In terms of my background and education, I graduated with a BS in Meteorology and followed it up with an MS in Atmospheric Science with an emphasis on human -induced greenhouse gas emissions and climate change before adjusting my professional direction (i.e. transpersonal applications using astrology). This is the reason for my personal interest in understanding the evolution of the global climate change narrative as it relates to astrological cycles.
Astrologically speaking, from November 2015 through September 2016, the outer planets Saturn and Neptune are forming a waning square (90°) with one another from the signs of Sagittarius and Pisces, respectively. This pits the planet representing form, structure, rules, resistance, and fear (Saturn) at odds with the planet representing dreams, deception, mysticism, and the masses (Neptune).
Astrologically speaking, from November 2015 through September 2016, the outer planets Saturn and Neptune are forming a waning square (90°) with one another from the signs of Sagittarius and Pisces, respectively. This pits the planet representing form, structure, rules, resistance, and fear (Saturn) at odds with the planet representing dreams, deception, mysticism, and the masses (Neptune).
So, how does Saturn squaring Neptune or astrology itself have anything to do with climate change? For a brief introduction in terms of the use of astrology for practical purposes, please see the article at this link however in terms of applying this understanding of astrological cycles to this contentious global issue, just stay with me...
Saturn is currently in Sagittarius, suggesting that at this time it is with regards to our collective BELIEFS and the future direction of our society based on these beliefs that we are attempting to gain STRUCTURE and a set of new rules to follow. And with regards to the climate change issue, this is exactly where we find ourselves now as global leaders have been convening to make decisions about the future of the world in terms of what we collectively believe to be the primary cause of observed climate change (i.e. human-induced greenhouse gas emissions).
As you will see later in this article, it is these BELIEFS regarding the primary causes of observed climate change that are in question and the popular narrative is likely to breakdown over the coming months as hidden truths and deceptions come to light.
As you will see later in this article, it is these BELIEFS regarding the primary causes of observed climate change that are in question and the popular narrative is likely to breakdown over the coming months as hidden truths and deceptions come to light.
Just so we have a better grip as to where we are within the current Saturn/Neptune cycle over the next several months, know that just like with the Moon’s phases, the other planetary bodies move through their own phases relative to the Earth.
Whether it is the monthly cycle between the Sun and the Moon or between any other two planetary bodies, the start of any coupled planetary cycle begins with their conjunction (i.e. New Moon). Then, as the faster planet moves away from the slower planet, eventually they form a 90° angle (waxing square) to each other, followed by the 180° opposition (i.e. a Full Moon), then the second 90° angle (waning square), and then the cycle finishes when a new cycle between the planets is born at the next conjunction.
Below is a basic outline of the process including the associated general energy experience related to each of these important climax points in the planetary cycles:
Conjunction (0°) – Birth and creation.
Waxing Square (90°) – Tension due to growth.
Opposition (180°) – Culmination and results.
Waning Square (270°) – Tension due to decay.
In applying the general pattern of astrological cycles to the one in question, note that the entire Saturn/Neptune cycle takes approximately 36 years to complete from conjunction to conjunction and it represents a time of controlled deception and/or the implementation of plans for the masses as the structural energies of Saturn assist in forming the dreamlike 'visionary' energy of Neptune.
Below is a look at the current Saturn/Neptune cycle relative to global climate change concerns and relative to my own personal/professional involvement with it. It also includes a look at where we are now in the current Saturn/Neptune cycle (waning square):
Current Saturn/Neptune Cycle
(1989 – 2025)
Saturn conjunct Neptune in Capricorn from February 1989 – November 1989
Amidst a relatively hot summer across the lower 48 states in 1988, climate expert James Hansen of NASA declared that 'global warming' had begun. Then in November of 1989, Margaret Thatcher of England gave a speech at the UN General Assembly that likely established the climate change narrative as we know it in terms of it being caused by human-induced greenhouse emissions and as a global political intention/agenda. (Margaret Thatcher - UN General Assembly Climate Change Speech (1989)
) Astrologically, this is consistent with the energy of Saturn joining Neptune in the sign of Capricorn (i.e. governments, laws, restrictions). At that time, it was also suggested through the UN that the Earth had entered a 10-yr tipping point and that its inhabitants would need to restrict carbon emissions in order to reduce the greenhouse effect to prevent total climate catastrophe by the end of the 20th century. Two things didn't happen. We didn't curtail human greenhouse gas emissions and there was no climate catastrophe. In terms of my personal journey, I spent the fall of 1988 through the spring of 1989 as a 4th grader who was being introduced to the science of Meteorology as part of an extracurricular program. This experience had a MAJOR influence on my life direction.
