U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects
NAGOYA, Japan (Reuters) - The United Nations should impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, green groups say, fearing they could harm nature and mankind.
The risks were too great because the impacts of manipulating nature on a vast scale were not fully known, the groups said at a major U.N. meeting in Japan aimed at combating increasing losses of plant and animal species.
Envoys from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Nagoya, Japan, to agree targets to fight the destruction of forests, rivers and coral reefs that provide resources and services central to livelihoods and economies.
A major cause for the rapid losses in nature is climate change, the United Nations says, raising the urgency for the world to do whatever it can to curb global warming and prevent extreme droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
Some countries regard geo-engineering projects costing billions of dollars as a way to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth or soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.
"It's absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world's support," Pat Mooney, from Canada-headquartered advocacy organization ETC Group, told Reuters on the sidelines of the October 18-29 meeting.
"They shouldn't proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay."
Some conservation groups say geo-engineering is a way for some governments and companies to get out of taking steps to slash planet-warming emissions.
The U.N. climate panel says a review of geo-engineering will be part of its next major report in 2013.
I don't know what Dr. Carter's position is on chemtrails.
I do know that global warming is the "crisis" that is intended to justify geoengineering ("chemtrails"). Without global warming, there is no justification for chemtrails.
There is a lot of talk about the "risk-to-benefit ratio" of geoengineering. When we finally recognize that global warming does not exist, then the "benefit" goes to zero.
Maybe you think that people who have what you believe are the right ideas on climate could not be dishonest about chemtrails. Just ill-informed perhaps, in need of enlightenment.
I don't believe that anybody who makes a study of climate, whether they are ETC group. H.O.M.E., Ball or Carter, are ill-informed about chemtrails. They are all dishonest. They are all playing politics, each in their own way.
That video on the moratorium was good. Who is that young woman?
The only argument she used against the moratorium is that the US is not a signatory to it. This isn't an argument that makes people in other countries think that nothing was achieved by getting that moratorium voted.
The criticisms made against the ETC group, who seem to have been the driving force behind the moratorium, are stronger than this, and have recently been voiced by Mauro Oliveira and Dane Wigington, namely that ETC do not recognize that chemtrails are an established planetary wide phenomenon and that geoengineering programmes are already under massive implementation. In fact some ETC researchers are on record as saying that chemtrails are an "urban myth".
To get back to the argument we are having here: I have confronted ETC over their denying the existence of chemtrails.
But sceptics like your Dr. Carter and my Timothy Ball also deny the existence of chemtrails. I have confronted Ball, too, and I got a much more aggressive counter-response than I got from the ETC group.
Have you confronted Dr. Carter??? If not, why not??
We should be allies, but we are not, because you seem to think the climate change debate can act as a substitute for the chemtrails debate.
You think that if you prove that climate change is a myth you have demolished the justification for geoengineering.
That is an absurdly naive view.
Haven't ever read Teller's "The Planet needs a Sunscreen", which oombines climate change scepticism with advocacy of geoengineering??? Haven't you noticed how many climate change sceptics have, since Copenhagen, come over to advocating geoengineering??? This doesn't apply only to Lomborg. There are many other examples.
The final underlying problem is corruption. Period.
If there was no corruption, there would be no geoengineering, no climategate, no mercury in vaccines or fillings, no wars, etc.
But the real contest that we are engaged in a one of achieving public faith. Knowing the truth is one thing. Getting the public to believe the truth is another matter altogether.
"They" have the mainstream media infrastructure (because they know this is a battle of faith). We have the truth.
Nevertheless, because the public is too mercury toxic to have the intelligence or attention span to examine and analyze the details, and too fearful to know the depths of the corruption, the process of this information war becomes an exercise in evangelism. A war of perception.
Why?
Because people feel more secure (less afraid) in numbers. Early adopters in the public will only have the courage to speak the truth - which is essential for the public to believe the truth - when the truth won't isolate them from their friends or cause them to lose their jobs.
Where are we now?
The tables are turning. The scientists are speaking out. The public is beginning to listen. Now, we must continue the momentum, continue to support the honest scientists and prosecute the corrupt ones.
Exposing the fact that global warming is a fraud is a key step to stopping geoengineering, but it's not the final step.
The final step is eradicating the core problem: corruption, and this is done by prosecuting liars and thieves.
In the short term, focusing on the dangers of geoengineering is also effective, especially in this age of organic everything, but again, it's just another battle in a much larger war.
Just one more problem.
The conspirators know their freedom and life is in danger if they are prosecuted. If the truth is allowed to get out, they may die, so they will fight to the death to support their lie. They will not relent.
Since they know they are losing ground, they will attempt to divert and divide public attention by exercising the only option they have left: Chaos.
For this reason, as I see the truth gaining ground, I also know that those who have their finger on the button won't hesitate to push it.
Where will this lead us?
Chaos: hell on Earth; a man-made hell on Earth.
Not good news, but in this age of technological weapons, it's the price we pay for years of apathy.
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
As far as I am concerned, where I am, this new moratorium that the ETC group has achieved motivates me to try to find out: 1) who were the negotiators for my country at the Conference on Biodiversity? 2) Why is my country not enforcing the moratorium on geoengineering, as it is obvious from the most casual glance at the sky that it is not.
The video reminding us that the US is not a signatory to the Biodiversity Convention is all very well, but let me remind you that Canada IS a signatory to the Biodiversity Convention.
Therefore chemtrails activists can now charge the Canadian government with violating the moratorium to which it is itself a signatory.
Only chemtrails activists can take this initiative. The cunning ETC group, who achieved this moratorium for us, cannot, because they are publicly committed to the myth that chemtrails/geoengineering is a matter of PROPOSALS, not of reality.
This is the right strategy for chemtrails activist to adopt now. Perpetuation of the climate change debate and statements that chemtrails are not for geoengineering purposes but for depopulation at this point serve a divide-and-rule agenda whose aim is to keep people divided into Democrats and Republicans arguing with each other.
Hi Russ, I'm complitely agree with your standing position about this moratory. I think that ETC position, as Belfort Group in Europe (after the Symposium in june they produced a Document treattin discussing the problem with "Contrails" definition) looks likes a propelling walking with a snare inside.
Thanks for your posts. Yes, looks to me like a snare inside.
Quote
Perpetuation of the climate change debate and statements that chemtrails are not for geoengineering purposes but for depopulation at this point serve a divide-and-rule agenda whose aim is to keep people divided into Democrats and Republicans arguing with each other.
This is documented and well known. It's not a conspiracy theory. It was (and still is) a very real conspiracy that led to the retirement of scientists, along with a public apology.
When geoengineering scientists attempt to justify the "risks" (actually damage caused) against the benefits we receive from it, they always cite "climate change" as the "benefit".
Well, if there is no climate change, then there is no justification for geoengineering.
Their own RISK/BENEFIT RATIO goes to ZERO-BENEFIT.
Therefore, upholding the truth that geoengineering provides NO BENEFIT TO US, is clearly the best approach.
If people don't want to publicly state that geoengineering is for depopulation, that's fine too. It really does not matter what we say the purpose of geoengineering is. It's not a point that needs to be argued. What is important is what geoengineering is NOT for, namely, it's not for global warming because global warming does not exist.
So, without any benefit to the world, and with enormous risk and damage at stake, there is no reason whatsoever to continue geoengineering.
Again, in short, I simply believe telling the truth is the best policy.
For those who want to know more about depopulation, PLEASE set aside 90 minutes of your life and watch this video from start to finish:
Yes i quote fully! the truth is the one. And we mustn't say stop to geoengineering as the global warm solution as Etc. Global warm is a lie and the message truth to all, without any sham is STOP on any action of chemical sprying over all the world! If they need to hold those mYstifications it's for covering something things surely not good for all the people! And it would be many things starting by depopulation.
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.
There's nothing more I can add that I haven't already said.
The truth is the truth.
There is no global warming, period. This is the scientific position. The data previously believed to "prove" global warming is false, was fabricated, and is being used to justify geoengineering.
When we all finally accept the scientific position - that there is no such thing as global warming - then there is NO justification for geoenginering, period.
It's simple.
To concede to a lie is wrong and offers no benefit to the people of the world. None whatsoever.
Since I have a few minutes, let me analyze your position.
You said...
Quote
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.
Let's start with this:
Quote
Of course my view is that the divisiveness is - precisely - the agenda.
Telling the truth is divisiveness?
Having scientific integrity is divisiveness?
I don't think so.
I think it's a good thing for people to become educated about scientific facts. People can get a thorough education about the facts directly from scientists (not from politicians) by watching the videos on this page:
Both sides are infiltrated by people pursuing this agenda.
No, actually one side has a small number of corrupt scientists, some of which have resigned and offered public apologies.
The other side has no need to make concessions and has no apologizing-scientists because the scientific data supports their position and they have not lied about it.
I'll leave it up to you to guess which side is which.
Quote
The violent "warmist" video to which the link was provided above, serves the agenda.
Indeed, the video has an agenda. Fortunately, it backfired.
Quote
People who have the simplistic view that "no global warming = no geoengineering" serve the agenda.
Well, yes, I do have an agenda, and it is scientific integrity.
Without scientific integrity, people get hurt and people die, and being that I have been hurt because of the scientific fraud that falsely claims that amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings are safe, I know how important it is to have scientific integrity.
I suffered from the horrible symptoms of mercury poisoning for 20 years because the American Dental Association held the patents for the manufacture of dental amalgam and made about $50 million per year by licensing the manufacturing rights to this patented "technology" (putting the mega-toxin mercury in people's mouths) (per Dr. Huggins research).
The "science" supporting their position was fraudulent because they wanted to make a huge profit, and they did, at the expense of millions of innocent people who suffer with mercury symptoms, which includes over 130 common diseases and emotional conditions.
Well this time, Al Gore stood to make hundreds of millions from companies trading carbon credits that he had a personal interest in, but in this case, it backfired because the truth - the real science - has been upheld by faithful scientists who refuse to allow politics to corrupt science.
My thanks goes out to faithful scientists who value integrity. As a result of their work, many will be spared the draconian laws, regulations, and taxes that would have been imposed if the global warming hoax had been allowed to continue.
So yes, everyone has an agenda. The real question is:
Is the agenda based in truth, or is the agenda based in a self-profiting enterprise?
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
Did you ever read my confrontation with Tim Ball? (The link is from posting 2947 above).
The guy is in denial on the subject of chemtrails.
I do not believe that he is sincere on this subject any more than I believe the ETC group is sincere on this subject.
Why do I have to confront the people on BOTH sides of the climate debate on the subject of chemtrails???
Isn't it your job to be confronting and exposing the Tim Balls???
You are absolutely and utterly confused, and cannot see the distinction between two entirely separate arguments: the argument over the existence of chemtrails and the argument over the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
Moreover you just do not listen when I point out that climate change sceptics right from the beginning have been recommending geoengineeering. I mentioned Teller as the most obvious example.
Get it into your head that winning the climate change argument is not going to get you anywhere at all in the fight against geoengineering and against chemtrails.
Now it seems that this atrocious production aroused so much protest that it was quickly “withdrawn from circulation” but of course it hasn’t been withdrawn from circulation. It has “gone viral” on the internet because it confirms everything thing that the “climate change sceptic” lobby like to believe about climate activists.
Watching the video prompted us to find out more about what was going on “behind it” and we soon found this Guardian interview with you about your organization 10:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314UCvMmgrU&NR=1
The conclusion that emerges from all this is nothing very original. It is merely that BOTH sides of the climate debate are evidently infiltrated by individuals pursuing an extremely malicious agenda. There is some elaboration of this line of thought in the following article on our site: http://www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/wayne/indexenglishekdilosi1.htm
You do not appear to be such a person, so the question is: was the monstrous publicity video released with your consent? Do you not after all agree that this whole incident is a manifestation of a “shoot oneself in the head” mentality entirely worthy of the “Age of Stupid”?
The solution to the infiltration of BOTH sides of the climate change movement is not just to identify the infiltrators and kick them out (though a little of that might not hurt if you, for your part, know where to start).
The best way of solving the problem is surely to develop the right politics.
Fortunately, the way has been opened for us by the ETC group, whose efforts have contributed to the passage of a moratorium on geoengineering at the United Nations’ Convention on Biodiversity: http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexmoratorium%20.htm
There are two moves that your organization, 10:10 could make to help try to start undoing the damage done by your atrocious publicity video.
The first would be add your group to the list of organizations supporting the “Hands off Mother Earth” initiative http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/
The second would be to go further and join our Enouranois website in declaring that on the basis of all the evidence, the United Kingdom, like all the states supporting the moratorium on geoengineering, are massively violating the moratorium they have just signed.
We look forward to your response to both these suggestions:
They tried to hide it but it's finally been leaked. The making of 10:10's "No Pressure".
A few classic quotes: Kid 1: I'm very happy to get blown up, to help save the world. Kid 2: My name's Drew Barnard and I think that it's fine to explode children for a good cause.
Did you ever read my confrontation with Tim Ball? (The link is from posting 2947 above).
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.
Quote
The guy is in denial on the subject of chemtrails.
