AntiPoA21 what was your posting at HOME? Can you post it here? They are not open to dialogue in some ways but we, who
signed the Open Letter to HOME, are.

Peter Vereecke, who is just as much of a climate change sceptic as you are, because he is fortunate enough to have the same home town as the Flemish environment minister who was at Nagoya(and he was mayor of that Flemish town in the past), has opened a channel for contact and dialogue. And it is not as vulnerable and exposed as HOME and the ETC Group are because it is closer to the "grass roots".

Continue the dialogue here, or even better get together a group of people who share your views and video an answer to our Athens video.

Note the comments following this article:

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/conspiracy-theories/sinister-secrets-sky/20110202#comments

In particular the comment by Bill Yeager of 7th February at 11.46 a.m.:

"We skeptics have not dismissed the notion of geo-engineering becoming a developed technique, in time, but the fact remains that current technologies are extremely unreliable, and have a very low efficacy. With the scientific community now suggesting that there may be a need to consider seriously exploring such practices, organisations, political and civil, around the world have, rightly, wanted to establish a framework of governance for this sort of activity.

What there isn't, however, is any evidence that, so-called, 'chemtrails' are anything to do with geo-engineering projects. You know why? Because 'chemtrails' are just contrails, that's why!"

Admin, are you going to tell the global warming skeptic Bill Yeager that because there is no such thing as global warming there is no need for geoengineering, or are you going to keep assuming that he will automatically realise this, unlike the non-skeptics, who do not realise that there is no need for geoengineering??

It's quite easy to leave a comment at the Cyprus Mail website.

Don't leave it to us non-skeptics to do all your skeptic arguing for you.

I can't recall, that was quite a while back when I posted there. Maybe the message was too bold for them to handle.

I remember rambling something off about geoengineering being the white horse of the apocalypse - or some such. And my picture wasn't of my hand, but had the word "clue" on the side of bomb being toted by a pixy over a mountain range.

Does that help?

Sorry for taking so long to get back, been studying.



Michael is a good man and has done more by creating his documentary than most other researchers have been able to accomplish over the past 15 years. He and Ed Griffin realized that a professional, cool headed approach to public exposure is the most effective way to force the issue so that we can get the to the answers, and in no way is the battle over. Every day, the numbers of people grow that want to know exactly what you are asking.

We are getting closer and we will expose this.

There is no easy answer to this, but the plan has been in the works for quite some time. Since I began researching I have traveled many a mile - here is only a fraction - and by no means does it include all of the parties involved.
If you really wanted to point a finger in a general direction, I would strongly suggest the problem lay in the link between government and the internationalists that infest it through the Council on Foreign Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and the stakeholder funded scientific community.

"Solar engineering is like chemotherapy. No one wants it, but we all want the ability to do chemo and to understand its risks should we find ourselves with dangerous cancer."
David Keith


David Victor - Atmospheric Additives and Fostering the Fear Factor towards Economic Addiction:
"But once the process of geoengineering begins—whether unilateral or collective—it is likely the world will be unable to stop. For whatever the ills of global climate change, it is probably even more dangerous to let the climate experience the even more rapid warming that would follow the dismantling of geoengineering systems."

Read: Or - Climate Security could be used to influence or offset other "stressors"
"The balance for the appropriate roles of governments and of markets in achieving the goal of a climate secure society is an important question; which investments are robust and resilient to climate pressures? Climate security needs to be in the context of other stressors such as globalization, an aging society, other security issues such as terrorism and pandemics."
Climate Security - the implications...alth, food, economic and social security

Climate Violence Workshop (what a lovely title!)

military and corporate responses to climate change and mass migration

Implications of Climate Change for Armed Conflict
(civil disarmament and how stakeholders should invest???)
The World Bank, Washington DC, 5–6 March 2008

Mortality and Quality control studies:
Aerosol Research and Inhalation Epidemiology Study

The State Department and UN - Population Security
Agenda 21: Arguments for Appending a Population Reduction Program

W.H.O. Barium studies 1990
World Health Organization Barium
World Health Organization - Manganese

Very important video UN_UNCED_Earth_Summit_1992 - if anything, out of all of these links, listen to what is said here. (And this was produced quite some time ago - still nothing has been done to heed the warning)


The setup:
U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990

“With this manifestation I will highlight the climate crisis, and the fact, that it is not only a problem for the polar bears and the nature. The global warming may be a catastrophe for humanity. UN says that over 200 million refugees will be a reality in the next 40 years. The refugees will trigger a giant demographic crisis, with risks of closing the national borders and beginning an ‘all against all fight, to protect our territory against the refugees, which our own CO2 leak has created. A frightening scenario that will put our humanistic and democratic civilisation under intense pressure, so that war and rise of totalitarian systems might be the consequence. This is the legacy that we will leave to our children!”.
Galschiot -- social conditioning artist


Aerosols and protective equipment studies

Nano 1
Nano 2

Page 10 of 13 is of interest - David Keith

Oh!! and we'll top it off with a juicy one I just found. Note\ you need to download Power Point viewer. Pay close attention to something that is mentioned as "the allowed zone"???