Saturn (Aries/Taurus) waxing square to Neptune (Capricorn/Aquarius) from June 1998 - April 1999
In 1998 and 1999, I was a college student majoring in Meteorology. By the summer of 1999, I was starting to question my life path while also being introduced to new potential careers that were emerging in the meteorology field. While most people equate presenting the weather on 'the news' as the only professional outlet for meteorologists, the majority of career options actually lie outside of this realm. And one of the fastest growing new industries for meteorological professionals during the late 1990's was that of 'weather risk management'. In fact in 1999, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) first introduced exchange-traded weather futures. With this introduction, energy companies and any other company with a bottom line significantly affected by the weather had a mechanism for trading weather derivatives in order to hedge against losses due to unexpected weather events. This is energetically consistent with Saturn in Taurus squaring Neptune in Aquarius by the end of this period as those with the means and the incentive now had a monetized structure (Saturn in Taurus) to trade 'nebulous' futures (Neptune in Aquarius). And while this may seem innocent enough and in some ways brilliant, we will see in a moment how these financial incentives to manipulate the weather may be part of a larger deception that perhaps reveals the intention of the global climate change narrative as we know it. And just a reminder that this waxing square period in the late 1990s was a time to make adjustments to that which was initiated during the conjunction period in 1989.
Saturn (Leo) opposite Neptune (Aquarius) from August 2006 - July 2007
Saturn (Leo) opposite Neptune (Aquarius) from August 2006 - July 2007
By late 2006 through mid 2007, I was working professionally as a environmental planner and as a sustainable building consultant. My primary intention for working in these professional fields was to assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to curtail climate change as I had 'bought into' the collective climate change narrative up until this point in my life. In 2006, Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" was also released which represented the 'culmination' of public awareness of the climate change narrative and the 'need' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent a global catastrophe. There were several inaccuracies in this film but nonetheless it became the primary reference for climate change activists. Also, in 2006 the UN climate talks were held in Nairobi which resulted in one of the first general consensus' amongst world leaders for global greenhouse emission reductions. In addition, the European Union completed Phase 1 of carbon trading allocations in 2007 which essentially created a platform for making money through trading carbon just as weather derivatives in the late 1990's were a mechanism for making money trading weather risk. Locally in CA, the state introduced the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 which laid out a plan to reduce overall carbon emissions from the state by 2020. Its easy to see that the result of this time period was a culmination (i.e. Full Moon phase) of what was birthed in 1989.
Saturn (Sagittarius) waning square to Neptune (Pisces) from November 2015 - September 2016
 |
| Al Gore as the 'celebrity (Leo) authority (Saturn)' (Saturn in Leo in 2006-2007) |
Saturn (Sagittarius) waning square to Neptune (Pisces) from November 2015 - September 2016
While the culmination of resulting emission reduction policies and financial mechanisms in 2006/2007 was directly related to the establishment of the climate change narrative in 1989, its more difficult to understand what weather risk management and trading weather futures in the late 1990's had to do with any of it. Note that if we ASSUME that all pertinent information and research relative to human affects on climate had been included when coming to conclusions on greenhouse gas emission reductions, then weather derivatives would appear irrelevant. But when we consider that the technology to modify and alter the weather has existed for decades, then a potential motive for creating both the climate change narrative and creating weather derivative trading becomes more apparent (more on this at the end of the article). Needless to say, my personal 'reality' has been breaking down with regards to the human-induced greenhouse gas emissions climate change narrative as I am seeing that there have been missing variables related to observed man-made climate change associated with ongoing weather modification which alter the 'consensus' conclusions in terms of what actions may be beneficial to curtail it.
