Global Cooling, Russia, Ukraine, Europe & The United States: The Battle Over Natural Gas

Comment: If you're into top-level mundane Astrology then you'd be very wise to check out Theodore Whites' excellent analysis:  The Grand Cardinal Cross Of Spring 2014: Crisis In Ukraine, Crimea, Russia & The West

The following is only a small extract of a very long and detailed post where astrology meets geopolitics with special attention given to the Ukraine-Russia crisis. 

----------------------

The Grand Cardinal Cross Spring 2014

[...]

The overall series of seven (7) exact Uranus-Pluto World Squares, of which the fourth exact aspect activated on November 1, 2013, will take us to the fifth (5th) exact square of April 21, 2014, and that is smack in the middle of the ongoing Grand Cardinal Cross of spring 2014. 

1 March 2014 - Mars stations retrograde at 27-Libra

2 March 2014 - Saturn stations retrograde at 23-Scorpio

6 March 2014 - Jupiter stations direct at 10-Cancer

Then, into the Grand Cardinal Cross of spring of 2014:

10 April 2014 - Mercury heads N in declination

14 April 2014 - Pluto stations retrograde

15 April 2014 - New Moon and Lunar Eclipse at 25-Libra

20 April 2014 - Jupiter squares Uranus

20 Apr 2014 - Jupiter opposes Pluto

21 Apr 2014 - 5th Uranus square Pluto, exact aspect

20-23 April - Strong cardinal transits

From these planetary configurations, it is my assessment that we are heading into dangerous times for 2014, a major cardinal crisis year.

The Holy Week of April 2014 is highlighted for much of the cardinal crisis energies.

Another problem is that there is a lunar eclipse on April 15, 2014, which compounds an already powerful time in the world. It will extend into the months of May and June 2014.

A Grand Cross, or Grand Square configuration, consists of four (4) or more planets spread out at intervals of approximately 90-degrees.

This powerful configuration features two oppositions with four planets that are square to each other. 

In the case of spring 2014, these planets are:

Mars, retrograde in Libra

Jupiter in Cancer

Uranus in Aries

Pluto, retrograde in Capricorn

Now, this configuration differs from a T-square configuration which diffuses energy, as the grand cross configuration focalizes it.

The reason for this is because any one of the planets in a grand cross, or grand square, can be considered a focal point.

These are powerful focalized energy conduits that demand attention.

Therefore, any attempt to resolve any problems caused by a single planet in the grand cardinal cross configuration simply aggravates more problems with the other planets in the configuration.

This means that one is forced to scramble, from one crisis situation to the another, without being able to concentrate long enough on a single situation to be effective in resolving anything, that is, without causing even more problems in events taking place at the same time.

Remember, this 2014 cardinal configuration shows a continuous cycle of 'focalized crisis situations,' in each of the planetary positions - Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Pluto - as those involved are unable to fully resolve the problems associated with each single planetary body that are in unfavorable adverse aspect to one another.

The Uranus-Pluto world squares will bring about more revolutionary sentiments, violence and disruption that forces the status quo into what I consider to be suicidal attempts to regain 'control,'as the status quo is actually losing power.

It will call upon everyone with common sense, intelligence, courage and insight to counter the negativity brought about by the dying oligarchy and establishment that have laid down the groundwork of the dysfunction and disruption that is now in operation.

The spring into mid-summer 2014 is also not a good time for extended travel. I continue to warn about this due to the unfavorable world transits.

Any travel plans you have should be cancelled due to the high probability for accidents and troubles in foreign countries from now through to mid-to-late summer 2014.

My mundane advice is that it is best to stay close to home.

[...]

The Battle Over Natural Gas Global Cooling, Russia, Ukraine, Europe & The United States:

By Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci 

In forecasting the brutal winter of 2014 several years ago, I noted that the anomalous cold temperatures, ice and snow storms of winter 2014 would break records in the northern hemisphere.

And so it did.

The winter of 2014 shows what near future winters will be like under the new climate regime of global cooling that I have also forecasted will soon set upon the entire Earth.

And yet, another of the great bonehead errors that Washington DC and the Obama administration has consistently been making is their stance on ‘climate change.’

I will remind all that despite even President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry saying that ‘man-made global warming is a fact’ - that that is impossible.

The laws of physics which govern the Earth's entire planetary climate state outright that ‘man-made global warming,’ aka, ‘climate change’ cannot happen on Earth.

That means that it is impossible.

That is a fact.

Moreover, the solar-forced global warming that has been caused by the Sun since 1980-81 has been on the wane for years and will end, according to my Astromet calculations, in the year 2017.

And the new climate regime that is coming is global cooling, which is far, far worse than global warming could ever be.

In fact, global warming is good for the Earth, but global cooling is not.

And it is global cooling that is coming. 


Read more

Anti-Science: Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail

Washington's Blog


Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments.
 
For example, imprisoning Galileo for life because he didn’t agree with the “accepted” consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.

Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”

In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be“criminally irresponsible.”

The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.

In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”

The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)

James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.

Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.
It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren –was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.

Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?

Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…

Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?