is a way to understand the Sun, if only we can step outside the traditional astrophysical assumption that gravity alone operates in space. The generation and transmission of power for electric lights involves magnetism. And unlike any campfire, the Sun manifests an abundance of magnetic phenomena. Those phenomena suggest that the Sun is an electrical body. The magnetic field of the solar wind shows that electric currents flow within the solar system. The million-degree temperature of the solar corona points to an external power source for the Sun. The polar plume and equatorial plasma torus show that the Sun, like all stars, is the focus of galactic currents “pinching” naturally into an hourglass form with an equatorial current sheet.

Science: The Glorious ... Jacques, Barzun Best Price: $6.00 Buy New $82.58 (as of 05:35 UTC - Details) Thornhill elaborates further on how the electric sun works:

Stars are elements in galactic circuits. They trace the power lines like electric streetlights along the arms of the Milky Way. The solar magnetic and sunspot cycle is due to the quasi-periodic DC power input to the Sun. This variability of power input to the Sun can be clearly seen in X-rays and UV light. See “The Sun – Our Variable Star.”

It has been shown that the Sun’s constancy of light and heat output is due to a natural transistor action of the plasma sheaths forming the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. A very small voltage between the body of the Sun and the underside of the photosphere controls the enormous current that lights the Sun. Nature, as we have come to expect, has found a beautifully simple method of steadying the light output of main sequence stars.

A star is the focus of a galactic “glow discharge.” The electrical energy that courses through the solar system and powers the Sun is a subtle form of energy that all of the planets intercept to some degree. Planets orbit within this discharge and intercept some of the electrical energy. Planets are minor “electrodes” within a stellar discharge envelope. The electrical energy is delivered to stars and planets in the manner of a simple Faraday motor.

See the below photographic image for the Faraday motor:

Schematic of the Faraday motor effect upon a planet (or star).

The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes and gives rise to fast upper atmosphere winds and even “super rotation.” That is, the wind races around the planet faster than the planet turns. It is a phenomenon observed on Venus and Titan and remains unexplained by atmospheric physics, which relies on solar heating. It is the cause of the extraordinary winds on the gas giant planets in the outer solar system, where solar heating is weak. It has implications for the jet streams and weather patterns on Earth as well. Notably, the polar current streams take the form of twin Birkeland current filaments, which give rise to the enigmatic “double vortexes” seen at the poles of Venus. It is apparent that electrical energy from space doesn’t merely light up auroras. It has a profound influence on upper atmosphere winds and storms. An expert on the dynamics of planetary atmospheres, F. W. Taylor, has admitted, “the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.” Meanwhile, electrical energy appears nowhere in any climate model.

It will take time to read and understand Thornhill’s thesis but the key points are the fact that the sun is externally powered and that the Earth is electrically connected to the sun, a star that varies in power output thus affecting the climate of the earth. Hence, anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide by human beings is trivial in influencing weather patterns. Thunderbolts Project © team member Stephen Smith elaborated in a recent post entitled “Electric Earth” and below is an excerpt that explains more competently than I can, including details on recent satellites: Son of Thunder: The Sp... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $12.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details)

NASA launched the four Magnetospheric Multiscale Satellites on March 12, 2015. Their primary mission includes studying the magnetic field around Earth, especially what mainstream astrophysicists call “magnetic reconnection”. The theory states that electromagnetic fields can break, cross and then “reconnect” through some unknown mechanism. They then “explode”, releasing large quantities of heat and light. Earth’s aurorae, in particular, are thought to be energized through that process. The problems with the theory are not the topic of this paper. Suffice to say, Electric Universe advocates do not accept the idea that there are “lines” of magnetism in the first place. Magnetic fields exist as a continuum, so there are no discrete artifacts.

The MMS constellation, as well as others scheduled for launch before the end of the decade (the Geospace Electrodynamic Connections mission and the Magnetospheric Constellation missions), are part of a widespread, international consortium known as the Global Electric Circuit Project.

MMS joined the TIMED mission (launched in 2001), currently analyzing solar influences on Earth in the area close to 100 kilometers in altitude, especially the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere/Ionosphere (MLTI). The upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere are not well understood, especially the thermosphere. It is there that solar energy, in the form of charged particles, interacts with atmospheric particles. How that relationship works continues to be investigated, however TIMED detected a tenfold decline in the thermosphere’s temperature since 2002, during solar minimum.

Temperatures in the thermosphere are the result of solar radiation. Ultraviolet light is absorbed by residual atmospheric oxygen, becoming electrically charged, along with increased molecular motion. Molecular motion is known as heat, so, although a household thermometer would register temperatures below zero in the thermosphere, it is considered hot; over 1500 Celsius during solar maximum.