Just below is the timeline for the exact Saturn/Neptune squares through September 2016 when we should see further developments with regards to what has initiated recently during the first exact square in November/December 2015.
EXACT Squares (1 deg orb) of Saturn and Neptune between November 2015 and September 2016
Just below is the timeline for the exact Saturn/Neptune squares through September 2016 when we should see further developments with regards to what has initiated recently during the first exact square in November/December 2015.
EXACT Squares (1 deg orb) of Saturn and Neptune between November 2015 and September 2016
November 17-December 4, 2015
The COP21 Paris Climate Conference (Nov 30 - Dec 8) resulted in the first ever legally binding global climate deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. There was also much discussion regarding 'geoengineering' and weather modification as 'potential' ways to combat and modify climate change.
June 4-July 5, 2016
Perhaps further attempts to restrict emissions will be brought to the fore? Maybe there will be more public awareness of weather modification and geoengineering? This is pure speculation.
August 23-September 22, 2016
Perhaps a more public awareness of ongoing weather modification is initiated leading to questions regarding the primary cause of man-made climate change and a reduction in the perception of the benefit of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions amidst considering these previously unknown factors? This is also pure speculation.
Putting It All Together
Unlike many 'climate deniers', I am very well educated regarding this topic and I certainly do not deny the science behind the assertion that our observed changes in climate (i.e. alterations in precipitation patterns and seasonal extremes with overall warming due to reduction in outgoing radiation) stem primarily from man-made influences. In fact, until my relatively recent revelations with regards to ongoing weather modification activities, I had ascribed almost exclusively to the narrative that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of observed climate changes.
However, direct modification of the weather for various purposes has a rich history that has obvious implications for affecting climate data and observed changes. Its a history that would require an entire website to adequately address it, let alone a mere blog post. And while there are many sources from which one could find information on this topic, Jim Lee of http://www.climateviewer.com/ has compiled a comprehensive chronology of policies, technological developments and research related to this modern era of geoengineering. If you are completely unfamiliar with the topic, this link is a potent place to start your own research. The most compelling reality to which you are likely to become aware is that the technological capabilities to influence the weather in significant ways are certainly NOT NEW developments!
And in conjunction with the timeline presented here regarding the Saturn/Neptune astrological cycle (i.e. initiating in 1989), there is no coincidence in my opinion that there was an extensive study conducted at Colorado State University during the period from 1989-1997 on weather modification from cloud seeding? Could the intention to monetize the weather and to tax carbon emissions have originally inspired the accusation of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver of observed climate change? Could this accusation simply be a method of 'covering for' and explaining the potential observed climate changes that we would likely to encounter due to these intended weather modification practices? Once the narrative was established in 1989, could there have been a testing period (1989-1997) for altering precipitation prior to the establishment of a weather derivative trading platform in 1998-1999?
While this is all speculation, it was just after this CSU study that weather risk management was essentially created as a financial mechanism. Money has often been a motivating factor without regard for consequences so it would not be a stretch to suggest that 'perhaps' manipulating the weather for profit MAY be resulting in more of a direct influence on observed alterations in precipitation patterns and extreme seasonal abnormalities (i.e. climate change) than are human-induced greenhouse gas emissions which 'may' be indirectly altering weather patterns and precipitation intensity (without a 'direct' link).
After all, science is only 'science' if it is conducted SCIENTIFICALLY. And to conduct something 'scientifically' means to INCLUDE ALL potential factors of causation with regards to an observed result or effect. So, regardless of any intentions to alter the weather for profit that may be implied in this article (or when these practices actually initiated), considering that these weather modification practices are far more common than most climate scientists have included in their assumptions, it behooves us to at the very least CONSIDER these realities before coming to any conclusions in terms of what global policies/actions are required to curtail the perceived eminence of catastrophe (especially considering the error in projection of eminent catastrophe from the UN in 1989).
