First question:
Where does this video fit into the overall scenario???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k&feature=player_embeddedWho made it???
What are their purposes???
Second question:
What do you think of this view of Dane Wigington???
>> I believe that all that are direly concerned about the lethal
>> spraying will consider the following
>> point; It will serve the cause of bringing focus to the horror of
>> the spraying much more, if the very divisive issue of
>> anthropogenic warming, one way or the other, is not brought into
>> the mix. Opening that can of worms just divides people and hurts
>> the cause. I noticed that argument was thrown into the mix during
>> the Royal Society meeting. I hope all can consider that we can
>> discuss this point if and when the spraying is brought to light
>> and halted. All agree that the spraying is not in any of our
>> interest, regardless of our views on global warming. It is much
>> more helpful for the cause not to muddy the water with a whole
>> other subject that is so divisive.
End of quote from Dane Wiginton.
Of course my view is that the divisiveness is - precisely - the agenda. Both sides are infiltrated by people pursuing this agenda. The violent "warmist" video to which the link was provided above, serves the agenda. People who have the simplistic view that "no global warming = no geoengineering" serve the agenda.
The way around this problem is not to find the infiltrators and enemies on both sides of the debate and throw them out. The way around the problem is to adopt the right politics, i.e. telling everyone that there is a moratorium on geoengineering and calling for one's own county to stop violating it. This works everywhere but in the USA, because the USA has not signed the Convention on Biodiversity. But Americans can help the struggle in other countries, and also get your own country to sign the Convention on Biodiversity, and the Moratorium on Geoengineering.
u