I do not believe that he is sincere on this subject any more than I believe the ETC group is sincere on this subject.
And this is relevant how?
Quote
Why do I have to confront the people on BOTH sides of the climate debate on the subject of chemtrails???
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".
Isn't it your job to be confronting and exposing the Tim Balls???
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.
Quote
You are absolutely and utterly confused, and cannot see the distinction between two entirely separate arguments: the argument over the existence of chemtrails and the argument over the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
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.
Quote
Moreover you just do not listen when I point out that climate change sceptics right from the beginning have been recommending geoengineeering. I mentioned Teller as the most obvious example.
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.
Quote
Get it into your head that winning the climate change argument is not going to get you anywhere at all in the fight against geoengineering and against chemtrails.
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":
[quote]Did you ever read my confrontation with Tim Ball? (The link is from posting 2947 above).
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.
Enouranois replies: Here is the Tim Ball dialogue. I'll get back to you later:
(February 2007) Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
2.
Dear Dr. Tim Ball,
I read your article "Global Warming, the Cold, Hard Facts" in the Canada Free Press. Do you have any comment on this article of mine?
Sincerely,
Wayne Hall
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE MODIFICATION
Last year a public lecture on Climate Change was presented at the Athens Concert Hall. The visiting speaker was Dr. Matthew Collins from Britain’s Hadley Centre on Climate Change. He told a story about a group of journalists who visited the Centre to speak to the scientists about Climate Change. When they had interviewed a number of scientists they asked to see representatives of the climate-change-sceptic viewpoint. Their hosts told them that there were no representatives at the Hadley Centre of the viewpoint that climate change is imaginary or that it is not due at least in part to human activity. The journalists said that they couldn’t present just one side of the story and that they wouldn’t be screening the interviews they had taken.
Dr. Matthew Collins told us this story to illustrate the perversity of the lobby supporting the refusal of President Bush and his advisors to sign the Treaty of Kyoto. But it is inevitable that journalists will look for both sides of a story. If they are told that the climate change sceptics are the other side of the story, they will go looking for climate change sceptics.
In fact the climate change sceptics are NOT the other side of the story. The debate about whether or not climate change exists, or whether it is anthropogenic, is a DIVERSION. And it is a diversion that puts climate change scientists and activists eternally on the defensive. As with the controversy surrounding Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, our side of the debate is accused of manipulating statistics to remove non-anthropogenic factors from the climate change equation so as to overemphasise the factors stemming from human activity.
The debate should not be about whether climate change is or is not anthropogenic. The debate should be about whether climate mitigation or modification should be legalized. Various techniques for mitigating the effects of climate change, such as the spraying of aerosols into the atmosphere from aircraft to reduce the levels of sunlight reaching the earth are openly discussed in the official documents of the IPCC. What is not admitted, and what very large numbers of people throughout the world have concluded, is that mitigation projects of this kind are already being implemented, and on a very large scale. This claim is not being allowed to intrude into the official climate change debate. The result is that the climate change sceptics continue to have the psychological advantage and the ability to put climate change activists and scientists on the defensive.
It seems that there are great political and legal obstacles to climate change mitigation being carried out openly, transparently and publicly. The present situation of illegality suits the oil lobbies and their spokesmen very well. They know they can mobilize hysterical mobs whenever they want to, and illegal climate change mitigation is an activity that is very well suited for triggering public hysteria, and for channeling it against ecologists and climate scientists. To understand something of the dynamics of this, just read Michael Crichton's best-selling novel “State of Fear”, which is structured around the hypothesis of ecologist terrorists artificially inducing tsunamis which they then blame on climate change in order to secure grant monies for their ecological projects.
Crichton's book is a best-seller. People who have a different mentality to us read it. And there are a lot of them.
Nothing would be easier in Greece than to whip up hysteria against the Protocol of Kyoto. Although Greece signed the Protocol, it has done next to nothing to comply with its demands for reduction of dependence on fossil fuels. As a result just for the first nine months of 2005 Greece’s Public Power Company has been required to pay 69 million euros in pollution credits. The conclusion that a reader of Michael Crichton would draw from this is that Kyoto is a racket!
Apart from the threat of whipping up public hysteria there is also the threat of litigation. Whilever something is illegal, those who are implicated in it can be accused of being criminals.
Some critics will say that because governments do not admit that climate change mitigation projects are in progress and because we cannot prove that they are, (since the evidence of our senses is not enough), it is futile to imagine that we can out-manoeuvre the oil lobbies. But this is not true. All that is necessary is for us to argue, and argue persistently, that the question is not whether climate change is a reality or not, or is anthropogenic or not. The question is whether climate change mitigation should be legalized or banned. This places no onus on us to prove that climate change mitigation is actually occurring. But it does allow us to turn the tables on the climate change sceptics and put THEM on the defensive. If we can get them to say that climate change mitigation is a bad idea, we can then demand that they prove climate change mitigation is NOT occurring. If we can get them to say that climate change mitigation should be legalized then we have deprived them of any further ability to argue that climate change is not something that governments should try to influence. And of any ability to argue that climate change is not a problem.
The stance of climate change skeptics is an updated version of the Cold Warrior mentality. In its deviousness it has the personality of the late Edward Teller stamped all over it. Teller personally and his Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in general played a central role in the process of “moving on” from Cold War Soviet- threat-and-nuclear-deterrence scenarios to the post-Cold War variant of Climate Change and Climate Modification/Climate as Weapon. Teller had a tremendous consciousness of the power of the Big Lie to generate cognitive dissonance, false debate and social disorganization. Having built the hydrogen bomb, the second US nuclear weapons laboratory and his own subsequent brilliant career through projection of the lie of an immensely powerful, relentless and implacable Soviet enemy, he had the flexibility in the era of Gorbachev and the subsequent Soviet collapse to invent new threat scenarios with new inbuilt dilemmas and traps for his opponents. The disorganizing principle that Teller inserted into the climate discussion involved positing uncertainty (“Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming. As a scientist I must stand silent on this issue until it’s solved scientifically”) while at the same time asserting the superiority of his own proposed solution to the perhaps non-existent problem. (“Contemporary technology offers considerably more realistic options for addressing any global warming than politicians and environmental activists are considering. Some of these may be far less burdensome than even a system of market-allocated emissions permits. One particularly attractive approach involves diminishing slightly - by about one percent - the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface in order to counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases.” (Edward Teller: Sunscreen for Planet Earth [www.hooverdigest.org/981/teller.html])
Some scientists and activists have tried to avoid the necessity for a full-scale confrontation with the climate change sceptics by resorting to the hypothesis of Global Dimming. A BBC documentary on this subject by David Sington was screened last year in Britain and in Australia, and another more recently in Canada. The Global Dimming thesis acknowledges the role of atmospheric aerosols in reducing incoming sunlight and reducing climate change. What it avoids acknowledging is that for precisely this reason, programmes of deliberately introducing aerosols into the atmosphere have been advocated and apparently also implemented. David Sington’s compromise solution is really no solution at all. He was attacked from two directions after the first screening of his Global Dimming documentary. He was accused by the climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of being over-sensational in his handling of the scientific evidence - indeed a number of the scientists who appeared in the Global Dimming documentary admitted to having mixed feelings about the programme’s scare-mongering approach - and he was attacked by climate change sceptics who accused him of giving tacit support to the “chemtrails” conspiracy theorists. When he tried to dissociate himself from this charge in a private e-mail, the e-mail was leaked onto the internet and David Sington came over looking like a politically naïve wimp.
We should not underestimate the extent to which the oil lobby funded climate change sceptics can intimidate climate scientists and activists by brandishing the “conspiracy theorist” label. I have seen even so distinguished a person as Ross Gelbspan succumb to pressure of this kind.
Climate change politics has joined the mainstream in many ways. Even Time magazine can run front covers telling us to “Be Worried, Be Very Worried”. I don’t for a moment believe that this means we should not take climate change seriously. What I want to say is that the climate change movement can be manipulated, just as the anti-nuclear movement has been manipulated for decades. And at the present moment when there are so many signs that in sixty years of existence the anti-nuclear movement has achieved extremely little, this is a precedent we should beware of following.
The climate change movement has to confront the reality of climate modification, and decide, in dialogue with our opponents, whether we want to it to be legalized or banned. (http://www.enouranois.gr)
3.
Hi Wayne:
I am afraid you are on completely the wrong track.
By downplaying the skeptics’ side and arguing the issue is mitigation automatically assumes that CO2 is the cause of climate change. It isn’t. and the human portion definitely is not the cause. This means any actions you take are as likely to cause more harm than leaving things alone. What you, Branson, Crutzen and others are proposing is called geo-engineering. Crutzen is a Nobel Prize winner who advocates adding sulphates to reduce sunlight and cause cooling. Branson’s proposal is the inverse of one proposed back in the 1970s when global cooling was the scientific consensus. Giant mirrors were supposed to direct more sunlight to warm the earth. The Russians even proposed mirrors to direct sunlight to specific cities. Although I have been labeled a ‘skeptic’ and more obscenely a ‘denier’ I am actually looking for all the evidence and urge much better understanding of the mechanisms than currently exist before we start acting precipitously.
Even advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have advised how little we know. Commenting on the report by the US National Research Council Report:, February 3, 1999 which said, “Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results” Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO and a lead author in the latest IPCC Report said, “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system…This may come as a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate but we don’t.”
Currently an experiment is going on spreading iron filings on the pacific Ocean to increase absorption of CO2, apparently with no regard to the side effects caused by changing the natural water chemistry. I am incensed my tax money is being spent in such hair-brained (sic!) and misdirected experiments. A major problem is if we reduce CO2 levels the plants will suffer, but they don't get a vote in these matters. Despite what you hear atmospheric levels of CO2 are at the lowest in 600 million years and there is every evidence the plants are CO2 starved. The work of the Idso's at http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp provide ample evidence of what is happening and this is supported by empirical and practical evidence as commercial greenhouses pump up to 1000 ppm of CO2 to increase growth and yields by up to 4 times while reducing water consumption by about the same amount. This suggests plants have evolved to a much higher level and the Idso's work confirms this as most plants function best between 1000 and 1200 ppm.
Many world climatologist including the Russians some of whom I have worked with and think the best in the world are arguing we are in an already cooling world (since 1998) and this will continue to a 2030 due to a very low sunspot cycle 25. It is bad enough we are economically preparing for warming it is insanity to geophysically try to “stop the warming.”
Back in the 1970s you or others likely would have advocated adding CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the scientific consensus of global cooling. The plants would have appreciated it, but it would have done nothing to affect the climate, because the major cause of climate and climate change is the sun.
Sorry I don't have time for more.
Regards
Tim Ball
4.
Hi and thanks for your reply.
What if geo-engineering more or less along the lines advocated by Crutzen etc. is already being implemented, and on a massive scale?? Do we object to the practice or do we object to the justificatory theory?? If we object to the practice, which has priority, stopping the practice or changing the theory? The geoengineers mostly argue that they have to (or will have to) carry out the aerosol spraying because the “sceptics" lobby is preventing meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Regards,
Wayne Hall
5.
Hi Wayne:
The answer to your question is we object to both. However, I am not aware that Crutzen’s idea is being implemented or even planned at this point. I would also move to remove Crutzen's Nobel Prize for making stupid proposals and using thus demeaning the credibility of the Prize.
Tim Ball
6.
Hi Tim,
I haven't heard of the idea of sulphate spraying in the stratosphere being implemented yet either, but there is a lot of eyewitness evidence to suggest, despite official denials, that some kind of aerosol spraying is taking place on a huge scale in the troposphere. In his article published last July Crutzen actually says that spraying in the stratosphere would be preferable to spraying in the troposphere, without explaining the relevance of this consideration and without conceding that any such spraying is occurring in the troposphere. Indeed he says that the support of the public would have to be secured before any such geoengineering programmes could be embarked upon.
Because we wanted to take Professor Crutzen up on his professions of being interested in securing the support of the public, we suggested to (an American foundation in Athens) that they should organize a video conference between Professor Crutzen, George Monbiot, who has condemned Crutzen's proposals (without supporting the "conspiracy theorist" idea that atmospheric spraying programmes might already be under implementation) and the American farm activist Rosalind Peterson. The American foundation agreed to the idea of the conference on the proviso that all participants agreed to take part. When we checked with Rosalind Peterson, she agreed. Monbiot's stance by contrast was initially unco-operative and in the end aggressive and we dropped the idea of including him. Crutzen, when contacted at the Max Planck Institute said that he didn't have time to participate in such a video conference. We suggested that he ask a colleague to speak on behalf of the proposals he had made, presumably as a member of the Institute, but he then said that he spoke only for himself. (This is strange as the position of a scientist, in my opinion.)
Would you like to support the idea of this video conference taking place? If so, you could perhaps also participate in it. The subject of the discussion, however, would be geoengineering, not climate change as such, though there would be no taboo against you making it clear what you think about climate change theories, as long as you kept on topic, with your focus on Crutzen's and others' proposals for spraying the upper or lower atmosphere with toxic substances. You would of course have the opportunity to make your proposal that Crutzen should have his Nobel Prize taken away from him.