Taking this further, artificial high cirrus clouds produced by aircraft that persist and expand to cover ever larger portions of the sky contribute to the greenhouse effect (i.e. they result in a net warming as there is more outgoing radiation trapped than there is incoming radiation reflected). And climate scientists are likely to conclude based on known research that the effects of clouds in the climate models (whether high or low clouds) are the MOST difficult variable to predict when it comes to long-range climate predictions. So, if the addition of high clouds from aircraft are a more significant contributor to the observed intensification of the greenhouse effect than are human-induced carbon emissions, then how can we draw policy conclusions without at least including these contributions in the climate models?
What IS certain with regards to climate forcing factors is that water vapor (i.e. that leads to greater condensation or clouds) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than is carbon or any other greenhouse gas currently intensified by human activity! Feel free to research this fact for yourself before deciding to conclude that our own minute personal contributions to carbon emissions from our cars or from meat-eating are the most significant contribution to observed climate changes!
The current climate change narrative suggests that an increase in human-induced greenhouse gases has been resulting in more extreme weather patterns which is leading to more extreme precipitation variances and inter-seasonal variances. This is THEORETICALLY true, however, regardless of what 'can' theoretically result in observed precipitation and weather pattern changes, these OBSERVED changes MAY more simply be the result of a more direct consequence of weather MODIFICATION than of an IN-direct result of the 'potential' influence from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.
Al Gore has clearly stated that the 'science is settled' with regards to climate change and that part of this 'science' says that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions ARE the primary causative factor. But what Al Gore and others in his camp refuse to acknowledge is that science itself is nothing more than a method of logic which requires the ONGOING iteration and inclusion of incoming information with NO opportunity to be 'settled' in terms of any conclusion!
Conclusions and 'narratives' are the TOOLS of POLITICS and NOT the PRODUCTS of science...period!
Both policy decisions and personal decisions are ALWAYS based on INCOMPLETE information since there is always SOMETHING missing when a CHOICE has to be made. Based on my personal education and experience with regards to natural climate science, it is clear to me that observed climate change over the past several decades IS the result of man-made activities. However, I just happen to ascribe to the camp that uses actual science in the way that it is intended to be utilized which includes allowing for new information for ever more comprehensive analyses.
The complexities of water vapor as a greenhouse gas are scientifically WELL KNOWN and the OBVIOUS evidence of weather modification which includes excess high altitude clouds (condensation of water vapor) is very VISIBLE (see photo below). These important observations are NOT included in the discussions and NOT considered in the CONCLUSIONS (i.e. policy decisions) with regards to the so-called 'settled science' of human-induced greenhouse gas climate change.
And from a policy perspective, the very IDEA of preventing incoming solar radiation (i.e. proposed geoengineering methods of spraying reflective material in the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight to cool the planet) as a way to counteract a reduction in outgoing thermal radiation (i.e. greenhouse effect) is scientifically absurd even IF greenhouse gas emissions from human-induced carbon sources are the primary drivers of observed climate change!
This would be akin to prescribing someone STARVATION as a way to cure CONSTIPATION. We cannot use outgoing thermal radiation to catalyze photosynthesis so the effects of preventing incoming solar radiation on plant growth may be quite pronounced due to this proposed spraying. And these very same scientists agree with the notion that 'climate change' does not necessarily result in warming everywhere all of the time. Without a consensus on DEFINITE warming this means that attempting to COOL the atmosphere on a grand scale makes NO SENSE relative to the problem. This is absolute insanity!
Geoengineering the planet as suggested at the COP21 Paris Climate Conference would be one hell of an EXPERIMENT and the lives of plants and therefore our own would be at a VERY high risk. Astrologically, its easy to see that struggling (square angle) to construct rules for the future (Saturn in Sagittarius) with nebulous and/or missing information (Neptune in Pisces) is exactly what we are experiencing here!
Without ALL of the causative factors considered regarding observed global climate change, then potential policy decisions on this matter are being proposed by people who are (at the very least)operating outside of scientific integrity!
After all, if ongoing weather modification practices ARE a significant contributor to observed climate change (or the very reason for the deceptive suggestion that human induced emissions are the primary causative factor), then geoengineering the skies to prevent incoming solar radiation would be nothing more than an act of spraying the skies in order to counter the effects of spraying the skies! This notion just may cause my head to explode!..