The Asilomar Conference Recommendat...ch Into Climate Engineering Technologies

I would assume it has something to do with the SWCE Climatic (open air testing) of PHASE II "research"?????

Dug this up today:

The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)



Advancing the international governance of geoengineering

Interesting to note that for all these organizations and partnerships that preach for public disclosure and transparency - one cannot seem to find any information regarding the above discussed topic anywhere on their sites. Groups such as TWAS and The Environmental Defense Fund who rubber stamped their involvement with this draft go on about clean air, water and health in the face of what the risks of geoengineering are. What's up with that?

Perhaps, that is why other groups such as "Green Piece" (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose) will not acknowledge chemtrail/anti-geoengineering activists that want them to side up? Maybe these groups are already on board with accepting the measures of these temporary, "specialized" pollution thresholds if it will produce an acceptable cull of the human population, in trade to save the rest of the planet?

Those of us that are aware should reconsider where we place our donations to. The outer layer of these organizations paint themselves all sugar coated, but the cores are tainted with deceit.

TWAS the academy of sciences for the developing world
In regards to TWAS - World Climate Research Programme WCRP
- from page 17
"The development of ESSP has made the GEC programme landscape more difficult. If ESSP is seen as a separate, competing science programme, then it s existence will erode the health and effectiveness of programmes like WCRP as they become more societally relevant. This would not be an effective mode. What is at issue is the extent to which WCRP should take the lead on par ticular GEC-wide programmes.
Clearly, WCRP has the track record in leaving legacies in modelling and observations, among all the GEC programmes. It has a poorer record in constructive interdisciplinary research and in bridging to social and human sciences. Moreover, WCRP it self will need to take some responsibility for the diffusion and communication of its science. The roles and relationship of ESSP and WCRP need better definition.
The Panel acknowledges that it s sentiment s toward ESSP are not fully aligned with those of the Panel that reviewed ESSP—and that these differing views will need to be reconciled by the GEC community and sponsors sooner rather than later."

"Capacity building was not in the original objectives of WCRP. However, for sustained success, a multi-pronged approach for building capacity is needed. This is particularly important because the participation of all scientists in WCRP projects is on a voluntary basis. WCRP will need to raise the priority of, and explicitly engage, with projects and activities involving developing countries as part of an overall strategy to raise it s profile in facilitating and creating relevant applications for climate science. Some steps are evident in the strategy related to seasonal prediction, but this must extend WCRP-wide. The engagement with developing-country scientists and other under-represented groups will need to have as an objective enduring capability and enhanced capacity, along with the normal scientific objectives."

"An important aspect of engaging such scientists in the activities of WCRP will be a focus on practical applications of direct policy relevance and benefit to developing countries. In order to make this work, WCRP will have to adopt specific targets and develop an image of “success”. These measures need to take account of durability and sustainability. One such example of targets comes from the IPCC AR4 Working Group I, which adopted the following composition: 25% had earned their highest degree within the last 10 years (at the time of their appointment); 75% had not previously been IPCC lead authors; and 35% were from developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
There are various types of involvement: evaluation of models, attending meetings, and planning of projects. Each is considered in the remainder of this section."

In other words, rounding up third world scientists can be accomplished by the dangling of carrots and constructing a false sense of involvement through promotion and peer recognition. - What did they call it? - "capacity building"
Kind of reminds me of the story of The Soup Stone

EDF Environmental Defense Fund

Of coarse there are many other "stakeholders" involved and in the spirit of transparency ---

"Stakeholder partners will:
* not have to add their logos to Initiative literature (unless they so desire)
* be free to pursue their own separate work on geoengineering outside of the SRMGI"

Hey, enouranois - you still out there?
I was watching this older video (5parts) earlier today and thought of you.
Others may want to watch this very informative video as it goes into detail - even from way back when it was filmed - that the environment was going to be one of the focal points used to dupe people.

This video even goes on to explain exactly the very events we see happening today - with the occupy movement and how NGO's are being used by the CFO and others like George Soros, Maurice Strong and his ilk --- just watch and see, very informative.

UN deception pt 1
UN deception pt2
UN deception pt 3
UN deception pt 4
UN deception pt 5

Hmm, won't see this on discovery or history channel; wonder why?

Now do you still really believe that UN led Geoenginering governance is such a great idea?

Hmmm! Nuther video of interest removed?

anyhow, found another copy. And if Youtube keeps practicing Communist Chinese internet suppression I would like to remind them that there will be other sources.

UNCED video

UNCED video that was mentioned above

Lets see if these go "poof!" as well.