Thank you for engaging with these ideas. I am very interested to receive your response.
Sincerely,
Wayne Hall
7.
Dear Dr. Ball,
You have not responded to my previous message. Is this evidence of my having pinpointed an element of dishonesty in your positions?
Wayne Hall
8.
Your last terse message about my failure to respond claims you have pinpointed “an element of dishonesty in your positions?” Who the hell do you think you are? I took a great deal of time to respond to your previous messages then because I don't respond immediately to another message you make wild unfounded accusations. With such an egotistical attitude you might find it difficult to understand that other people are involved in very heavy workloads. The fact is I have received over 900 e-mails and am trying to respond to the half that asked legitimate questions. I tried this with you and all it has solicited is insults. I am not in support of Crutzen in his wild geoengineering theories, but I fully support his decision not to communicate with you anymore.
Please do not communicate with me anymore for any reason.
OK - This has consumed about 30 minutes of my precious time.
What is the point?
I am a very busy man and am happy to listen to new ideas, but I have - in good faith - spent a lot of time dialoging with you and I still don't hear anything new.
All I hear is the same thing I heard from the beginning - that we should focus on the dangers of geoengineering and not worry about the climate change debate.
Is this correct?
If you're making a point, please tell me what it is and please be as brief as possible.
Thanks.
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
The climate debate diverts about 99% of the population away from the chemtrails/geoengineering debate. It is a distraction from it.
And since Copenhagen a large number of climate sceptics are now joining the discussion as advocates of geoengineering.
To quote my article "Climate: are we having the right discussion"?
“It is strange that geoengineering is being promoted enthusiastically by a number of right-wing think tanks that are active in climate denialism. …Why would activists who deny warming is occurring and oppose measures to reduce emissions support the development of a technology aimed at countering global warming?”
(Clive Hamilton: The Return of Dr. Strangelove)
“A number of right-wing think tanks actively denying climate change are also promoting geoengineering, an irony that seems to escape them.”
(Clive Hamilton: An Evil Atmosphere is formed around Geoengineering)
"In the new post-Copenhagen conjuncture there is both more climate change skepticism and more public advocacy of geoengineering. That is on the face of it absurd, but a message that would be incoherent and incomprehensible if addressed to a single audience can retain an appearance of coherence if its two components are targeted at different audiences: the geoengineering advocacy at ecologists and leftists, the skepticism at conservatives. "
In other words a new bipolar game has been constructed by the same people who set up the original bipolar game with the Soviet Union and the nuclear arms race.
When the Soviet Union was defeated the Russian nuclear arsenal should have been dismantled. Who stopped it from being dismantled? The Russians?? Yeltsin in September 1991 was advocating 95% unilateral Russian nuclear disarmament in the Russian parliament.
Why should one help the New World Order creeps to set up new bipolar games?
Why should one get involved in the climate debate anyway?? In reaction to the ecologists? Why should one react to the ecologists?
Chemtrails activists who are ecologists have been bitterly critical of Greenpeace’s avoidance of chemtrails.
Why is there no parallel confrontation with the skeptics who cop out, who are DISHONEST, on the subject of chemtrails??
Not only should we forget the climate debate. We should focus one hundred percent on the geoengineering moratorium and DEMAND that our governments comply with it, particularly if they have signed it, which nearly all governments have.
This naturally leads the debate on to chemtrails, and so onto the more clandestine, black and criminal functions that are being served by chemtrails.
By contrast, if one lines up with the mainstream skeptics to win the climate debate, when these same skeptics do not recognize that geoengineering and chemtrails are a reality, all that one does is to prolong the bipolar dispute with the climate change true believers, without ever reaching the subject of chemtrails.
Chemtrails are kept out of the mainstream debate, consigned to a little private “conspiracy theory” smoking room.
If you tailend people like Ball, you will never get your chance to talk about chemtrails in “respectable company”.
The renewed pressure for an expansion of nuclear power is also justified on the basis of the argument that nuclear power has a "lower carbon footprint".
If one proves that anthropogenic climate change is a myth will one derail the new campaign for expansion of nuclear power generation?
They continue pounding the global warming lie into the heads of people via mainstream media hoping that we'll stop countering them. If we do, we've lost not only the geoenginering debate, we've lost national sovereignty to the new system of laws that are ALSO being justified by the global warming hoax.
Geoengineering IS BEING JUSTIFIED by global warming. If there is no global warming, there is no justification for geoengineering.
Some truths are complicated, but this one is simple.
Quote
When the Soviet Union was defeated the Russian nuclear arsenal should have been dismantled. Who stopped it from being dismantled? The Russians?? Yeltsin in September 1991 was advocating 95% unilateral Russian nuclear disarmament in the Russian parliament.
The soviet union was never defeated. It only changed it's mask.
I'm not going to get in this conversation at this time, but Mikhail Gorbachev basically admitted that the new open society was a fraud to entice the west to accept socialism. ~"They will come begging for socialism", he said.
In reality, Gorbachev is one of the global elite working together with global banking cartel to build a global government.
Without this vital information, you simply cannot understand world affairs.
Quote
Not only should we forget the climate debate. We should focus one hundred percent on the geoengineering moratorium and DEMAND that our governments comply with it, particularly if they have signed it, which nearly all governments have.
We can "demand" all we want, but they just don't care. It's not going to make any difference. The federal government is corrupt to the core. They DID NOT sign the moratorium this time. This should teach you something about what they will do in the future. Answer: The same thing... Not sign the moratorium.
What has to take place is education and then lawsuits forcing states to prohibit this activity in their airspace. They have this jurisdiction.
Confronting government CLOSER to the people is the answer. Continuing to run to the U.N. hoping the feds will change their minds is vain and a waste of time.
The education that needs to take place is this: The public needs to understand that the justification for geoengineering is global warming, but since global warming is a profiteering hoax, then there is no justification for geoengineering.
Furthermore, countries that signed the moratorium are STILL BEING SPRAYED. Do you really think it would be any different in the U.S.?
We should not be so naive.
Quote
If you tailend people like Ball, you will never get your chance to talk about chemtrails in “respectable company”.
The respectable company that you refer to are crooks and liars.
They deny chemtrails. They sign moratoriums and spray anyway. If you really believe that this "respectable company" is going to act honorably, you're in for a big surprise.
Your idea that we should ignore the central pillar argument supporting geoengineering is strange, quite frankly.
Again, when people debate geoengineering, the first logical question is, "Why are we doing this?" If the answer is "Global warming", and when the public knows that there is no such thing, then the globalists have just lost public support, which is an important factor.
Quote
By contrast, if one lines up with the mainstream skeptics to win the climate debate, when these same skeptics do not recognize that geoengineering and chemtrails are a reality, all that one does is to prolong the bipolar dispute with the climate change true believers, without ever reaching the subject of chemtrails.
You're making a very clever (in a bad way) argument by associating 2 things in a misleading way.
You are implying that telling the truth about the climate change hoax automatically means that people won't realize that geoengineering is currently in progress.
On the contrary, the more people who realize that large-scale conspiracies exists - like the climate change hoax - the more people will be able to comprehend that the government is lying about other things, like the current spraying programs.
So the opposite of what you implied is actually true.
Furthermore, some of the things they are spraying have nothing to do with geoengineering. They are toxins more akin to depopulation.
The public needs to understand the depth of the capability of the government to lie. Telling the truth about the global warming hoax is just the way to accomplish this.
Convincing people that spraying is currently taking place also must be accomplished, and this can be done more effectively once the scope of the original lie - global warming - is comprehended, and we are already on our way.
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
The above article contains some details of the insufficiently publicized moratorium voted in October 2010 at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan, by virtually all the world's states apart from the the United States of America - certainly all the states of the European Union - on implementation of most forms of geoengineering including what is known as Solar Radiation Management.
Solar Radiation Management has, particularly since the setbacks encountered at the United Nations Climate Summit at Copenhagen in December 2009, begun to be canvassed with increasing urgency by scientists and official bodies, including in Europe Britain's Royal Society, as a necessary and politically feasible response to the problem of anthropogenic global warming. The situation is complicated beyond the understanding of most citizens by the fact that many of the same foundations that are advocating geoengineering as a response to anthropogenic global warming also fund organizations that deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
If implemented, Solar Radiation Management would result in phenomena in every respect identical to a kind of aerial spraying from aircraft that has been observed virtually everywhere on the planet with increasing frequency for well over a decade and has been the subject of questioning of politicians, scientists and official spokespersons by concerned citizens in very many countries, including Greece and other member states of the European Union.
Among the half a dozen politicians in Greece who have raised in the Hellenic Parliament the question of the aerial spraying is Mr. Fotis Kouvelis, whose party supported the campaign of the new mayor of Athens, Mr Georgios Kaminis. http://www.enouranois.gr/english/political/kouvelis.htm
The answer provided by official spokespersons to such questions from parliamentarians and other concerned citizens about the spraying have inevitably and everywhere taken the form either of denials that any such spraying is occurring or denial of any relevant knowledge (from authorities whose duty it is to possess the relevant knowledge).
The comments on this phenomenon of denial that were made last May at the symposium on geoengineering in Ghent, Belgium, by the reputable scientist Dr. Coen Vermeeren, are as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKHjN0vUvOY
The sole partial exception is recent: in Cyprus the Green party has begun to pursue a policy of inquiry that distinguishes it favourably from all other Green parties in Europe and indeed in the world. Perhaps in response to this, the Cypriot government has begun to show enough respect for its citizens' intelligence not to issue the routine denials of the reality of the spraying that have until now been the rule everywhere.
The policy of denial of the spraying has been a contributory factor to the spread of rumour, particularly among ordinary citizens who question the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Such rumours centre on the charge that the spraying serves a variety of sinister and criminal purposes. One such allegation is that aerial spraying with aluminium is aimed at causing damage to crops that would necessitate use of Monsanto's new generation of aluminium-resistant seeds. If only a quarter of the allegations of this type that are in circulation were true, this would amount to exposure that a war has been declared on the human race.
Given this situation, the questions we ask, and the demands we make, of the Greek government, should be asked by the citizens of all countries that have signed the moratorium on geoengineering at the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, as well as by the citizens of the United States, whose government has not.
Unfortunately many citizens, particularly in the United States, who are most concerned about the aerial spraying, are also opposed to the existence of the United Nations, and therefore have mixed feelings about a United Nations moratorium, even on an activity to which they are strongly opposed. Not wishing to concede the United Nations the status of intermediary, they allow their opposition to the United Nations to override their opposition to the aerial spraying.
We do not share their hesitancy and we would like to declare unequivocally that we do not accept official assertions that the aerial spraying, for Solar Radiation Management and/or other purposes, is not occurring. All the necessary data for refutation of the official misinformation is to be found in the Case Orange Report http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369 issued at the Belfort Group symposium on geoengineering in Ghent last May.
We invite the Greek government to explain, if rationally defensible purposes are being served by this spraying, what those rationally defensible purposes are. We also invite our government to answer the question of why it has signed a moratorium on geoengineering that it is evidently not respecting or observing.
The health of the citizens of Greece, both physical and mental, is very convincingly represented as threatened by the unexplained, and often extremely intense, aerial spraying.
Some truths are complicated, but this one is simple.
Quote
When the Soviet Union was defeated the Russian nuclear arsenal should have been dismantled. Who stopped it from being dismantled? The Russians?? Yeltsin in September 1991 was advocating 95% unilateral Russian nuclear disarmament in the Russian parliament.
The soviet union was never defeated. It only changed it's mask.
I'm not going to get in this conversation at this time.
If you don't get into this conversation, at least give it some reflection, perhaps with the help of your Christian conscience.
You are equating people who fought for Communism with people who fought against Communism, with the help of Americans.
If it makes no difference at all whether one is for or against Communism, the intellectual element is eliminated. The basis for political differentiations is reduced to biological, even zoological characteristics. Do you think this viewpoint of yours is different from Nazism? If it is, how is it?
If a Russian, no matter what he does or says, cannot become a "good guy" for an American, what basis can there be for a non-American to distinguish between good and bad Americans?
Does it really make you comfortable to provoke anti-Americanism?
Is it really your requirement that everyone in the world has to change except you?
I am not going to become an anthropogenic climate change sceptic.
Do you propose I should do something different to what I am doing, to oppose chemtrails??
You operate much like a disingenuous news reporters making false assumptions and morbid associations to muddle the argument so as to perform character assassination.
Quote
If you don't get into this conversation, at least give it some reflection, perhaps with the help of your Christian conscience.
It's a pointless conversation because you're not here to learn from experts or to consider facts, as evidenced by this statement:
Quote
I am not going to become an anthropogenic climate change sceptic.
Only 1 of 2 things can be true:
1. You're here to show off, or
2. You're here to waste my time and resources.
#2 above is a common tactic of disinformationalists.
The fact is, there is no climate change. We have a consensus on the temperature curve for thousands of years, and a simple 2 minute study proves this.
Furthermore, we have evidence of fraud, lying, deceit, and motive, enough to force the resignation of scientists who were caught on the matter.
So, opinions are moot. The fact is the universally accepted temperature curve is accurate.
If you want to explain why you disagree with the data, feel free. Otherwise, you're simply wasting time.
