reply to post by ptownb
I wouldn't place too much credence on that article, for a variety of reasons.
For one, it's by Sorcha Faal, which is a name guaranteed to raise blood pressures on ATS. Do a quick search here (or, for that matter, on Google),
and you'll find that Faal isn't a highly regarded source. Lest someone accuse me of an ad hominem
attack, I'll present a few sources to back
up my comments:
TBR News - Sorcha Faal
ATS - Sorcha Faal
ZetaTalk - Sorcha Faal
For another (leaving aside questions about the reliability of the source), the article, supposedly supported by Some of the Smartest People Evar (tm),
contains some glaring errors. My personal favorite? The idea that a 'tensor transformation experiment' can destabilize the Earth's orbit. Tensors
are mathematical constructs, not physical ones. They can, at best, describe an experiment...they are not, in themselves, experimental subjects.
Wikki - Tensors
The closest a tensor transformation can come to destabilizing the Earth is making a math major decide to slam back a few Irish Coffees after dealing
with them...that can certainly destabilize the Earth on a personal scale, but not on a planetary one.
(Don't ask me how I know
this...I'll deny everything!).
Then there's this little 'gem':
Most insidious, however, of these Western governments, and their scientists, plans is their creation of the twin Global Warming/Climate Change
myth to cover over the many catastrophic affects of their experiments at CERN, and which one of these ‘effects’ has been reported this week is
leading to the shifting of our World’s jet streams as they plunge even closer to the poles of our planet. (And which any school child’s science
class experiments shows will, indeed, be the consequence of shifting the magnetic alignment of a sphere.)
Oddly enough, while I can't find any link (other than the one in Sorcha Faal's vivid imagination) linking magnetic alignment to the paths of jet
streams (or even defining 'magnetic alignment of a sphere' in any relevant context), the very article cited by S.F. places the blame for the shift
on global warming. It takes a real leap of faith (and bad science) to not only contradict your own citation, but to blame a phenomenon on an
experiment that hasn't happened yet.
In short, we have a questionable source, presenting factual errors, bad science, and bad debating form, seasoned with a heavy glaze of fear-mongering,
and marinated in a mixture of buzz-words and bad writing. Let simmer for 2-4 months on the Internet....serves 4.