My judgements are not based just on whether I think people are honest or dishonest.
Can't help you there.
Dishonesty is the only way issues like the global warming hoax exist.
Differentiating between truth and lies is a vital skill in today's world.
Global warming was promoted by false data invented by DISHONEST scientists.
NutraSweet was passed in the U.S. by DISHONEST scientists and politicians.
GM foods, mercury in fillings, toxins in vaccines, bailouts, etc., etc., are all enabled by dishonesty.
Perhaps your judgement should take dishonesty into account.
Quote
Your thinking is based on morality, not politics.
The global warming hoax is based on immorality (lies).
Chemtrails are being justified by lies (immorality).
The problems we have in today's world are caused by a coordinated network of liars working together being bribed by wealthy people. That's how the global warming hoax took hold.
Without the global warming hoax, there would be no justification for chemtrails, and we would not be in this information battle.
Morality (lies) is the base issue here. I you are unable to see this, then you are in no position to understand how to correct the problem.
Global warming is a lie.
Geoengineering is being justified by global warming.
Lies are immorality. Without the lies, we would have none of these issues.
Make sense?
Quote
There are Europeans also, Eurosceptics, who have the same "states rights" perspective, equally unreal. The question today is control by the corporate media, and ways of dealing with it.
Corporate media is run by the same people (literally and essentially) who run the United Nations. If you think you're going to "deal" with them, then you are fantastically naive.
As I've said all along, this is a grassroots movement.
DSHEA is and example of what I have been suggesting all along.
Quote
Your "state-by-state" approach will fail from the outset, brought to its knees by the basic fact that you are working from ONE SIDE ONLY of the US political spectrum, the conservative side.
You must have no idea what you are talking about. States rights have nothing to do with the "conservative" side.
I'm talking about law here.
The states are the only entities that have the legal right to petition the federal government.
This has happened several times in U.S. history, so you may need to study a little more to understand this approach.
Quote
The climate change debate is a divisive debate.
I am astounded when people tell me that arguing the truth is "devisive".
Quote
Not surprisingly: it has been constructed in order to divide.
No, actually the data shows that there is NO global warming. I have posted the data curve and asked you to tell me what your issue with the data is, and as of yet, you have not.
Why?
The only divisive thing here is a lie, and global warming is THE lie being used to justify chemtrails.
It's the Hegelian Dialectic:
1. Create a problem. (Thesis)
2. Offer a radical solution. (Antithesis)
3. Settle on a moderate solution. (Synthesis)
By supporting global warming, you are participating in that lie and you offer nothing to oppose the data:
There's the data. So tell us what data supports global warming?
Quote
The climate change debate is the stone that has been thrown at us, and you - catlike - are looking at it, rather than looking at who has thrown it.
No. Chemtrails are being thrown at us. Chemtrails (the stone) cannot be thrown without a thrower.
I'm looking at the thrower - global warming.
Get rid of the thrower and you eliminate the stone being thrown at you.
Quote
To be frank I could not care less which side of the climate debate is closer to the truth. It is a debate for scientists.
Leaving this debate up to the scientists has been the first problem. Scientists can become corrupt, which is the root of the very issue we face today.
Again, I say, it is a moral problem at it's root.
The way to eliminate a lie is by telling the truth.
You have NO data to support global warming, yet you continue to say it's true.
Why do you support the very lie that legitimizes chemtrails?
Quote
Once it becomes politicized, as it has been, I look only at the politics. I am not a scientist. Why should I try to compete with scientists, or play the scientist?
Leave it in the hands of the scientists is your argument.
Scientists are supporting the fact that there is no global warming.
Blindly trusting them is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
Anyone without scientific training can review the global temperature curve and see that global warming is a lie.
[b]All things, including science, should remain in the public view for review and criticism. Like open-source software, it eliminates corruption.
Quote
I'm not going to search them out in other countries. I'm going to search them out in my own country, Greece.
OK. Have you?
What was their reply?
What is the "searching" about?
You have their name. You have their contact info. When are you going to call them?
Please, tell us what they're reply is.
Quote
And note that "the question" is not "why aren't you observing the moratorium?" It is "why did you sign a moratorium that you aren't observing"?
And you think that asking this delegate will solve the problem.
The military branches deny the existence of such a program.
The U.N. was founded by the Rockefeller family, the same people who virtually mandated secret population control in the '73 Nixon report.
It is fantastically naive to "ask" this question of a delegate and expect a solution.
But please, go ahead.
And when you do, let us know what they say.
Quote
The ETC group has made it possible for us to ask that question.
That is the greatest achievement that ANY of us have made so far.
If the ETC or HOME continue believing global warming, then they are utilizing the Hegelian Dialectic and leading us down the deceptive path of compromise. They lead us into the intellectual corner that a solution for global warming needs to be implemented.
OK, so they HAVE utilized your idea by heaving global warming out of the debate. They have proposed the idea, received a moratorium.
So what has it really achieved so far?
Nothing.
Again, the DSHEA model is the right model.
Quote
Who is more provincial, you in the USA or we here in Greece?
How many American elected politicians have raised the subject of chemtrails in a legislature, at ANY level?
Yes, but this is a strawman argument nonetheless.
Your question is moot. See my previous responses.
This must be a grassroots movement that is empowered from the bottom up following the DSHEA model.
It works.
It's proven.
It's history.
Quote
The question is whether the moratorium changes the legal situation and whether the conditions that led Ms. Margari to advise the Aigina Council against pursuing the suit still prevail.
And what good is this "question" when the military denies the existence of geoengineering?
Quote
So in other words Climategate is not the issue. The moratorium is the issue.
Fundamentally wrong.
The moratorium has already failed on multiple levels. I predicted it would before it was signed.
So now what?
You propose going back to the same organization that has NO enforcement authority.
The U.N. is theater. Until you understand that, you cannot understand the nature of the problem or the solution.
Quote
Having a long historical memory, Greeks are familiar with phenomena like the present debate over climate change. They resemble the debates over the nature of Holy Trinity that polarized the population of Constantinople into warring factions in the early Christian era.
You would do well to learn the difference between Christians and the Mystery School Religion.
Quote
I looked at the "Climategate is still the issue" video at the head of this second page (by the way, it sticks about three quarters of the way through, so I wasn't able to see the end
Well, there are other places to view it.
Have you tried?
Quote
But to say something like this would of course bring you into conflict with the gurus of mainstream climate change scepticism, for whom chemtrails do not exist.
You are painting the issues and the participants with a black-and-white brush.
Again, grassroots is the only solution. Any other method depends on media or governments that are corrupt. This is old news.
Also, I'm not a global warming skeptic. I'm an educated person following the data.
What does the data tell you?
---
That fact that you continue to accept global warming despite the open deception and the now-public data to the contrary is astounding.
Why would you do such a thing?
Again, global warming is THE (false) issue being used to justify spraying toxic metals on people.
Your position is so perverse on its face that I cannot take you seriously.
Furthermore, asking your U.N. representative why a mandate is not being enforced is moot.
How do they enforce something they claim does not exist?
Again, I predicted that this "mandate" would have no effect. It's theater.
The truth is that the public must become informed, active, and legal actions must be taken at a level close to the people. This is where problems have been historically most effectively solved.
So again, let us know WHEN you ask your U.N. rep. for accountability, and then let us know WHAT happens.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