Quote
If a Russian, no matter what he does or says, cannot become a "good guy" for an American, what basis can there be for a non-American to distinguish between good and bad Americans?
That's not what I said, but again, if you're interested in international affairs, go study.
Quote
Does it really make you comfortable to provoke anti-Americanism?
Wow. You're trolling, but then again, that's what a disinformationalist does: Wastes time and resources.
The people of ALL nations of the world currently face the same enemy: Lies
These lies revolve around a powerful few who promote the formation of fiat money (a lie), false pretenses for war (a lie), and the destruction of freedom. These things are promoted to further their own power and wealth.
Those promoting these lies have made themselves enemies of the common people.
Remember nuremberg: "Just taking orders" was not an acceptable excuse.
Quote
Do you propose I should do something different to what I am doing, to oppose chemtrails??
Promote truth instead of lies. That would be a good place to start.
---
The final word here is this:
Geoengineering is being justified by global warming.
I'm not trolling, and I'm not here to waste your and/or my own time. I want to secure support for the argument I have been putting forward.
But I agree that it is unlikely either you or I will introduce any new content and will probably, if we continue, merely keep going over the same ground.
The crucial point is that you are not challenging the people who share the same views as yourself on global warming but continue to tell lies about chemtrails.
You insist that these two subjects are the same subject, but they clearly are not, because by your criteria the mainstream climate change deniers are being truthful on one subject and untruthful on the other.
By contrast, I am utilizing the achievements of people with whom I share views on global warming in order to go further than they are able to go and demand why governments have signed a moratorium they are not observing.
This is a subject that can be raised in mainstream discourse, whereas you have not found any comparable way of moving from the climate debate to the chemtrails debate, in a way that you can take your mainstream climate change sceptics with you.
If you can present me with ONE example of a prominent climate change sceptic agreeing with you that chemtrails are a reality, not a conspiracy theory, I will concede that your strategy may have some change of success.
If you want to stop the argument here, OK. I don't want you to think that I am a troll or that I have a lot of time to waste.
If you can present me with ONE example of a prominent climate change sceptic agreeing with you that chemtrails are a reality, not a conspiracy theory, I will concede that your strategy may have some change of success.
This is another clever attempt to marginalize the truth.
Here are the flaws with this statement.
First, I am not a climate change skeptic.
I am a supporter of integrity in science, along with thousands of other scientists who agree that global warming is a scientific fraud.
There have been many scientific frauds in the past decades. Everything from fake drug studies to non-existent doctors to bribes that got Nutrasweet passed through FDA.
These frauds are being exposed. The people who believe that these frauds exist are not called "drug skeptics". They are simply people who demand integrity in science.
Quote
If you can present me with ONE example of a prominent climate change sceptic agreeing with you that chemtrails are a reality
You are again making a false associations here. This is a clever but horribly deceptive statement.
Most of the people you consider "prominent" are corrupt, so we should NOT depend on them to have integrity in this cause. This is how we got into this situation to begin with. I am highly-skeptical of anyone who asks us to depend on "prominent" people.
This is a grassroots movement. If only 3% of people become active in this fight (which will eventually be a reality), it can be overturned, but it does take effort, especially when 51% of the total U.S. budget is a secret secret military budget with no accountability.
Depending on corrupt people that you consider "prominent" is NOT the solution, but this is exactly what the opposition wants us to do.
Again, this is grassroots movement that will force governments into accountability from the bottom up, not the top down.
Quote
You insist that these two subjects are the same subject, but they clearly are not, because by your criteria the mainstream climate change deniers are being truthful on one subject and untruthful on the other.
This is a lie.
Geoengineering scientists and advocates ALIKE state OPENLY that THE REASON FOR GEOENGINEERING is to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.
Geoengineering opponents completely agree. You seem to be the only one disagreeing here.
You can see evidence of this in many articles and in the video "What In the World are they Spraying?" directly from the mouths of (highly-paid and well-granted) climate change scientists:
Your claim that they are two different subjects is horribly deceptive and bogus to the core.
Quote
By contrast, I am utilizing the achievements of people with whom I share views on global warming
With the evidence that we now have that global warming is a scientific fraud, the only way a person can continue to promote this lie is:
(1) They are corrupt (paid disinformation - as many scientists and online-bloggers/forum infiltrators are), or
(2) They are willfully ignorant. If they continue to remain ignorant in light of the information that I have included in my recent posts, then they are "willfully ignorant", which means they are internally corrupt and are deceiving themselves.
What achievements are you speaking of?
You mean the fact that global warming alarmists are pressing forward with an enormous global system of taxation and global power grab?
Perhaps you mean the achievement that nations are losing their sovereignty and individual people are losing their rights in countries around the world due to the climate change hoax.
Maybe you're speaking of the achievements of countries being forced to adopt regulations that are oppressing workers and ruining small business?
Are these the achievements that you speak of?
Are these the achievements that cause you to want to trust "prominent" people and continue to promote a proven-false belief that global warming exists?
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
You are deluded if you expect that your side is going to win the climate debate in the same definitive way that, to use your example, the "Nutrasweet" debate has been won.
The debate will continue to rage, a highly successful "divide and rule" strategy, and how ingenious, to politicize such a complex subject.
The move away from reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels could have been effected through releasing onto the market the numerous "free energy" technologies whose development has been impeded through confiscating of patents under national security regulations.
Instead of doing that what has been generated is a state of permanent war between American Democrats and Republicans wearing the masks of different viewpoints on the subject of climate, and projected over the entire planet.
And this state of deadlock, as you rightly argue, makes it possible to turn the climate debate into an ever more profitable device for extracting revenue from taxpayers.
Edward Thompson and the non-aligned anti-nuclear-weapons movement had a similar analysis of how the US/USSR nuclear arms race was fed by the same type of inertial political deadlock. But then he and his movement failed to intervene at the time of the collapse of the USSR and demand abolition of all of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, which could have brought an end to the deadlock they had analysed, and prevent the nuclear arms race it being reconstituted, almost entirely due to American initiative, "behind new masks", as you like to say.
This failure of the anti-nuclear movement at this time adds credibility to analyses like yours which see them/us merely as stooges in the hands of New World Order manipulators.
But why weren't people like you demanding abolition of Soviet nuclear weapons?? In the non-aligned anti-nuclear movement there were some of us raising this demand. We were just too few and too weak. Were there ANY anti-Communist people like you saying that the Soviet nuclear arsenal should be destroyed?
Your notion that the USSR was not defeated but merely "changed its mask" has many similarities with the notion that the ETC Group people who cleverly worked for the moratorium on geoengineering, (dissembling on the subject of chemtrails for the purpose of achieving this specific goal), are merely corrupt in the same way that the prominent "climate change sceptics" are corrupt. It is symptomatic of a lack of respect for people who are after all objectively your allies. If I met Pat Mooney I would express sincere admiration for what he and his ETC group colleagues have achieved with the moratorium. If you met Linzen, Michaels or Singer would you condemn them to their face for being corrupt??? You would not, I suspect. Which is evidence that you are not pursuing politics that can get you out of the political underworld.
A failure to make distinctions between Russian Communists and Russian anti-Communists, or between people who are working to preserve the NWO status quo and cunning ETC-type manipulators who are working to undermine that status quo from within, is a bad political fault.
Your charge against me that I am "dependent" on insiders that you regard as corrupt is wrong. Having achieved the moratorium, ETC has done the groundwork enabling our side to take over, and as far as I am concerned it does not matter much what they do from this point on. It is useful having them around, I suppose, as resource people because of their scientific expertise, but as far as I am concerned they are not my political leadership, and they never have been.
In the final analysis the objective course of events will show from this point onwards which of us, you or I, have a more useful and more effective analysis.
Mike Murphy and his mentor G. Edward Griffin have similar ideas to you and they have come up with a powerful, albeit not perfect, film, which we will certainly deploy without distancing ourselves from it publicly. But how are they themselves going to utilize this tool they have provided??? I don't see them making much use, if any, of the moratorium.
Other activists, such as Mauro Oliveira of Geoengineering Watch have since the moratorium moved from previous positions of uncritical identification with the ETC group, to a stance of virtually representing them as "traitors" because of their lack of frankness about chemtrails. But it is not the ETC group that has changed. It is Mauro. When the ETC group's strategy comes up with its first evidence of success, Mauro turns from a friend into an enemy.
In every country that is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity there is an official who went to Nagoya and signed the moratorium on geoengineering on behalf of his or her government. These people can be found and asked why their governments signed a moratorium that they are not respecting or observing.
This is something to be followed up, and it will produce results that will not require us to wait as long as we will have to wait for exposure of the "fraud of climate change" to be transformed into effective opposition to geoengineering and chemtrails.
In every country that is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity there is an official who went to Nagoya and signed the moratorium on geoengineering on behalf of his or her government. These people can be found and asked why their governments signed a moratorium that they are not respecting or observing.
This is something to be followed up, and it will produce results that will not require us to wait as long as we will have to wait for exposure of the "fraud of climate change" to be transformed into effective opposition to geoengineering and chemtrails.
This is the point upon which we disagree fundamentally.
You should have learned that this moratorium has no meaning. It is theater, nothing more. The fact that it is being wholesale ignored is evidence of what I've known for decades.
If these are the people you are hoping will suddenly become honest, you will be waiting a long, long time. They have no accountability and no enforcement capability.
They signed a moratorium yet spraying continues.
The evidence is directly in front of you. The evidence is now history for all to learn from.
On the other hand, the climate change fraud, which is the SINGLE "justification" for geoengineering is an open, exposed, proven, prosecutable fraud with real momentum.
If we continue to ask the U.N. to help us, they will continue in their endless scheme to achieve world government, which is their stated goal.
Global warming IS the CENTRAL lie - "the great problem the world has to solve TOGETHER" - being used to bind governments into treaties and "agreements" that we can never escape from. This is what they were founded to do. This is their intent, and you can be sure that everything they do will be to this end.
The Rockefellers are the founders of the U.N. AND the literal authors and central promoters of depopulation - the central - but not only - purpose of chemtrails.
Do you think the U.N. will suddenly and obscenely fail their central objective?
On the other hand, the states of the United States - each of which is a separate country (shockingly few know this), have the right to outlaw geoengineering, and unlike the U.N., they are closer to the people, much more influence-able, and much less corrupt. They also have the authority to deny this type federal military operation.
When educated about this subject, the states will ask, "Why are they doing this?" Their response will be, "To cure global warming."
Now here's the punch line...
If the people (the ultimate power in the states), believe global warming is a problem that desperately needs to be solved, the states will continue to allow it.
If the people understand that global warming is a fraud, the states will legally forbid it.
When the military denies that geoengineering is currently being conducted (they ALREADY do), the U.N. has no real interest in solving the problem. Add their level of corruption and the relative ease of centralized control and you must conclude that there is no chance of success in that venue.
What then? Sue the U.N.? Sue the U.S.?
If the states are involved, they are the only real authority that can legally petition (sue) the fed directly, and make independent laws prohibiting activities, such as geoengineering.
When the military denies that geoengineering is currently being conducted (they ALREADY do), the states conduct the necessary research to prove its case and the whole thing is exposed before the people in state, after state, after state.
Once U.S. states recognize this, the awareness and recognition can more quickly spread to other countries.
Although corruption extends to the states to some degree, it is impotent compared to the level of fraud, corruption, and control at the federal level and within the U.N.
If we expect the U.N. to do anything other than what they have already done (lie, deceive, promote globalism, continue the status quo) we are being naive, at best. The U.N. has a long history of support for globalism.
Do you expect this will suddenly change?
Do you think corruption is easier to overcome at the U.N. level, more so than at the local level?
I don't think so.
Quote
In every country that is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity there is an official who went to Nagoya and signed the moratorium on geoengineering on behalf of his or her government. These people can be found and asked why their governments signed a moratorium that they are not respecting or observing.
Finally, do you REALLY think these delegates have any power?
Do you REALLY think asking them this question will ever make one bit of difference?
I don't think so.
If I thought for a moment that your approach would succeed, I'd be the first to jump on board, but you still believe in global warming... Even though it's an exposed fraud whose corruption is publicly viewable.
With all due respect, I'm not sure how reliable your discernment is.
Nevertheless, let's say you want U.N. delegates to be asked "the question". How do you propose doing that? And what effect do you think it will have?
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
My judgements are not based just on whether I think people are honest or dishonest. I think you are probably honest, but for me that doesn't make you an ally. Your political views can lead you to act in ways that hinder rather than help, from my viewpoint.
Your thinking is based on morality, not politics. Corruption is a moral category, not a political category.
To me your political views appear to be entirely unrealistic. The American Civil War was won by your opponents over a century and a half ago and if you think you can fight it again and win this time perhaps you had better check this idea out with more Americans, of a variety of political persuasions.
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. I have floated a number of ideas in this connection:
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. The climate change debate is a divisive debate. (Not surprisingly: it has been constructed in order to divide.) The chemtrails debate by contrast is a potentially unifying debate, but only if it is fought on its own terms, not as a sideshow to the mainstream climate change debate.