In the atmosphere, electric currents are collectively called the Global Electric Circuit. Lightning, for example, is not an isolated event, it is part of a relationship that includes all levels of the atmosphere. As written previously, there is an electrical potential of nearly 500,000 volts between the ground and the ionosphere. That circuit is active even without thunderstorms, creating what is called Earths “fair weather field”, generating two picoamps from every square meter of ground.

The 22 year solar cycle influences Earth’s environment, because Earth is part of a circuit in the Solar System, with the Sun as the primary electrode. Although solar energy varies over time, corresponding with sunspot cycles, that variance amounts to less than one-tenth of one percent. As mentioned, electricity from space is injected into the thermosphere along massive Birkeland currents. When solar winds are at a minimum, the electric currents decline in amperage, thereby decreasing the strength of Earth’s magnetosphere.

As the magnetosphere declines in strength, it is less able to deflect energetic ions arriving from deep space known as cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are charge carriers, and those ions are able to reach the troposphere. Collisions between charged and neutral particles drag air molecules along with them influencing low level cloud cover. More clouds reflect more radiation from the Sun back to space—clouds are white because they are acting like mirrors to all forms of visible light. More reflection means less solar energy, more cloud cover, and so on.

The last two paragraphs, starting with the 22 year solar cycle, explain why the weather is changing due to the variability in the output of the sun. Smith further develops these concepts in a piece entitled “Earth’s Electrical Dynamics.” The Cloak of Freya: Th... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details)

The Electric Universe theories are supported and studied by engineers and many are members of the IEEE that promotes study of this discipline. The mathematical concept introduced by physicists of “Magnetic Reconnection” pertaining to the sun has been debunked in this paper by electrical engineer and author Donald E. Scott that was presented to the organization: “Real Properties of Electrical Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos” which shows respected “establishment” physicists have no issue violating Maxwell’s equations.

Since the concept is a critical component of current explanation by the “experts” of the nature of the sun and is absolutely false on the grounds described in the paper, I believe it further proof that astronomers and other professionals have no concept of the true nature of weather. Scott writes in the conclusion to his paper, “Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth. Those investigators who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic field theory must refrain from inventing ‘new’ mechanisms in efforts to support current-free cosmic models. ‘New science’ should not be invoked until all of what is now known about electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by responsible scientists and engineers.”

A video on the topic can presented by Dr. Scott can be seen here:

In addition to Wallace Thornhill,  solar physicist and meteorologist Piers Corbyn, a leading skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, discusses in the below video that recent “dramatic affirmations of the electromagnetic connection between the Earth and the Sun have been demonstrated. With each new discovery, the Sun’s profound influence on Earth’s climate and weather becomes more self-evident. However, it seems that the electrical nature of the Earth/Sun connection, and its role in so-called climate change, remains nowhere to be found in the popular climate change debate” and so I believe it is important, since facts do matter, to make his work known.

His video presentation is here:

LewRockwell.com recently linked to this article, “Confirmed! – Geomagnetic reversals can trigger glaciation” which noted that “That increase in galactic cosmic rays came about, the press release explains, because the Earth’s magnetic-field strength plummeted to less than 25 percent of today’s. In-as-much as our magnetic field shields us from cosmic rays, and in-as-much as geomagnetic field strength is now declining rapidly (5 percent per decade), and in-as-much as we may be headed for a reversal right now ( here), this discovery concerns me (and also here ).” However, all that I’ve included above explains the variable electric sun and its interconnection and interaction with the Earth as the causes in the variable weather, that is, why the Earth’s magnetic-field strength “plummeted.”

I find the so-called elites crying crocodile tears over “anthropogenic climate change” almost laughable were they not most likely involved in doing serious damage to the environment. If they believed in “carbon footprint” being the cause, then why is there no condemnation of the U.S. Military? See “Carbon footprint of US military larger than most countries: Study.” And the site Geoengineering Watch documents governments’ efforts to artificially change the climate through “Climate engineering”, with disastrous and untended consequences. I cannot be the only one who remembers a time when the sky used to be a beautiful, deep “sky blue” color and now is mostly bluish milky gray.