Are we REALLY using science as it is meant to be utilized in our response to this issue? Or are we just ABUSING science for a political agenda and at our own expense?
Astrologically, this time period (Nov 2015 through Sep 2016) has the potential to REVEAL some deceptions but also to lead to ever more CONFUSION as both the 'truth' AND the skies get ever CLOUDIER...
However, direct modification of the weather for various purposes has a rich history that has obvious implications for affecting climate data and observed changes. Its a history that would require an entire website to adequately address it, let alone a mere blog post. And while there are many sources from which one could find information on this topic, Jim Lee of http://www.climateviewer.com/ has compiled a comprehensive chronology of policies, technological developments and research related to this modern era of geoengineering. If you are completely unfamiliar with the topic, this link is a potent place to start your own research. The most compelling reality to which you are likely to become aware is that the technological capabilities to influence the weather in significant ways are certainly NOT NEW developments!
And in conjunction with the timeline presented here regarding the Saturn/Neptune astrological cycle (i.e. initiating in 1989), there is no coincidence in my opinion that there was an extensive study conducted at Colorado State University during the period from 1989-1997 on weather modification from cloud seeding? Could the intention to monetize the weather and to tax carbon emissions have originally inspired the accusation of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver of observed climate change? Could this accusation simply be a method of 'covering for' and explaining the potential observed climate changes that we would likely to encounter due to these intended weather modification practices? Once the narrative was established in 1989, could there have been a testing period (1989-1997) for altering precipitation prior to the establishment of a weather derivative trading platform in 1998-1999?
While this is all speculation, it was just after this CSU study that weather risk management was essentially created as a financial mechanism. Money has often been a motivating factor without regard for consequences so it would not be a stretch to suggest that 'perhaps' manipulating the weather for profit MAY be resulting in more of a direct influence on observed alterations in precipitation patterns and extreme seasonal abnormalities (i.e. climate change) than are human-induced greenhouse gas emissions which 'may' be indirectly altering weather patterns and precipitation intensity (without a 'direct' link).
After all, science is only 'science' if it is conducted SCIENTIFICALLY. And to conduct something 'scientifically' means to INCLUDE ALL potential factors of causation with regards to an observed result or effect. So, regardless of any intentions to alter the weather for profit that may be implied in this article (or when these practices actually initiated), considering that these weather modification practices are far more common than most climate scientists have included in their assumptions, it behooves us to at the very least CONSIDER these realities before coming to any conclusions in terms of what global policies/actions are required to curtail the perceived eminence of catastrophe (especially considering the error in projection of eminent catastrophe from the UN in 1989).
Taking this further, artificial high cirrus clouds produced by aircraft that persist and expand to cover ever larger portions of the sky contribute to the greenhouse effect (i.e. they result in a net warming as there is more outgoing radiation trapped than there is incoming radiation reflected). And climate scientists are likely to conclude based on known research that the effects of clouds in the climate models (whether high or low clouds) are the MOST difficult variable to predict when it comes to long-range climate predictions. So, if the addition of high clouds from aircraft are a more significant contributor to the observed intensification of the greenhouse effect than are human-induced carbon emissions, then how can we draw policy conclusions without at least including these contributions in the climate models?
What IS certain with regards to climate forcing factors is that water vapor (i.e. that leads to greater condensation or clouds) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than is carbon or any other greenhouse gas currently intensified by human activity! Feel free to research this fact for yourself before deciding to conclude that our own minute personal contributions to carbon emissions from our cars or from meat-eating are the most significant contribution to observed climate changes!
The current climate change narrative suggests that an increase in human-induced greenhouse gases has been resulting in more extreme weather patterns which is leading to more extreme precipitation variances and inter-seasonal variances. This is THEORETICALLY true, however, regardless of what 'can' theoretically result in observed precipitation and weather pattern changes, these OBSERVED changes MAY more simply be the result of a more direct consequence of weather MODIFICATION than of an IN-direct result of the 'potential' influence from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.
