This tool is valuable ammunition. Make no doubt, it will be used as leverage by the activists in the countries that are UN signatories. I do not dispute that it is a "toe in the door".
What I do dispute is why ETC is skirting the issue of Aluminum, Barium, Strontium and other "2.5um Nano-Particulates" that the majority of us have discovered in testing, numerous times over.(this blatant oversight is what makes my spidey senses tingle!)
I agree that it is a problem and I don't know the answer to it. We will have to ask them to their face, on OUR territory, if we can have the opportunity. But in the meantime we should make our own enquiries too.
Re:"HOME Open Letter" - I had not read it. Now that I have, I found it to be definitely worthy and in line with what most of us here would be on board with. I especially enjoyed the "Rosalie Bertell response to Diana Bronson". I wonder if she will get a follow up?
I don't think Rosalie Bertell's mixing up the military with the purportedly non-military aspect of this activity helps us to oblige ETC to be franker about their reasons for being disingenuous and treating us with lack of respect.
There is no mention of "The Coalition Against Geoengineering" group, perhaps there are others as well. If you are a rep for HOME then perhaps a bit more reaching out and networking with a larger number of other people would be to your advantage.
I would be happy to become a signatory to the open letter.
What name?
I am not a rep for HOME. I am just a member of one of the groups that has declared support for them. But we are not given any information that is not given to the public at large.
I, like you, don't believe crying to be effective. When I first learned of chemtrails, I have to admit I was depressed and felt powerless. This is behind me now and know that it is high time to act. I do regret that I was not aware sooner, but I am now very focused and will do my best with the resources that I can provide.
It certainly is depressing and this is why so many have fallen by the wayside, or committed suicide, like "Deep Shield" of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. who supported the chemtrail spraying, but not the secrecy.
I haven't quite put my finger on why you are so keen on deflecting or defending these climate scientists. I am really not here to argue over that.
One of the reasons is my politics. And my personal life. My wife is a climate change true believer and I don't see any point in arguing with her about climate change when the problem is chemtrails. Much of the argument of the anthopogenic climate change deniers is also blatantly political. I believe the problem is BOTH sides of the climate change debate, because BOTH sides have come largely out of the same military laboratories, and are continuing the logic of Cold War. Why should people argue about whether human activity is a cause of climate change? It is a stupid subject. I am an old anti-nuclear activist. My focus is on the continuities between past and present mechanisms of political and social repression.
There are the dogs that chase their own tail, but I am the dog that is looking for the best place to bite, starting with the weakest of the aggressors. I hope you can get over my tendency to express my colors of political spectrum. It is hard for me to bend when dealing with "respectable" political agendas and perhaps your are correct in assuming that it should be left to others more capable of "dancing with the devil"; legal council included. That is not my forte.
It is real hard for me to give quarter to the system and people that lie and show no respect to us, but that is my own issue to work out.
I think you would agree that not every square peg that is on our side is going to fit neatly into a certain perceived round hole. I call it what I see it; that is called opinion in a freely speaking society. Perhaps this is an issue you have to work on a bit? We have to get past this.
This topic of chemtrails unites us all and we should take advantage of what everyone of us is doing to stop the spraying.
There are people with your views in my closest circle of collaborators, but I really think we should make it clear that if the planet really has been damaged so badly that this kind of technique is necessary to deal with what has been done to it, (this is the claim. Is it true? I don't know. Do you?) and if we are being solicited to give our support to this kind of "solution", then we most certainly are not going to give it. We will support ONLY scientists who are opposed to geoengineering, and if we become the political masters and have to keep some of these programmes going, (this is a subject that WE, not others, will decide on, meaning that your opinion on the subject is part of the equation), then we will do so only with scientists who have always been adamantly opposed to geoengineering. Any "consent" we give, in other words, will be on OUR terms, and employing personnel who enjoy OUR confidence and nobody else.