A preview of a film that they have produced on the topic, “The Dimming” is shown here:

Regarding scientific proof of the “Electric Sun” model, the Thunderbolts.info site has this easily understandable introduction, “Discovering the Electric Sun – Part 1” and also see this latest update on “The SAFIRE Project” here, which is using the scientific method to prove the Electric Sun theory:

After I wrote my last article on the deficiencies of Einstein’s theories and supported the position of The Electric Universe, I received both negative feedback from the science (physics) establishment but far more positive feedback from readers. Reader Chris wrote me:

I enjoyed the article on Einstein. Without being a scientist, one thing that should always have set off alarm bells is the fact that no one seems to understand his theories. When I was growing up, I was told that there were only half a dozen people in the world who really understood his theories. It has been my experience that if a theory is sound and well thought out, it is not all that difficult to understand. If no one understands a theory, then that tells me that it is not all that well thought out and the theory is simply wrong. Truth tends to be simple, although the process by which we arrive at it is often complex. The theories of men like Mises and Rothbard are generally not all that difficult to understand, not because they had some special writing talent, but simply because their theories were well thought out and make sense.

Another thing that should have set off alarm bells is that fact that Einstein has long been the center of a huge cult. It is my experience that men who are the focus of cults are nearly always bad.

Therefore, I think the idea of the Electric Sun and Earth and how climate truly changes might very well appeal to the readers of LewRockwell.com, who understand the simplicity and elegance of the Austrian economic model, from Mises and Rothbard, that puts Marx and Keynes to shame, even if they’re establishment orthodoxy.

As James P. Hogan wrote eloquently a few years ago for LewRockwell.com on comets, and consequently on The Electric Universe:

Gravity is the weakest force known to physics. A tiny magnet can snap a nail up effortlessly against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth. If the Sun were reduced to the size of a dust grain, the next nearest star would be about four miles away. The gravitational attraction between two specks of dust four miles apart isn’t much. On the same scale of distance, the galaxy would be a disk 100,000 miles across made up of 200 billion specks of dust, all miles apart. Present theory looks to a force spread this diffusely to account not only for the structure and behavior of our galaxy, but also the events observed across all the other countless galaxies scattered over immensely greater distances.

The law of gravitation that emerged from the work of Newton and his predecessors works well enough to describe the motions of bodies in our own back yard of the Solar System at the present time. Its success was so great that early astronomers were confident that they had discovered principles that could be extended indefinitely and universally. But when attempts were made to explain some of the phenomena revealed by more recent observations, such as the way galaxies as a whole rotate, or motions and events occurring at the largest scales of existence, the amount of matter in the universe — and hence the gravitational effects that it was capable of producing — turned out to be woefully inadequate. But the commitment to a gravity-only model had become so ingrained that the response, instead of a willingness to re-examine the theory, has been to postulate the presence of invisible “dark matter” to make up the difference — later extended to the notion of “dark energy” to account for enormous forces evidently at work that the observed amount of matter can’t account for. Things have now reached the bizarre point where, according to the prevailing belief system, no less than 96 percent of the universe has to be there in forms unseen in order to explain the behavior of the 4 percent that is seen. Inventing unobservables to explain away failed predictions is almost always the sign of a theory that’s in trouble. Over 99 percent of the observed universe exists in the form of “plasma” — a gas-like state of matter consisting all or in part of charged particles that respond to electrical and magnetic forces, which are immensely more powerful than gravity. An alternative view, known as the Electric Universe model, is emerging that recognizes the vital role played by electricity, and is able to interpret, and in many cases predict, cosmological phenomena in terms of principles that are well understood and can be demonstrated in electrical and plasma laboratories. It deals purely in tangibles and the universe that we see, without recourse to any of the speculative abstractions that the conventional model has been forced to resort to when new observations failed to match expectations, or were never anticipated in the first place.

The Electric Universe Wallace Thornhill, Dav... Best Price: $70.00 Buy New $27.00 (as of 11:40 UTC - Details) Finally, physicist Wallace Thornhill wrote me an email after I shared an angry response from a respected establishment physicist:

[The response of the scientist] shows the dreadful damage done to intelligent people by our education systems, which train people to be blind to the obvious.

I recommend a look at the work of Dr. Iain McGilchrist in the UK on this subject. His research shows that scientists need to understand themselves before they can understand the universe. [Emphasis added.]

I have long felt that this revolution must come from the public. So articles like yours are very important.

The feedback I commonly receive from individuals is that the new paradigm changes their lives. It reconnects them with a purposeful life instead of the random and hopeless cosmology inflicted on us today.

That is the finest motivator anyone can have.

Part One of Wal Thornhill’s presentation on Climate Change:

Part Two is here:

Addendum as of July 14, 2019:

ZeroHedge just posted the following article, and RT did as well, that supports the thesis that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change and my suspicion is that the legacy media won’t give this story much if any coverage:

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice”.

The RT article is here: Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

The Best of Yvonne Lorenzo