Al Gore has clearly stated that the 'science is settled' with regards to climate change and that part of this 'science' says that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions ARE the primary causative factor. But what Al Gore and others in his camp refuse to acknowledge is that science itself is nothing more than a method of logic which requires the ONGOING iteration and inclusion of incoming information with NO opportunity to be 'settled' in terms of any conclusion!
Conclusions and 'narratives' are the TOOLS of POLITICS and NOT the PRODUCTS of science...period!
Both policy decisions and personal decisions are ALWAYS based on INCOMPLETE information since there is always SOMETHING missing when a CHOICE has to be made. Based on my personal education and experience with regards to natural climate science, it is clear to me that observed climate change over the past several decades IS the result of man-made activities. However, I just happen to ascribe to the camp that uses actual science in the way that it is intended to be utilized which includes allowing for new information for ever more comprehensive analyses.
The complexities of water vapor as a greenhouse gas are scientifically WELL KNOWN and the OBVIOUS evidence of weather modification which includes excess high altitude clouds (condensation of water vapor) is very VISIBLE (see photo below). These important observations are NOT included in the discussions and NOT considered in the CONCLUSIONS (i.e. policy decisions) with regards to the so-called 'settled science' of human-induced greenhouse gas climate change.
And from a policy perspective, the very IDEA of preventing incoming solar radiation (i.e. proposed geoengineering methods of spraying reflective material in the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight to cool the planet) as a way to counteract a reduction in outgoing thermal radiation (i.e. greenhouse effect) is scientifically absurd even IF greenhouse gas emissions from human-induced carbon sources are the primary drivers of observed climate change!
This would be akin to prescribing someone STARVATION as a way to cure CONSTIPATION. We cannot use outgoing thermal radiation to catalyze photosynthesis so the effects of preventing incoming solar radiation on plant growth may be quite pronounced due to this proposed spraying. And these very same scientists agree with the notion that 'climate change' does not necessarily result in warming everywhere all of the time. Without a consensus on DEFINITE warming this means that attempting to COOL the atmosphere on a grand scale makes NO SENSE relative to the problem. This is absolute insanity!
Geoengineering the planet as suggested at the COP21 Paris Climate Conference would be one hell of an EXPERIMENT and the lives of plants and therefore our own would be at a VERY high risk. Astrologically, its easy to see that struggling (square angle) to construct rules for the future (Saturn in Sagittarius) with nebulous and/or missing information (Neptune in Pisces) is exactly what we are experiencing here!
Without ALL of the causative factors considered regarding observed global climate change, then potential policy decisions on this matter are being proposed by people who are (at the very least)operating outside of scientific integrity!
After all, if ongoing weather modification practices ARE a significant contributor to observed climate change (or the very reason for the deceptive suggestion that human induced emissions are the primary causative factor), then geoengineering the skies to prevent incoming solar radiation would be nothing more than an act of spraying the skies in order to counter the effects of spraying the skies! This notion just may cause my head to explode!..
Are we REALLY using science as it is meant to be utilized in our response to this issue? Or are we just ABUSING science for a political agenda and at our own expense?
Astrologically, this time period (Nov 2015 through Sep 2016) has the potential to REVEAL some deceptions but also to lead to ever more CONFUSION as both the 'truth' AND the skies get ever CLOUDIER...
 |
| Persistent contrails are essentially man-made cirrus clouds which disrupt the thermodynamics of the upper atmosphere reducing convection (potential for rain formation) and trapping outgoing radiation (greenhouse effect). Could this explain observed climate alterations even without considering man-made carbon emissions? |
Related Articles:
"Geoengineering is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change, Not CO2"
"TRIGGER MECHANISM OF SOLAR-ATMOSPHERIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT "
"Experts: Chemtrails 'Not Natural' And Causing 'DNA Damage,' Weather Manipulation Destroying Earth"
"TRIGGER MECHANISM OF SOLAR-ATMOSPHERIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT "
"Experts: Chemtrails 'Not Natural' And Causing 'DNA Damage,' Weather Manipulation Destroying Earth"
And so it is…
Christopher Robert Taylor