G. Edward Griffin sometimes says things that hit the mark, and one that sticks in my mind is his comparison between dogs and cats. As he says, if you throw a stone at a cat it looks at the stone. If you throw a stone at a dog, it looks at you.
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.
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. 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?
I see the climate debate just as a continuation of older and more deeply entrenched strategies of domination, just updated with new blah-blah.
As for your last question, it has to do with work in progress, and all I can say is that I will report on it. That is better than continuing a dead-end argument.
Kouvelis' question received the usual nonsense reply and like other parliamentarians who have raised the question, he was discouraged by the reply he received and did not persist.
However, Kouvelis has continued in his way to try to pursue what he thinks are correct citizen politics.
The political party he was in, the Synaspismos, renamed Syriza, a reformed post-Communist party, was handed over to the control of a young leftist noisemaker who specializes in supporting destructive and pointless street confrontations.
with widespread destruction of property, including public property such as post offices (e.g. my local post office).
But also continued afterwards, with people being killed. Tsipras is not responsible for these deaths, but he pursues a self-referential kind of politics that achieves only this kind of result.
More importantly, perhaps, the party headed by Tsipras systematically ignores all really radical critiques of political and social reality. It is a party of what in the United States is called "the gatekeeper Left".
Kouvelis led a break away from the party of Tsipras and supported the successful 2010 Athens mayoral campaign of the former Greek ombudsman Giorgos Kaminis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgos_Kaminis
To be continued.
The argument over anthropogenic climate change would be totally lacking in interest to a politician like Kouvelis. He is admittedly a lawyer, not a scientist, but generally speaking most Greeks assume that anthropogenic climate is a reality, without bothering about the details.
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?
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.
So in other words Climategate is not the issue. The moratorium is the issue.
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.
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).
I would think, though, that as somebody trying to bring the existence of chemtrails to the world, you might have taken up an alternative explanation for Phil Jones' admission that "the world has been cooling since 1998". An alternative, that is, to the charge that global warming theories are a lot of crap. That is the possibility that "Solar Radiation Management" (i.e. chemtrails) might be doing the job some claim they are meant to do, i.e. cooling the planet.
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.
By the way, I have just been informed that there has been an explosion of interest in chemtrails in Greece in the last days with the publication in many newspapers of a "Letter to Meteorologists" by Freideriki Zougrou of Volos containing the first references to the moratorium on geoengineering.
Mrs. Zougrou runs a Facebook group in Greece on chemtrails with four and a half thousand members.
10. To date such programs (chemtrails programs) have been operating without our informed consent. Once formally proposed, an unsuspecting public may accept them as a necessary means for weather modification and our future "sustainability". But their real agenda may be the nanotechnolotical control of biolovy, ecology and the earth.
This formulation is contemplative, not political. It does not try to exploit, indeed does not even mention, the moratorium.
"That is because it dates from before the moratorium" some might say.
Well, that is an argument, but let us see if the strategy now changes.
One subject for discussion might be: what is the role of groups such as ETC and Hands off Mother Earth now that they have achieved their moratorium???
What use are they, given that they still pretend that chemtrails are just a question of proposals, not a global reality for over a decade? And they don't raise the issue of their moratorium being violated.
The answer to this is that chemtrails activists should refuse all dialogue on the subject of geoengineering with scientists who do not explicitly and publicly support Hands off Mother Earth.
Scientists who do not support Hands off Mother Earth should be boycotted and treated like lepers. This includes prominent climate change sceptics who also tell lies and talk nonsense about chemtrails.
Moreover public debate should only be accepted with Hands off Mother Earth and the ETC group on the condition that they refuse to answer media questions on whether chemtrails exist or not. We should impose this condition because they too tell lies. We are in a stronger bargaining position with them, and in a better position to impose such conditions, because they need our help to publicize and provide support for their geoengineering boycott.
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:
I do not feel comfortable with the attitude behind this article. It is hectoring, moralistic, apolitical.
And is it based on denial in relation to chemtrails/geoengineering.
Of course this is a something it has in common with the mainstream climate change sceptics.
BOTH SIDES ARE IN DENIAL.
People with the attitudes in this article will be immune to the kind of argument climate change sceptics present. Perhaps they could be more responsive to the Hands off Mother Earth perpective.
After all, H.O.M.E. right from the outset secured the support of Bill McKibben. That was a clever political move on their part.
Perhaps your judgement should take dishonesty into account.
I put up a link to an article that criticizes the ecological establishment for dishonesty but from a political perspective diametrically opposed to yours. Your shared moral disapproval with these grass roots ecologists is of no use to you politically, because you are in fundamental political disagreement with their critique.
You have no hope whatsoever of winning them to your climate change sceptic and "states rights" perspective. It is only on the basis of the politics that I propose that your and their respective "grass roots" orientations could work together. Your grassroots perspective is a party-political perspective (as is theirs, of course).
Will both of you be able to be won over to an orientation that starts from Greece, where democracy originated??
Or will the internal political conflicts of the United States continue to be projected over the whole world as the internal political problems of planet Earth?
Originally Posted by admin
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.
And yet a group of shrewd activists in an NGO managed to get through a moratorium that is in NO way to the liking of these dominant forces in the corporate media and in the UN. They did this through respecting the required mythology concerning chemtrails, i.e. that they don't exist.
In that way they have opened a loophole.
Perhaps the reason that you don't perceive that loophole is the same as the reason that you didn't perceive the loophole that opened up with the collapse of the USSR, or that you should have been calling with all your might for the abolition of the Soviet nuclear arsenal (to avert the re-establishment of business-as-usual "behind new masks").
You just let things happen and then respond to the new situation as if it is inevitable.
Originally Posted by admin
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.
Perhaps you will have some chance of implementing a strategy of this kind if you can overcome the stereotyping of your politics that will be (and is) imposed by the corporate media, and if you can gain the trust of the other side of politics who also oppose the "corruption" of the ecological establishment (and their more powerful masters).
People like the authors of the article to which I posted the link.
Quote
The climate change debate is a divisive debate.
Originally Posted by admin
I am astounded when people tell me that arguing the truth is "divisive".
Well, stop being astounded because you have enough data at your disposal to perceive the divisiveness.
Originally Posted by admin
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?
Because, as indicated, I believe that the mainstream climate change debate should be replaced by a mainstream debate centered on the phenomenon of chemtrails and the geoengineering proposals currently being floated. If I started involving myself in discussion of the mainstream climate debate with you I would be going contrary to my own political recommendations.
Originally Posted by admin
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:
Hegel is one of mankind's great philosophers and it is a travesty to reduce his thought to this caricature, as if the people who use the technique you are calling "the Hegelian dialectic" are the masters of history. The Hegelian dialectic exists in history qua history, not history as perceived by a certain specific cabal of would-be manipulators.
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.
Originally Posted by admin
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.
I think the ETC group scientists are not corrupt. Therefore I believe we should extend credence to scientists who are prepared publicly to support the Hands off Mother Earth proposals, withdrawing credence and toleration from scientists who are not prepared publicly to support the Hands off Mother Earth proposals.
But we should impose conditions on dialogue with the ETC group/HOME also, namely that they do not speak to the media about whether chemtrails exist or not. This is an area where they too have told lies, even if in pursuit of a valuable strategic objective. So we should insist that they adopt this stance towards the media. This will create good preconditions also for a more systematic policy of detaching politics from the control of the corporate media and empowering citizens who practice politics using their own channels of communication.
Originally Posted by admin
You have NO data to support global warming, yet you continue to say it's true.
I have merely said that this is a subject I don't propose to discuss with you.
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?
Because, as indicated, I believe that the mainstream climate change debate should be replaced by a mainstream debate centered on the phenomenon of chemtrails and the geoengineering proposals currently being floated. If I started involving myself in discussion of the mainstream climate debate with you I would be going contrary to my own political recommendations.
OK, so you refuse to look at the data because you have a philosophical exemption.
"1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."
Ignorance is never a good thing.
To propose that we ignore (and allow to perpetuate) the foundational lie that geoengineering (chemtrails) is based on - global warming - is outlandish.
It's much more reasonable to eliminate the perceived need for geoengineering than to engage in safety arguments.
Hegel is one of mankind's great philosophers and it is a travesty to reduce his thought to this caricature, as if the people who use the technique you are calling "the Hegelian dialectic" are the masters of history. The Hegelian dialectic exists in history qua history, not history as perceived by a certain specific cabal of would-be manipulators.
So, you believe that there is no such thing as revisionist history?
Quote
I think the ETC group scientists are not corrupt.
Yet, they have just posted this new report on their website:
"Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering examines the high stakes involved in the rapidly advancing field of geoengineering – the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s systems by artificially changing oceans, soils and the atmosphere. More than a set of climate altering technologies, geoengineering is a political strategy aimed at letting the industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt. This report will help civil society organizations navigate the coming global debates over the science and politics of climate-change techno-fixes."
They are simply setting us up to use the Hegelian Dialectic.
Simply stated, they may (appear to be trying to) get the nations to concede that spraying the atmosphere is not a good idea, but they are doing this at the price of "letting the industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt".
As I stated previously, this is a setup for global treaties that completely override national governments in order to centralize power to solve a problem that does not exist.
Your proposal to trust these ideas are nothing more than a legal trap that provides the clear route to give a few corrupt corporate politicians global power.
In short: A Very Bad Idea.
Quote
After all, H.O.M.E. right from the outset secured the support of Bill McKibben. That was a clever political move on their part.
Bill McKibben: Globalist, global warming alarmist, writer of a constant stream of books promoting the claims of global warming and the responsibilities of nations to work globally to solve this non-existent problem.
Sporting the support of political pawns is not admirable and is much less advantageous.
---
In summary, the tactic of allowing dangerous politically-charged unscientific lies to continue is a tactic that could only be proposed by someone who is either very deceived, or working as counter-intelligence.
---
Again, you avoided (once again) the question about how you are going to "ask" your UN representative why global warming has not stopped after the moratorium.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
OK, so you refuse to look at the data because you have a philosophical exemption.
The subject I want to discuss is chemtrails and geoengineering, not global warming.
What I know about the global warming debate is that both sides of it were set up by the same institutions that set up the Cold War nuclear arms race, having helped the Soviet Union get the bomb and then scapegoating some pathetic small-timers the Rosenbergs.
I have no more intention of discussing global warming with you than I would have got into an argument with you twenty years ago or more about US nuclear weapons being offensive and Soviet nuclear weapons defensive. These appear to be the kinds of discussion you want to have. Is that right?? “Political” discussions.
Originally Posted by admin
Once we accept the truth - that global warming is a wholesale scientific fraud - then all other discussions about chemtrails and geoengineering are moot.
It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation -- America -- can consider spending $100 billion a year on a problem that may not exist. (Edward Teller, geoengineering advocate)
In this respect our discussion is repetitive. I keep making this point. You keep ignoring it.
Originally Posted by admin
As I stated previously, this is a setup for global treaties that completely override national governments in order to centralize power to solve a problem that does not exist.
If you want people in other countries to place more trust in the government of the United States than in the United Nations you had better start doing something to show that you can influence the government of the United States to start acting the way we want. If you can’t do that, what grounds can you have for appealing to people to respect the United States government and not respect the United Nations? Answer this question please, because it is basic.
Originally Posted by admin
In summary, the tactic of allowing dangerous politically-charged unscientific lies to continue is a tactic that could only be proposed by someone who is either very deceived, or working as counter-intelligence.
How nice it would be if someone were paying me to do what I am doing. So far only the government of Cyprus has shown any sign whatsoever of being even marginally responsive to the problematic we elaborate on this forum, and I am not on their payroll. No governments are helping with what we are trying to do. I say “we” because I think you really are concerned about chemtrails.
Originally Posted by admin
Again, you avoided (once again) the question about how you are going to "ask" your UN representative why global warming has not stopped after the moratorium.
You must be making a mistake here. You mean why the spraying has not stopped after the moratorium.
I prefer to phrase the question differently. The question I want to ask is why they have signed a moratorium they show no signs of respecting of observing. This puts the onus on them to explain what purposes they believe the spraying is serving.
To answer your question, I have initiated contact with a Greek scientist who was present at in Nagoya (or at least with her secretary) and I hope to be able to ask her questions. Also, one of the Greek parliamentarians who has raised the chemtrails issue in parliament rang me yesterday to get information about the moratorium. The Greek scientist, Katsaros, who is most associated by the Greek public with the chemtrails issue has been interviewed frequently recently and has emphasized the moratorium (and the Enouranois website), on Cypriot television and in the Greek print media.
So in other words I am pursuing the strategy I outlined to you. How are you progressing with your climate scepticism and states-rights strategy?
“What in the World are they Spraying” will be available, they say, with Greek subtitles, at the end of next week.
Sometimes I think it might be better politics to screen horrendous films like this that are FOR geoengineering rather than films by activists who are AGAINST.
The "this is all garbage" response of the grass-roots climate change sceptic has a positive side to it, but the negative side is that the intellectual content of the scepticism breaks the alliance with the only potential allies in the scientific community: the ETC and HOME opponents of geoengineering.
The big name climate change sceptics are not allies because they don't want to talk about geoengineering, unless it is to talk in favour of it.