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/weather-derivatives-and-chemtrails/

Enouranois

"Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century

By Robert Tracinski - February 12, 2014



The global warming hysteria is disastrous enough in its intended goal, which is to ban the use of our cheapest and most abundant fuels and force us to limp along on "alternative energy" sources that are insufficient to support an industrial civilization. But along the way, the global warming campaign is already wrecking our science and politics by seeking to establish a dogma that cannot legally be questioned.

The critical point in this campaign is a defamation lawsuit by global warming promoter Michael Mann against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

When the "Climategate" e-mails were leaked five years ago, a lot of us speculated that it could all end up in the courts, given the evidence that climate scientists were pocketing large sums of government money on the basis of a scientific consensus they were manipulating behind the scenes. But it's typical of our upside-down political and cultural environment that when this issue does reach the courts, it will be in the form of a lawsuit against the climate skeptics.

Steyn and the others are being sued for criticizing Mann's scientific arguments. In the case of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, they're being sued for Rand Simberg's complaint that Mann "has molested and tortured data." (See a summary of the case here.) Frankly, I'm not sure how I escaped this lawsuit myself. I shall have to review what I have written and see if my language was not sufficiently inflammatory. Perhaps I don't have pockets deep enough to be worth looting. Or perhaps I'm not a big enough target to be worth intimidating and bankrupting. Note the glee with which the left slavers at the prospect of taking out a prominent voice on the right, with one leftist gloating that "it's doubtful that National Review could survive" losing the case.

(Steyn points out that National Review is insured against such lawsuits and will survive. But it's interesting that no one asks who is going to go bankrupt funding Mann's lawsuit. A deterrent to the abuse of libel laws is the prospect of spending a lot of money on lawyers' fees for a lawsuit that fails. Who is insuring Mann against this loss?)

Here is the point at which we need a little primer on libel laws, which hinge on the differentiation between facts and opinion. It is libel to maliciously fabricate facts about someone. (It is not libel to erroneously report a false fact, so long as you did so with good faith reason to believe that it was true, though you are required to issue a correction.) But you are free to give whatever evaluation of the facts you like, including a negative evaluation of another person's ideas, thinking method, and character. It is legal for me, for example, to say that Michael Mann is a liar, if I don't believe that his erroneous scientific conclusions are the product of honest error. It is also legal for me to say that he is a coward and a liar, for hiding behind libel laws in an attempt to suppress criticism.

These are all reasons that the lawsuit should have been summarily thrown out. It goes beyond the legitimate scope of libel and defamation laws and constitutes an attempt to suppress opinions that are considered politically correct.

But it gets worse. Consider the specific argument Mann is making, as summed up in the report I linked to above.

"In the articles, Mann says in his lawsuit, the think tank and the publication ignored more than half a dozen investigations that found no scientific wrongdoing, focusing almost exclusively on the Penn State inquiry in order to call him a fraud. CEI also mentioned the National Academy of Science's investigation, but dismissed those findings by saying the body had obtained information from Penn State, meaning the inquiry was 'not truly independent.' The basis mentioned by CEI to call the Penn State investigation a whitewash was stating it had only interviewed Mann, and 'seemingly ignored the content of the emails.'"

Even more ominous, the DC Superior Court, which let the suit proceed, embraced this reasoning in its ruling.

"The CEI Defendants' persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies' conclusion that Plaintiff's work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements."

In other words, Steyn's evaluation of Mann's scientific claims can be legally suppressed because Steyn dares to question the conclusions of established scientific institutions connected to the government. On this basis, the DC Superior Court arrives at the preposterous conclusion that it is a violation of Mann's rights to "question his intellect and reasoning." That's an awfully nice prerogative to be granted by government: an exemption against any challenge to your reasoning.

I said before that I don't know how the rest of us skeptics escaped being sued along with Steyn. Now we know. Mann is attempting to establish a precedent for climate censorship. If he wins this suit, then we're all targets.

Mann has made a lot of noise about setting himself as some kind of modern Galileo, a persecuted scientist. This analogy was all wrong from the beginning. Galileo was not the enforcer of the prevailing scientific "consensus" but its caustic critic. And now it is Mann who is trying to dictate what others can and cannot say about scientific facts and reasoning. So no, he's not a modern Galileo. He's a modern Cardinal Bellarmine.

Or perhaps there is a better historical analogy. Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann's libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

Mann has recently declared himself to be both a scientist and a political activist. But in attempting to intimidate his critics and suppress free debate on global warming, he is violating the fundamental rules of both science and politics. If it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science. If it is a crime to dissent, then there is no politics.

Mann vs. Steyn may be the trial of the century. It may determine, not merely whether the environmentalists can shut down industrial civilization, but whether they can shut down the independent thinking of skeptical dissidents.

Robert Tracinski is editor of The Tracinski Letter and a contributor to RealClearMarkets."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...yn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html