No.

The document in the the DOC format which I will not open on my computer because of the risk of viruses (through embedded macros), also, it may not be compatible with my ancient version of Word (I don't use MS office).

If you want it to be more available, convert it to a PDF and I'll be happy to check it out.



And this is relevant how?



As I've said all along, chemtrails ("geoengineering") are being justified by the claim that it is necessary because of global warming. They admit the risk of spraying metals into the air, but just like the drug industry, they claim that the benefit-to-risk ratio makes it worth it.

If their claim for global warming is false (and it is), then the benefit-to-risk ratio is zero:

zero benefit : unknown risk = equals zero benefit

In short, there is zero benefit so there is zero reason to continue "geoengineering".

Have you watched the video from Dr. Carter?:

http://urlbam.com/ha/6zz



What difference is it going to make to convince Tim Balls about this?

What needs to be done is this: The people in our local governments and residents in our local area who are being spraying and harmed need to know that spraying is occurring. This is the first step... Awareness of the problem.

This is what I'm doing; raising awareness of this problem.



As I said previously, they are not separate arguments. One (climate change) is being used to justify the other (geoengineering).

For this reason, they are tightly coupled subjects.

If you believe they are not, please explain why. So far, I've read your posts and have not seen a clear explanation of this.



If this is true, then how do these people justify the need for geoengineering when - based on information being used to justify geoengineering at their own conferences - the necessity for geoengineering is provided by climate change?

I've watched the meetings and lectures at genengineering conferences and seen them justify the need for geoengineering using climate change. I have not seen any other justification.

Is there one?

Explain to us what we're missing here.



Then what - in your opinion - will win the argument?

Throughout history, the key to real change is to change the law, and the way to do this is to get politicians motivated and educated and this will occur by getting the public motivated and educated.

Once the public forces the government to pass a law prohibiting geoengineering, then it will stop, otherwise lawsuits and criminal charges can be filed against those doing it.

Part of the necessary political (and public) education is the removal of the invented problem (climate change) from their belief system. Once this is removed, then the proposed solution (chemtrails) is off the table.

The public will never be impassioned to stop chemtrails if they continue to believe that global warming exists and chemtrails are the solution.

This is not a scientific issue at it's core. It's a political issue being propelled by a lie (climate change = psudo science) that is being made to look scientific.

If you have a better way for chemtrails to be stopped - which is the ultimate goal here - please tell us.

---

Following is a good link for people to pick videos they would like to watch about "climate change":

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=93&page=1