Note that in this video the geoengineers make it clear that they could have had their conference (I think it was the Asilomar meeting) behind closed doors, but they want to involve the public.
This is why it makes no difference whether the purpose of chemtrails is to kill us or make us sick or whether the idea is to "mitigate global warming". The geoengineering/global warming mitigation discussion is the discussion to which we are being invited and therefore the only discussion that can even look like being two-way interaction.
David Keith and his henchmen have been assigned the task of selling the necessity of geoengineering to the public. In the face of this, it is not enough just to say "David Keith is insane" as they say at Geoengineering Watch. One must make it clear that one is going to boycott, ostracise, use every method of opposition short of violence, to sabotage this public relations campaign, and the people who are running it: the Keiths, Caldeiras, Robocks, etc.
One does not acknowledge their right to speak on geoengineering. Only scientists supporting Hands off Mother Earth are acceptable.
That is a clear political position, not just a statement of preference. And it does not displace the discussion onto the more general subject of climate change, because the mainstream climate change sceptics are NOT going to help us fight the Keiths and Caldeiras on the subject of geoengineering. They want us to talk about THEIR subject, leaving us the right to draw our private inferences if we wish, but NOT getting involved in discussion on OUR subject, chemtrails/geoengineering, unless it is to be in favour.
To wax ironical about the moratorium and depict the ETC group as tools of the NWO because they receive funding from the Ford Foundation or whatever, is to AVOID confrontation at the only interface we are being offered: the moratorium.
"Sylvia Ribeiro of ETC was responsible for the UN short-lived moratorium promise on geoengineering at the Biodiversity Convention. She said that the UN must control geoengineering. Her 501(c)3 organization, ETC, has been funded by the likes of the Ford Foundation (known for supporting depopulation) and the HKH Foundation that funds other extreme environmental groups (Tides Foundation, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc) with ties to the UN. Foundations and depopulation policy makers are deeply intertwined; the UN IPCC sets public policy directly and indirectly. An example of this is UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri who is married to Saroj Pachauri, a director of the Rockefeller founded Population Council and she also worked for the Ford Foundation. While Rajendra may be concerned about the effects of geoengineering, his wife works to limit population.
The article reports that scientists say warming is being caused by greenhouse gases emitted by industry, vehicles and agriculture. The truth is that only a fraction of 1% of carbon emissions comes from these sources and agriculture, industry and transportation are targets for control. Food production is a depopulation focal point and changes in precipitation affects food.
Ocean acidification is another global warming lie. Geoengineering iron seeding or fertilization in the oceans can produce toxic algae blooms and would have little effect on carbon reduction."
I have no more intention of discussing global warming with you
Well, considering that global warming is the "issue" being used to justify the need for geoengineering, it's interesting that global warming seems irrelevant to you in this context.
Quote
It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation -- America -- can consider spending $100 billion a year on a problem that may not exist. (Edward Teller, geoengineering advocate)
In this respect our discussion is repetitive. I keep making this point. You keep ignoring it.
It's fundamentally faulty logic to BELIEVE that global warming exists simply because governments spend money to fight it.
Is this the basis for your claim of global warming?
The fact is, global warming is a cash cow - just like the current American wars are - for certain powerful politicians and corporations.
Global warming is a multibillion dollar business, and Al Gore stood to profit enormously, as did many other influential politicians and corporations.
When I went to school, they taught us global cooling. We were all made to fear the coming ice age. I'm not kidding.
Quote
If you want people in other countries to place more trust in the government of the United States than in the United Nations you had better start doing something to show that you can influence the government of the United States
Strawman.
I'm not asking anyone to place faith in any nation's government. I didn't say that.
I'm simply stating that the centralization of power is a very bad idea.
Remember, the U.S. had (doesn't much anymore) a separation of power for a reason.
The U.N. is wholesale corrupt. Trust it/them? Never.
The big players and profiteers in the global warming swindle are still tied in with the U.N., and the U.N. is helping them.
How nice it would be if someone were paying me to do what I am doing. So far only the government of Cyprus has shown any sign whatsoever of being even marginally responsive to the problematic we elaborate on this forum, and I am not on their payroll. No governments are helping with what we are trying to do. I say “we” because I think you really are concerned about chemtrails.
Ah, so after all, it's only your local government - NOT the U.N. that shows any sign of concern about chemtrails.
That's what I've been saying all along.
The government closest to the people. Not Rockefeller's corrupt U.N.
Remember, Rockefeller, the founder of the U.N., is also the primary force behind depopulation:
I prefer to phrase the question differently. The question I want to ask is why they have signed a moratorium they show no signs of respecting of observing. This puts the onus on them to explain what purposes they believe the spraying is serving.
To answer your question, I have initiated contact with a Greek scientist who was present at in Nagoya (or at least with her secretary) and I hope to be able to ask her questions. Also, one of the Greek parliamentarians who has raised the chemtrails issue in parliament rang me yesterday to get information about the moratorium. The Greek scientist, Katsaros, who is most associated by the Greek public with the chemtrails issue has been interviewed frequently recently and has emphasized the moratorium (and the Enouranois website), on Cypriot television and in the Greek print media.
So in other words I am pursuing the strategy I outlined to you. How are you progressing with your climate scepticism and states-rights strategy?
You let us know how the question-asking goes. Good luck with that.
As far as getting the issue to the states, it would be a lot easier if people were not delaying our efforts by giving people false hope in the United Nations.
Ironically, your links support grassroots initiatives.
Isn't that what I've been saying all along?
Again, let us know how the question-asking goes with your U.N. rep.
Quote
The "this is all garbage" response of the grass-roots climate change sceptic has a positive side to it, but the negative side is that the intellectual content of the scepticism breaks the alliance with the only potential allies in the scientific community: the ETC and HOME opponents of geoengineering.
The big name climate change sceptics are not allies because they don't want to talk about geoengineering, unless it is to talk in favour of it.
As I've been saying...
Global warming is the SINGLE issue that is being used to justify the need for geoengineering (chemtrails).
If you remove global warming from the table (which is should be because it's a haox), then there is absolutely no need for spraying metal into the atmosphere.
Very simple. Very effective.
Quote
To wax ironical about the moratorium and depict the ETC group as tools of the NWO because they receive funding from the Ford Foundation or whatever, is to AVOID confrontation at the only interface we are being offered: the moratorium.
No, that is not the ONLY interface.
The most effective interface has always been with local governments, and definitely NOT the U.N.
This issue involves all people of every nation being sprayed, and is therefore - by it's very structure - a grassroots movement.
Depending on the U.N. is foolish on all fronts.
This is not an issue for the U.N. The U.N. is the foundation of these issues as they have incessantly promoted the very claim that justifies geoengineering (chemtrails), namely global warming.
To believe that they are the ONLY interface is simply untrue.
We should follow the DSHEA model. A grassroots movement educating and motivating people with truth.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
"Sylvia Ribeiro of ETC was responsible for the UN short-lived moratorium promise on geoengineering at the Biodiversity Convention. She said that the UN must control geoengineering. Her 501(c)3 organization, ETC, has been funded by the likes of the Ford Foundation (known for supporting depopulation) and the HKH Foundation that funds other extreme environmental groups (Tides Foundation, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc) with ties to the UN.
Thanks for the quote.
One of the most effective tools they use against the public is controlled opposition.
This involves controlling both sides of a contest so you ultimately decide who wins.
This is one of the most common tactics used to push agendas on the public.
Most of the above is repetitive. There is not much need to post anything new because the arguments have all been posted.
To counterpose action within the UN against local action is to render both forms of action ineffective.
The UN moratorium provides local activists with tools they did not possess before.
The most positive aspect of the development in Cyprus is not that it is local but that it is being taken by people relatively free from doctrinal shackles.
Time to start asking questions. Spread the word far & wide.
Keep it real. Dont flood them with bollocks. They exist, we want to know why & we want it to stop. This technology has been banned. The fact it has been banned presupposes its existence & the evidence is in the sky. There’s a plethora of means to prove such a thing. There’s nothing to fear. We’ll get over it. We always do. The minute we dont, we’ll cease to exist. If you believe this is a possibility & do nothing to exercise your right to answers it would seem you prefer to live in fear. Trust me. There’s nothing to fear except that of our own construction. This is a matter for all of humanity to decide not a handful of people."
People in every country should be doing this. Of course the US is not a signatory to the moratorium, but Canada is. Get to work on the Canadians.
To counterpose action within the UN against local action is to render both forms of action ineffective.
No it doesn't.
If you want to question your UN rep., go ahead. Local grassroots activism - just like the DSHEA victory - does not hinder your ability to question your U.N. representative.
Quote
The UN moratorium provides local activists with tools they did not possess before.
The UN moratorium has already proven to be impotent. 193 nations signed and apparently none of them are respecting it. The governments are not even admitting that geoengineering is in place.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
Quote
The most positive aspect of the development in Cyprus is not that it is local but that it is being taken by people relatively free from doctrinal shackles.
Let us know how that works out for you.
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
People in every country should be doing this. Of course the US is not a signatory to the moratorium, but Canada is. Get to work on the Canadians.
Again, putting your trust in the U.N. is futile. It is the center of global corruption. It is a creation of the Rockefeller family for the purpose of centralizing power. Centralizing power and allowing the Rockefeller lies to continue are what got us into this mess to begin with.
Global warming is a hoax. This is well-known.
Chemtrails are being justified by global warming.
These "high-level" scientists are obviously corrupt because they are continuing to support the global warming scam. They are supporting the scam by continuing to promote geoengineering, which - they claim - is necessitated by global warming.
People need to wake up and return to common sense, which has been missing from this discussion.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
Paper submitted to the British "Royal Society" on "Solar Radiation Management"
The question Rebecca Campbell asks here "if the purpose of solar radiation management" is benignly to prevent global warming, why is it done even now in secret??" is a question that is often asked by Nikos Katsaros, Greece's best-known anti-chemtrails campaigning scientist.
Rebecca goes on to say that "many of the now environmentally-conscious public would accept this explanation if it were publicly given", something which is quite possibly - and unfortunately - true, but it is still a surprising remark to come from a person whose views on climate change, as far as I know, tend towards anthropogenic climate change scepticism. Surely climate change sceptics would not number among those who would "accept this explanation". Does not G. Edward Griffin in "What in the World are they Spraying" make heavily ironical remarks about how "when the truth comes out" the geoengineers will say "we did it for your own good". He might joke about this, but is the joking a sign of possible future "acceptance"??? Perhaps I should make this a real question to G. Edward Griffin rather than a rhetorical question.
In fact this idea of a future "coming clean" on the part of the geoengineers has always to me seemed the least likely of possible outcomes, and also a factor that makes one wonder just where present official policies of deceit over geoengineering can possibly lead and what the ultimate result of them will be.
I cannot see how the geoengineers and their corporate and military-industrial-complex backers after so many years of telling lies are going to be able to negotiate a future "coming clean". Their way of handling the contradictions of their policies consists in telling one story to one clientele: climate change scepticism for the conservatives, and another story: climate change scare-mongering and, surreptitiously, geoengineering to the other: liberals, leftists, ecologists.
Internally consistent, dispassionate, persuasive, hype-free scientific narrative is precisely what they have never been able to deliver. How will this be able to change in future? The logic of the political system obliges them to act as they do. They cannot just decide to act differently.
The historian and anti-nuclear activist E.P. Thompson, one of the leaders of the non-aligned European anti-nuclear movement of the nineteen eighties, promoted a satirical quasi-Marxist notion he called "exterminism", which he saw as a phenomenon underlying the nuclear arms race of the "two superpowers", the USA and the Soviet Union. He saw the Cold War as structured around an "inertial deadlock", whose objective by-product was the nuclear arms race.
I would like to argue that this same inertial deadlock has been reproduced in today’s climate controversy. The protagonists today are not the competing nuclear superpowers of the USSR and the USA but the climate activists on one hand and the climate skeptics on the other. And both sides of that controversy have their supporters, and even to some extent their origins, in the nuclear weapons laboratories of America’s side (the winning side) of the Cold War.
The experiences that led E.P. Thompson to his theory of inertial deadlock were youthful experiences of membership of the Communist Party. At a certain point he decided that defending pro-Soviet policies of “defensive” nuclear weapons possession was sterile and counter-productive. He went on to become one of the founders of Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a pioneering supporter of the demand for British unilateral nuclear disarmament.
I see many similarities between the stance of the old-style supporters of “defensive” Soviet nuclear weapons possession and present-day climate change activists who are still unaware of the role of geoengineering in the climate change debate. They have been co-opted into defending one side of a scenario of “inertial deadlock”. When the other side, the more aggressive “sceptic” side, gains the upper hand, as occurred with the “Climategate” scandal in the runup to the December 2009 Copenhagen climate summit , they are thrown onto the defensive, and remain locked into the defensive mode. They are becoming increasingly aware that they are “not winning”.
But who IS winning? The climate change skeptics?? They are not winning either. They are as disoriented at “winning” the climate change debate as they were by winning the Cold War.
