The entire solar system - not just our one small planet -- is currently undergoing profound, never-before-seen physical changes. This paper will address and scientifically document a wide variety of significant examples, drawing from a host of published mainstream sources.

We will also outline a new scientific model that, for the first time, coherently explains these simultaneous interplanetary changes via a fundamental “new Physics” - a Physics that predicts “even greater anomalies to come”…

Here are some highlights:

• Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

• Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

• Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

• Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

• Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

• Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

• Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

• Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

• Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

• Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun

None of these statistics are from “fringe” scientists; they are all very, very real, and what you have just read is only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

This Report’s scientific data, from a variety of highly credible institutions (including NASA itself), reveals that startling “climate change” phenomena are occurring, not just here on Earth, but, in fact -- throughout the entire solar system. This material has been publicly available for nearly a decade in some cases, but it was simply never assembled into a coherent picture of “a System in significant transition” … until this writing.

Before we get to the details, let us begin with one of the key reasons why we’re tackling this important subject at this time ….

Recognized international talk show superstar, Art Bell, several years ago with co-author, Whitley Strieber 1, wrote a prophetic book regarding catastrophic climate change on Earth, titled “The Coming Global Superstorm.” Now, their book has been turned into a major 125-million-dollar summer blockbuster, “The Day After Tomorrow,” opening in theatres nationwide Friday, May 28th. Starring Dennis Quaid 2, the film’s main producer is Roland Emmerich, well known for his previous blockbusters -- “Independence Day” and “Stargate.” 3.

With outrageous advances in the quality of CG animation effects, and a huge budget devoted almost entirely to rendering those effects scientifically, “The Day After Tomorrow” will feature perhaps the most graphic if not accurate realism of “Earth Changes” yet depicted on the big screen. Just as “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon” led to greater public and Congressional scrutiny of asteroids on potentially Earth-crossing orbits, “The Day After Tomorrow” will very likely (see below) create a major turning point in the public’s awareness of the realities of on-going terrestrial climate alterations.

The central premise of the film, paralleling the scientifically documented thesis first outlined in the Bell and Strieber book, is that the Gulf Stream oceanic current, which normally pumps warm tropical waters from the Gulf of Mexico throughout the North Atlantic Ocean, suddenly collapses. This cataclysmic change rapidly sends the Northern Hemisphere into an abrupt quick-freeze… with apocalyptic results.

When Art and Whiteley’s book was first released in 2000, Today Show host Matt Lauer subjected both authors to outrageous public ridicule at its most adolescent level – and this was but one of many examples of the harsh criticism that they received on their initial book tour 4. However, in the ensuing four years, public awareness of the realities of climate change has increased considerably, and people aren’t laughing anymore.

In an article in The Independent, climate change expert Michael Molitor, a consultant on the Emmerich film, claims that he has “already attracted more media interest over his connection with the film ["The Day After Tomorrow’] than at any time in 20 years of working on the science and politics of global warming …. The amount of commentary by climate scientists on this film has been unbelievable and I find it almost comical,” Dr Molitor told The Independent. “This film could actually do more in helping us move in the right direction than all the scientific work and all the [US congressional] testimonies put together.” 5.

According to Molitor, “Where the film departs from our knowledge is where the changes in the story occur on a timescale that’s probably faster than we expect.” The Independent article went on to say,

“The New York Times revealed that climatologists at NASA, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration, had received an official instruction not to comment on the film for fear of upsetting the White House, which is famously skeptical of climate change.”

If the accelerated timelines of the film were simply creating needless panic, then NASA HQ and White House would have been correct in trying to reduce such effects. However, a secret Pentagon memo, leaked earlier this year in a copyrighted story in London’s The Observer, predicts events almost identical to those depicted in “The Day After Tomorrow” -- with the collapse of the Gulf stream as the primary scientific explanation … precisely as the film (and the Bell/Strieber book) suggests. The only difference between Art’s book, the film, and the Pentagon report, is “timing."

In the film, the events occur over a five-day period, whereas the Pentagon report gives us about 15 years… or less. According to the “rosier scenario” authored in the Pentagon, Britain will be in a “Siberian” climate by 2020, and “nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.” 6.

The Pentagon study goes on to recommend to the White House that climate change “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.” One scientist, in the parallel BBC coverage of this alarming secret Pentagon report, said “It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.” 7.

The Pentagon is not alone among policymakers in its concerns.

In a related BBC News article from February 2004, Prof. John Schellnhuber, a leading British climate scientist, said,

“We spoke to the Congressional scientific committee, and my feeling is that in principle 80% of the people in Washington who are really informed feel dramatic climate change is a major threat. The [Bush] administration is a prisoner of its own determination not to do anything that would affect the lifestyle of US citizens. Perhaps, in a parallel with its stance in Iraq, it has chosen a certain position and will now not alter it for fear of losing face.”

Prof. Schellnhuber went on to say, “I don’t think the US public and policymakers will be happy to go on with a business-as-usual approach for the next five years… We’ve been telling politicians for 20 years that climate change could be a far worse threat than terrorism. Unfortunately, our scientific assessments indicate that the window of opportunity for intervention to protect the climate is closing rapidly.” 8.

With a re-election hanging in the balance, the last thing that the Bush Administration wanted to have happen was “a climate-change bugaboo” exploding onto the scene… at the same time that the Iraqi situation is rapidly turning for the worse in the world’s eyes, with increasing fatalities and graphic images of Iraqi prisoners being tortured by Americans. Nonetheless, the new film itself cannot be suppressed, so the only remaining option has been to attempt to suppress its scientific validity in the eyes of the public.

