This statement suggests that weather modification has a great deal more of an effect on climate then greenhouse gases and human-produced aerosols. Why isn't this effect discussed publicly? Why isn't the effect of weather modification on climate part of the climate change debate?
On one part the public opinion is very tight controlled. The public opinion is even more and more reduced to always fewer players.
Another part of this context is that political groups which ought to have this topic on their radar for "trade mark"-reasons or reasons of political identity are obviously also controlled by outside sources. In politics, you have most often political deals. That is the reality of politics. It is like in a bazaar. And for reasons nobody understands there is obviously a deal within the ecological movement not to talk about the skies. Probably, these are economic reasons as one might suspect. If you want to change the economic system in the energy aspect you need to have a big overwhelming idea - and this is CO². The strange thing: within the discussion of greenhouse gases there is hardly a discussion about sources of methane which is very widespread and is released from the sea floors and the tundra and has an even much greater severe greenhouse impact than CO² does. Nevertheless, there is only a public discussion about CO² and what is even more grave: many, many other aspects of ecology are being neglected in public opinion. Compared to water vapor CO² has a minimal influence to the greenhouse question. Totally neglected in public discussion is also the CO²-release from vulcanic activities. It's very, very strange that nobody cares about the content of - also human-produced - aerosols in the atmosphere. It is like emptying the ecological movement from its political content. There is only one more topic in the political agenda: GMO and nutrition. Even the radioactive pollution is getting less a topic. But there are so many topics on the ecological agenda.
Mostly unimportant political figures are talking publicly about these circumstances. They are closer to common people than the big figures. And if it is a more important political figure: he or she is scared to talk about it publicly although there is objective data which supports it. The objective data is not main stream. And main stream is always right, right? Also, if main stream is not right, it is right, right?
That is the reason why it is not discussed in public. Nobody really wants to know something which disturbs the political daily routine. Real discussions have stopped in public because there is a political instrument called "political correctness" which rules over "common" values of society. It is nothing but censorship. Everybody can have his or her own opinion as long you don't touch the public agenda.
And what is also out of the radar: the agenda of 1995 (San Francisco) rules that the distraction is one of the main political goals of future societies. If distraction is so important to the political agenda nobody inside the political class really dares to confront the virtual public with the real world: The gaming industry has become even more important than Hollywood. How can you awake somebody who has diven so much into artificial worlds of consciousness? That is the interesting Kristen Meghan found out: The debunkers of the chemtrails are coming from the Gaming industry. They are not doing this without getting paid. But the most interesting context is that the financiers had decided: Let's make the debunking by GAMERS. The message behind it: WE (the financiers) shape the reality of this world for our own purposes. They (the financiers) look to it as a game. It is the same view used in the science war gaming (Huffington Post) about the microwave question.
And the political class is also part of this world because they are under the dictatorship of the mass media where the moderator rules who may come into a show and who rules when he may talk within it.
The political actors maybe threatened by themselves through the overwhelming facts nevertheless they are not acting. Why? Because the baton has been passed to the financial markets.
Nobody really knows what is the content of treaties between outsiders and the territorial authority which one lives in. They can be read in special rooms by the representatives of that territorial authority but without making notes. Thus, it depends on the capability of the memory of the single representative to find out the disguised loopwholes for the public. In a time of growing Alzheimer disease and dementia this is certainly not an effective way to control the executive.
The North-Atlantic Free Trade Treaty and the Free Trade Treaty between the EU and Canada shows where the direction is going: You can be ruled by an arbitral court finally if you disturb the interests of profit of the big companies. This is nothing else than the disempowerment of the territorial authorities inclusive the judicial system of that same territorial authority which will be than enslaved by the arbitral court decisions.
Therefore, the political discussion is part of the distraction society which has been evolved out of the economic process of the past decades.
What is the term of this condition? Post democracy.