Climate change has become the magic wand for justifying a whole array of destructive policies from nuclear power generation through genetic modification to carbon trading and geoengineering. Neither the climate change skeptics nor the climate change true believers who are ignorant of geoengineering (the majority) can resist the power of the magic wand: they remain participants in the bipolar debate of mainstream politics whose aim is – precisely – to reproduce the inertial deadlock.
The skeptics remain skeptical even of valuable breakthroughs achieved by the other side, such as the moratorium on geoengineering pushed through at the Nagoya Convention on Biological Diversity. The climate change true believers engage in skirmishes over side-issues: the “don’t nuke our climate” initiatives that focus only on the most blatant and superficial forms of disinformation: the idea that nuclear energy is “clean” and “carbon free”.
Rebecca Campbell’s paper on “Solar Radiation Management”, submitted to the Royal Society, is an excellent starting point for debate and a powerful exposure of the most obvious kind of deceit involved in the “dialogue” with the public that the Royal Society is now trying to initiate.
But the deceit goes much deeper and will not be able to be adequately analysed until other sectors of civil society: the climate change movement, the anti-nuclear movement, begin to show a capacity for much more radical self-criticism and self-understanding.
The anti-nuclear movement is in such dire straits at the moment that perhaps some progress can be expected with them, some opening of the mind towards the realities of “chemtrails”, for example.
"Solar Radiation Management": A Sunblock on the Light of Truth
The mission of science should be to discover the truth of nature; the mission of philosophy is to discover the nature of truth. It is only when the nature of truth is respected that the truth of nature can be discovered. Respect for the nature of truth is called intellectual and moral honesty, and it is intellecual and moral honesty that would seem to be lacking in this call for papers on the feasibility and desirability of what is here being euphemistically termed "solar radiation management". This is because what is being benignly portrayed here as being merely proposed has, for at least the past fifteen years, been clandestinely practiced, against the very ethics by which authentic, ethical science is supposedly to be governed.
Among the ethical and legal principles of science which "solar radiation management" aka "geoengineering" aka "persistent airborne aerosol spraying" aka "chemtrails" violates are the Precautionary Principle, the Principle of Informed Consent, the Disclosure of Initiating Parties, the Nuremberg Principles Concerning Experimentation on Civilian Populations, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutional rights of the peoples of various nations over which such aerial "solar radiation management" is presently being practiced without either public approval or credible explanation.
If, as this request for papers implies, the purpose of "solar radiation management" is benignly to prevent global warming, why is it even now being done in secret, since many of the now environmentally conscious public would accept this explanation if it were publicly given? Why is its genesis, technology and those responsible for what we see as persistent airborne aerosol spraying in our skies throughout the world always kept unknown to us? Why is this institute, like so many academic, military and government institutions, and major environmental organizations engaging in the deception that they have no prior knowledge of that which can be so readily observed by all who simply choose to look up and without preconception behold the sky?
Empirical observation is the first step of the scientific method. It is the empirical observation of many throughout the earth that our skies are being filled by aircraft-delivered manmade clouds that wash out their color and blot out the sun. Further, it is the observation of many independent -- as opposed to government, corporate and academic-affiliated -- researchers that these lingering web-like manmade clouds are composed of toxic heavy metals, known pathogenic organisms and unknown nanoparticulate and cellular configurations, the latter capable of passing the human blood/brain barrier into the human brain and nervous system with heretofore unforeseen consequences.
It is also a fact that a certain transnational agricorporation has filed for a patent for heavy metal-resistent genetically modified seeds. This includes the very toxic heavy metals that have been determined by independent scientific researchers as being present in persistent toxic airborne aerosol spraying that your organization implies does not yet exist in a call for papers to comment on a present practice as if it were a future theoretical possibility.
It would seem that, even as sunblock deflects sunlight from the human body, and allegedly still-potential geoengineered persistent aerosol spraying deflects sunlight from the earth, such specious calls for academic papers as this one deflect the light of truth from authentic scientific and journalistic investigation. It purloins time better spent in identifying and holding accountable those who covertly conduct such dangerous experiments as these on civilian populations and their environment; those clandestine practitioners who officially and fraudulently claim to have only abstractly considered "solar radiation management" which, as practiced, violates fundamental scientific ethics, human and natural rights, and universal law.
To counterpose action within the UN against local action is to render both forms of action ineffective.
No it doesn't.
If you want to question your UN rep., go ahead. Local grassroots activism - just like the DSHEA victory - does not hinder your ability to question your U.N. representative.
Quote
The UN moratorium provides local activists with tools they did not possess before.
The UN moratorium has already proven to be impotent. 193 nations signed and apparently none of them are respecting it. The governments are not even admitting that geoengineering is in place.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
If you want the moratorium enforced you have to get your famous grass roots DEMANDING that it be enforced. Of course unlike in every other country in the world, this doesn't apply for the United States, but you can ask them why they don't sign the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Other countries can ask their governments why they signed a moratorium that they aren't observing. Or if they say they are observing it, let's have the statement in writing.
I cannot see how the geoengineers and their corporate and military-industrial-complex backers after so many years of telling lies are going to be able to negotiate a future "coming clean". Their way of handling the contradictions of their policies consists in telling one story to one clientele: climate change scepticism for the conservatives, and another story: climate change scare-mongering and, surreptitiously, geoengineering to the other: liberals, leftists, ecologists.
The historian and anti-nuclear activist E.P. Thompson, one of the leaders of the non-aligned European anti-nuclear movement of the nineteen eighties, promoted a satirical quasi-Marxist notion he called "exterminism", which he saw as a phenomenon underlying the nuclear arms race of the "two superpowers", the USA and the Soviet Union. He saw the Cold War as structured around an "inertial deadlock", whose objective by-product was the nuclear arms race.
I would like to argue that this same inertial deadlock has been reproduced in today’s climate controversy. The protagonists today are not the competing nuclear superpowers of the USSR and the USA but the climate activists on one hand and the climate skeptics on the other. And both sides of that controversy have their supporters, and even to some extent their origins, in the nuclear weapons laboratories of America’s side (the winning side) of the Cold War.
I see many similarities between the stance of the old-style supporters of “defensive” Soviet nuclear weapons possession and present-day climate change activists who are still unaware of the role of geoengineering in the climate change debate. They have been co-opted into defending one side of a scenario of “inertial deadlock”. When the other side, the more aggressive “sceptic” side, gains the upper hand, as occurred with the “Climategate” scandal in the runup to the December 2009 Copenhagen climate summit , they are thrown onto the defensive, and remain locked into the defensive mode. They are becoming increasingly aware that they are “not winning”.
they remain participants in the bipolar debate of mainstream politics whose aim is – precisely – to reproduce the inertial deadlock.
Rebecca Campbell’s paper on “Solar Radiation Management”, submitted to the Royal Society, is an excellent starting point for debate and a powerful exposure of the most obvious kind of deceit involved in the “dialogue” with the public that the Royal Society is now trying to initiate.[/i]
Strange bedfellows? Alan Robock's trip to Cuba, September 14-16, 2010
Robok "In the 1980s much of my work addressed the problem of nuclear winter, the climatic effects of nuclear war, demonstrating long-term (several year) effects with a computer model, disproving the dirty snow effect, and discovering observational evidence of surface cooling due to forest fire smoke plumes in the atmosphere. I am now once again doing research in this area, using modern climate models to look at the climatic effects of regional nuclear conflicts. Our latest work (this link includes all our recent papers and PowerPoints) shows that even a "small" regional nuclear conflict could have severe global climatic effects, and that there are still enough nuclear weapons in global arsenals to produce nuclear winter, which would last much longer than previously thought. This is the most serious environmental threat faced by humans and demands immediate policy attention. Even Fidel Castro is interested."
Rebecca wrote the text underneath addressed to the Royal Society. I wrote the preceding text as a (friendly) critique of Rebecca.
People like Alan Robock and Ken Caldeira, who are trying to gain kudos as anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, should be part of real anti-nuclear-weapons campaigns, and leave geoengineering to people like the ETC group, who are against it also.
I am not at all surprised that Alan Robock is keen for photo opportunities with Castro, nor surprised that Castro is willing to oblige.
The right and left can combine to nail phonies like Robock, as long as you agree that he should be put to work really opposing nuclear weapons as an alternative to being put in jail.
My Apologies, the credit should go to you for making this observation. If you follow the posted links you will find that Robock is still heavily involved in studies regarding the effects of nuclear winter - which probably is in itself a noble cause.
What you will also find interesting is that his trip as a US citizen, but under non diplomatic status was so well received in the communist state. He even went on to brag as to how he managed the trip abroad, via Canada, which further does credit to how this man operates.
My personal opinion of what this trip was really about: Robock marketing geoengineering to Cuba. To bring them on board as an open invitation to join the tight knit group of international club collectivists and to show Castro the benefits that Cuba would see in regards to their own population issues.
It is not up to me to decide the fate of Mr. Robock, however my personal opinion of someone who has whore'd themselves out to sell a project which masks eugenics as a side if not direct benefit, does sit highly on my list of people that I wouldn't mind seeing "dealt with" regardless of their other accolades.
We won't go too far into my opinion of the hubris with which these "involved" scientific community members carry, let alone the fact that they continue to lie about ongoing open air testing. Far too much "stakeholder" and funneled taxpayer money has been spent on full scale, open air "modeling" already, for them to abandon a continued push for SRM. I guess they will continue to lie until the public just up and forgets that it was actually already underway - when legislation is finally rammed down our throats - just like several other back door, international treaties have over the last 40 years.
The bottom line, Governments and the involved scientific community will not admit to past and ongoing operations. Even if Geoengineering SRM is pushed through by legislation - it will still remain a threat to everyone's safety and is just another potential vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction.
It should not be allowed period!
It will only be a matter of time before one or several groups gather resources and act unilaterally to remove what they perceive as a personal threat in the skies. I personally hope it does not come to this, but it may be the last and only way to gather the proof needed that chemtrails are real.
The two things that prevent the global warming hoax from vanishing into pop-history are:
(1) The massive coordination between media, certain scientists (like Alan Robock), and governments of the world, and
(2) Public apathy.
The internet is providing a (somewhat) formidable force to oppose mainstream media, and this is why they (depopulation proponents) want to pass legislation empowering them to remove websites they deem harmful.
This must not be allowed to happen.
Russ Tanner, Founder, Administrator, Programmer GlobalSkywatch.com My Chemtrail Story
You would be astounded as to how many of these scientists hold similar lack of values towards their fellow humans.
Another example:
John Miller, NOAA scientist, speaking at 350 climate change rally at the Denver statehouse, Oct. 24, 2009.
Beware, be very aware!!
....and who are the idiots in the background giving applause?
Perhaps we should assist the following malthusians in making a contribution to a lower population:
Ace of spades = John Holdren
Ace of clubs and hearts = Ken Caldeira and Alan Robock
King of spades = David Keith
King of clubs = Ted Turner
King of hearts = Bill Gates
Queens are open for suggestion - this climate fraudian eugenisist in the video might make for a good queen.
It just blows me away that we live in a time when people like this can not only openly spew this crap, but have acted on forwarding their insane plans within the highest levels. Free speech is one thing; say what you will. But I draw the line when they start poisoning people by "blatantly deceptive" methods such as chemtrails.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! grab some balls (if they haven't already been shriveled by Gate's pixi dust!) and stop them.
The trouble with you guys is that although you are against chemtrails you vent a large proportion of your rage against those who believe in anthropogenic global warming. This is a soft target because you get much more support for opposing the believers in anthropogenic global warming than you get for opposing chemtrails (where you get no support at all).
It reminds me of the story of Nasreddin Hodja, who found one of his friends looking around one night on the ground outside a lighted store window. He asked his friend what he was doing and his friend said that he had lost his money. "Did you lose it here?" said Nasreddin. "No, I lost it over there, near the well" said the friend, pointing to place a hundred metres away, invisible in the darkness. "Then why aren't you looking over there?" said Nasreddin. "You must be joking," said the friend. "It's pitch black near the well. You can't see a thing."
You have no strategy at all towards the moratorium or towards the ETC group and Hands off Mother Earth. You should be signatories to our Open Letter to Hands off Mother Earth rather than just ignoring them or gossiping about them behind their backs (in the same way that you fail to confront climate change sceptics who are on YOUR side on the question of global warming, but who ignore the question of chemtrails, or talk nonsense about it).
YOu should become signatories to our Open Letter if you want to drive a wedge between Hands off Mother Earth and Alan Robock and break up the alliance he and his friends are trying to build with Castro and company and with people like the ETC group. (After all Robock gets a favourable mention at the H.O.M.E. website. They have posted one of his papers, as if he is an ally).
Note that the Open Letter has been signed by a number of well-known activists and writers in the anti-chemtrails struggle, notably Dane Wigington and Rady Ananda, who writes the politically most intelligent articles on the subject. http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexother.htm
Of course an alternative to signing the Open Letter is just to keep sounding off ideologically about the Collectivists and the Communists (while the other wing of chemtrails activists sound off about the Individualists and the Capitalists), perpetuating the inertial deadlock that is supposed to keep us lower orders in our place.
I think that the majority of "us guys" are more concerned with directing our efforts towards combating the ones that are responsible for the chemtrails - period.