A two-pronged attempt appears to have been made -- partly through NASA HQ, and partly through Republican Party politics.

First: on Saturday, April 24, 2004, the influential Drudge Report web site received a secret memo that was passed to all NASA scientists from the Washington Headquarters on April 1. The memo read, in part,

"No one from NASA is to do interviews or otherwise comment on anything having to do with ... " the film, “The Day After Tomorrow.” 9.

The political fallout from the “outing” of this memo soon led to an embarrassing public retraction from NASA, claiming that it had been written because the film’s producers did not want to sign a “cooperation agreement,” and that NASA scientists were free to say whatever they wanted.” 10.

The NASA memo was written April 1, 2004 (a rather curious date for a serious public policy directive, from a major US government Agency …).

At about the same time, we now know, a similar memo was passed on to Republican constituents directly from the White House. In this case, the story broke much faster -- appearing in Britain’s The Observer on April 4… an internal White House memo, titled, “From Medi-Scare to Air-Scare.” It said in part,

“we are fighting a battle of fact against fiction on the environment -- Republicans can’t stress enough that extremists are screaming "Doomsday!" when the environment is actually seeing a new and better day.” 11.

Of course, no reference was made to the astonishingly candid “Pentagon climate memo” -- which certainly does not predict a “new and better day” for the environment, or for any of the rest of us -- even though that story had already broken through months earlier to worldwide, mainstream media attention.

The Observer article that outed the White House memo, also shed light on the motivations behind the Administration’s consistent belief that the entire idea of “climate change” can still be safely dismissed as “unscientific”: “Probably the most influential voice behind the [current White House] memo is Frank Luntz, a Republican Party strategist. In a [previous] leaked 2002 memo, Luntz said:

“'The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.' Luntz has been roundly criticized in Europe. Last month, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, attacked him for being too close to Exxon.” 12.

A recent article on Strieber’s web site quotes Peter Schurman, of Moveon.org, as saying “To have a major studio release of a movie tackling a serious issue is a terrific opportunity for Americans to start talking about the reality of the problem, what can be done about it and the enormous threat that President Bush is not dealing with.” Moveon.org will hold a public rally outside New York’s American Museum of Natural History -- location of the “The Day After Tomorrow” initial screening -- on the night of the glittery New York May 24th Premiere. Strieber continues:

“Former vice-president Al Gore, who will attend the rally, says, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend, asking the question, "Could this really happen?" I think we need to answer that question." 13.

Our Report does not directly confirm or deny the specific Gulf Stream scenario presented in Art and Whitley’s book, or “The Day After Tomorrow.” Rather, it lends major scientific support to the film’s underlying premise, by providing dramatic new intelligence that reframes the entire issue of “climate change” -- as part of an effect that is now mysteriously occurring simultaneously throughout the solar system!

Like many others, we feel that the time has come for the world to know the truth. This is our solar system, and it is visibly changing all around us. If there are solutions that could dramatically reduce the difficulties coming in this transformation, now is the time for open and honest disclosure and discourse on these new "hyperdimensional" sciences, developed by both authors of this Report and many others.

1  Bell, Art and Strieber, Whitley. The Coming Global Superstorm. Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.) New York, 2000. ISBN 0-671-04190-8. 255 PP. Hardcover, $23.95.

2  URL: http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

3  URL: http://www.foxhome.com/id4dvd/index_frames.html

4  “There is only one possible explanation for the editors of Pocket Books accepting and publishing this sorry piece of pseudoscientific propaganda: Profit with a capital "P."”

Baker, Robert A. Book Review: The Coming Global Superstorm, By Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. The Skeptical Inquirer, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. 2000. URL: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2843/5_24/67691844/p1/article.jhtml

5  Connor, Steve. The Movie that Claims to be a Vision of the Future. The Independent - UK, Independent Digital (UK) Ltd., May 8, 2004. URL: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=519236

6  Townsend, Mark and Harris, Paul. Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us. Guardian Unlimited, The Observer, Feb. 22, 2004. URL: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

7  The BBC article later quotes Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored. “Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. It’s hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defense. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group; generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon…”

Townsend, Mark and Harris, Paul. Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us. Guardian Unlimited, The Observer, Feb. 22, 2004. URL: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

8  Kirby, Alex. US "does accept climate threat". BBC News Online, Feb. 23, 2004. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3513559.stm

9  Drudge, Matt. Ice Age Outrage: Fox’s Climate-Change Movie Irks Bush Admin. The Drudge Report web site, Apr. 24, 2004. URL: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/04/24/20040424_155005_flash3.htm

10  Mahone, Glenn. STATUS REPORT: NASA Notice to all Employees Regarding Media Reports about the film "The Day After Tomorrow". NASA HQ, April 26, 2004. URL: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12673

11  Barnett, Antony. Bush attacks environment "scare stories": Secret email gives advice on denying climate change. Guardian Unlimited / The Observer, April 4, 2004. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1185379,00.html

12  Barnett, Antony. Bush attacks environment "scare stories": Secret email gives advice on denying climate change. Guardian Unlimited / The Observer, April 4, 2004. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1185379,00.html

13  Strieber, Whitley. Scientists Back Superstorm Film. The Unknown Country web site, May 7, 2004. URL: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=377413