I agree that activists should not allow themselves to be dragged into the BS baffle by allowing themselves to become distracted and steered into dead end debate over which side is going to be offended just because their name comes up more.
If you step in something that feels like sh!t and it smells like sh!t and it looks like sh!t than it more than likely is sh!t. And these "soft targets" just so happen to have stuck their necks out the earliest so it is no wonder the activists keep having to wipe their shoes of them.
If it should appear that those who "believe in anthropogenic global warming" tend to get dragged into the spotlight more so than the other side then it is of their own fault. It is these people that tend to keep wandering in from the area near the pitch black well.
H.O.M.E. - been there, done that. Not sure what it has done to further the cause, but contributed none the less.
Now about this ETC group: I find this outfit to be pretty sketchy. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what they are exactly and with whom they are associated. It is to my understanding that this group sold out the rest of us "lower orders" to not pursue or acknowledge past and ongoing chemtrail activities so that they could parlay out this so called moratorium on our behalf. I have poked around ETC a bit in the past and they certainly are privy to some very interesting topics that are closely related to chemtrails - ie: heavily into nano tech and genetics. Please shed some light on exactly who these people are and what they stand for.
If you agree that Robock is dirty than perhaps his link above should be forwarded to H.O.M.E. or ETC group - and as we did here, expose his deceptive nature and proof that he is a man that is manipulative and cannot be trusted. That is, if you feel these communities are worth the effort.
STOPPING CHEMTRAILS - that is what is this all about folks - not petty bickering or "sounding off" over sub issues. Individualists or (Collectivists -whether they care to admit or not, or openly accept with disregard to their own loved ones) all are going to share the same fate if it is not stopped.
My intention is not to "perpetuate the internal deadlock" - that would require a whole other deck of cards - the likes of which would include Satan himself - Henry Kissinger (how old is this guy anyway? do they keep re-attaching his head from a pickle jar onto cloned sacks of organs?), David Rockefeller, members of the CFR, members of the UN etc etc. These are the ones directly responsible for putting forth the deadly eugenics directives; they are also going to be the hardest to get to. But that is not our order of operations here - one step at a time.
What we have to deal with first is the issue of chemtrails and we do this by exposing and stopping the ones that are involved in the pipeline to this activity.
Now about this ETC group: I find this outfit to be pretty sketchy. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what they are exactly and with whom they are associated.
They are a Canadian NGO, with a longish prehistory of concern with ecological issues, apparently starting with erosion. They are said to be taking money from the Ford Foundation.
Quote
It is to my understanding that this group sold out the rest of us "lower orders" to not pursue or acknowledge past and ongoing chemtrail activities so that they could parlay out this so called moratorium on our behalf.
I think that they deserve kudos for having achieved the moratorium. That said, the question arises of what can be done with it, given that it is not being observed. And I don't think that the ETC group can help us with that. It is up to us to decide what to try to do with the tool they have given us.
Quote
I have poked around ETC a bit in the past and they certainly are privy to some very interesting topics that are closely related to chemtrails - ie: heavily into nano tech and genetics. Please shed some light on exactly who these people are and what they stand for.
I don’t know any more than you do. It seems to me that they are opponents of geoengineering but they are operating in the context of the unreality of all established political discourse on subjects like this. I think the point is to try to outnumber them, get a stronger base than they have, and use that as a basis for negotiating with them.
One cannot frame any comparable strategies in relation to the mainstream “climate change skeptics” because if the sceptics say anything at all about geoengineering it tends to be favourable rather than unfavourable.
Quote
If you agree that Robock is dirty than perhaps his link above should be forwarded to H.O.M.E. or ETC group - and as we did here, expose his deceptive nature and proof that he is a man that is manipulative and cannot be trusted. That is, if you feel these communities are worth the effort.
On the surface Robock and the ETC group seem to be saying almost the same thing. But Robock is an “inside” critic, whereas the ETC group are much more outside. I think that it is up to us to put them in different categories and treat them differently. Rather than telling the ETC group that Robock is dirty, I think the thing to do is to ask Robock if he supports Hands off Mother Earth, and if he doesn’t, ask why. That is more to the point than getting into the demeaning street discussion with him that Mauro got into.
Quote
STOPPING CHEMTRAILS - that is what is this all about folks - not petty bickering or "sounding off" over sub issues.
Well, they are on paper illegal now. Everyone but Americans can confront their governments about that.
Quote
David Rockefeller, members of the CFR, members of the UN etc etc. These are the ones directly responsible for putting forth the deadly eugenics directives; they are also going to be the hardest to get to. But that is not our order of operations here - one step at a time.
Whatever the purposes of chemtrails, it is only in relation to “geoengineering” that a public response is being invited at this time. And if a public response is not invited, we talk to ourselves, not to anyone else.
It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation -- America -- can consider spending $100 billion a year on a problem that may not exist. (Edward Teller, geoengineering advocate)
In this respect our discussion is repetitive. I keep making this point. You keep ignoring it.
It's fundamentally faulty logic to BELIEVE that global warming exists simply because governments spend money to fight it.
Is this the basis for your claim of global warming?
It is one of the bases for my claim that climate change sceptics have a long record of support for geoengineering as a solution for non-existent anthropogenic climate change.
ETC seems to have an agenda. Yes, they may appear to have provided a new tool, but it seems to be a steering tactic.
I do not want to give up and live in their little lie, play by their rules, never utter the "C" word, this is a rather spineless way to sell out all of the damage that has already been done. I am sure many others feel the same way. Going this route will only lead to more futility.
Reminds me of a hen going to the fox to ask if the fox had seen the other missing hens.
Climate change skeptics or not; it is the same camp with both being equally dirty. Perhaps the anthropogenic climate change crowd got caught sticking their thermometer in the wrong place (climategate)and they are a bit put out that people are just not buying into it as much as when they first started, so now the reigns are being reluctantly passed back to the guys who have been forcing geoengineering through the back door.
Just like the great show in politics between republicans and democrats; we are being duped into pointing fingers and following the false pretense of "geoengineering". Follow the money and the eugenics freaks and you will find the chemtrails.
They jumped the gun on this one and there will be no band-aid big enough to stop the bleeding once the law suites are launched. Keep testing, photographing, investigating and documenting - and keep all past records of evidence. This is the only way to stop these buggers, short of using Surface to Air Missiles - as some have suggested.
ETC seems to have an agenda. Yes, they may appear to have provided a new tool, but it seems to be a steering tactic.
Who cares what they have in mind? Use the tool they have provided, for our purposes.
Quote
I do not want to give up and live in their little lie, play by their rules, never utter the "C" word, this is a rather spineless way to sell out all of the damage that has already been done. I am sure many others feel the same way. Going this route will only lead to more futility.
You also do not want to be a signatory to our Open Letter, http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexenhandsMotherEarth.htm , which does not require you to do any of these things. Is there anything you reject in the content of the text? Or have you still not read it?
If you don’t want to use the institutions of the UN, use the institutions of your own country. And don’t cry to people from other countries about your lack of success.
Quote
Climate change skeptics or not; it is the same camp with both being equally dirty.
If they are equally dirty why are we arguing about them here??
Quote
Perhaps the anthropogenic climate change crowd got caught sticking their thermometer in the wrong place (climategate)and they are a bit put out that people are just not buying into it as much as when they first started, so now the reins are being reluctantly passed back to the guys who have been forcing geoengineering through the back door.
Just like the great show in politics between republicans and democrats; we are being duped into pointing fingers and following the false pretense of "geoengineering".
False pretence or not, it is now illegal. And has been placed on “respectable” political agendas.
Quote
Follow the money and the eugenics freaks and you will find the chemtrails.
They jumped the gun on this one and there will be no band-aid big enough to stop the bleeding once the law suits are launched. Keep testing, photographing, investigating and documenting - and keep all past records of evidence. This is the only way to stop these buggers, short of using Surface to Air Missiles - as some have suggested.
Verbal violence used to be the province of the idiot left. No longer. I have a feeling that Others are going to have to construct the legal structures that will make it possible for you to succeed in your lawsuits. Because you sure aren’t doing any thinking about how to deal with the problem of a corrupt legal system. You are expending all your mental energy fighting corrupt scientists (or at least the corrupt scientists you disagree with about climate change).
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!)
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
From: Boyle, Francis Subject: 2011:Prospects for Humanity?
By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism;
Why is it that the taboo on presentation of the "terrible tragedy of 11th September 2001" as an "inside-job" of the Bush administration is so religiously observed even by such a controversial and iconoclastic poster as Francis Boyle? Does this correspond to a genuine level of awareness or just to tacit conformity to an unspoken and unanalysed code of "etiquette"?
If one is wondering, as Maryllia of the Tri-Valley CAREs is, what has happened to the ANGER that once characterized the anti-nuclear movement, and deploring its absence, the answer to this is that the anger has migrated to movements such as the 911 Truth Movement, the anti-chemtrails movement, the movement against Codex Alimentarius, all the movements that have been successfully stigmatized for over a decade now as "conspiracy theorist".
Some of these movements have their "realpolitiker" wing with mentalities that would not be threatening even to the official and "respectable" section of the anti-nuclear movement, The ETC group and the Hands off Mother Earth initiative, for example, have the same mediated but in a sense collaborative attitude with the rank-and-file chemtrails movement as anti-nuclear movement officialdom has to the now numerically small but still existing anti-nuclear activist and civil disobedience groups.
But all of this is unknown territory to most people on this list, including Francis Boyle, for whom radical activism is something to do with youthful anti-war movement memories, not present-day experience. THAT IS NOT BECAUSE RADICAL ACTIVISM IS TODAY NON-EXISTENT. IT IS OFF THE RADAR SCREEN OF THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT, THAT IS ALL.
So Maryllia, do you really want contact with people who are ANGRY????? I can tell you where to find them if you really want to know.
There is plenty of anti-nuclear sentiment among today's activists. But it is mixed up with "conspiracy theory" views of 11th September 20001. It is mixed up with rage about chemtrails, and this rage is usually underpinned by climate change sceptic views. That is unfortunate, in my view, but it is A PREDICTABLE SIDE EFFECT OF THE ANTI-NUCLEAR AND CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENTS' REFUSAL OF THE LAST TWENTY YEARS TO LOOK REALITY IN THE FACE. The field has been left free for right-wing populists to take over. And they have done so.
Asking people why they lie is like kindly asking a bank to return the money they swindled in the name of bailouts. It's not going to change anything.
The problem here is corruption; deep corruption:
Scientists are paid off, politicians are paid off, and mainstream media is wholly controlled.
The corruption runs so deep and is so entrenched that the only solution is for the people to hold their government accountable.
We are in the middle of a holocaust, and the machine sustaining this holocaust consists of controlled opposition groups, social counterbalances, controlled regulation, and a host of corrupt scientists:
I propose one concrete and feasible action: asking Robock why he hasn't declared support for Hands off Mother Earth, when he obviously wants to be taken for a Hands off Mother Earth-type critic of geoengineering.
He is certainly controlled opposition. Or rather internal pseudo-opposition.
The reference to asking people why they lie is off topic. There is no suggestion that someone should be asked why they lie.
To counterpose to this suggested concrete and feasible tactical intervention a grand proposition like "holding the government accountable" is not to continue focused discussion.
To counterpose to this suggested concrete and feasible tactical intervention a grand proposition like "holding the government accountable" is not to continue focused discussion.
Yes it is.
As I've said before, the core problem here is corruption.
Simply stated, if there was no corruption, there would be no chemtrails/geoengineering.
"holding the government accountable" is a statement that represents a process of quelling corruption, which is the fundamental solution to this (and many other) problems.
Quote
I propose one concrete and feasible action: asking Robock why he hasn't declared support for Hands off Mother Earth, when he obviously wants to be taken for a Hands off Mother Earth-type critic of geoengineering.
And this is where I view your ideas as "fantastically naive".
Asking a known corrupt person why they are corrupt is fantastically naive.
Furthermore, calling this action "concrete and feasible" is bizarre.
Asking corrupt people why they are corrupt will not change anything and is a waste of time.
A government accountable to the people is a government accountable to truth, and those responsible for maintaining this accountability are "the people".
In order for the people to participate in this action they must first become educated themselves, and the following videos are a great place to start.
Again, the fundamental truth is this: Geoengineering is being legitimized by global warming. Without global warming there is no need for geoengineering.
Of course, they deny that spraying is even occurring, so educating and motivating the public is key. Testing has already been done showing skyrocketing amounts of aluminum and barium in soils and water supplies.
Now, laws must be changed to remove autonomy from the military and allow the public to regain control of governments. There must always be civil control of the military.
Current laws in many countries have given governments so much power and secrecy that accountability has been essentially removed.
This must be reversed, and asking corrupt people why they are corrupt will not accomplish anything.
The people must become motivated, educated, and involved in the process. Unfortunately, this classically does not happen until people suffer enough.
"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -The unanimous Declaration
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
AntiPoA21 has a better understanding of the points I have been trying to make. His political views are the same as yours, as far as I can see. It is a shame that the interchange you and I are having is so repetitive and so bilateral.
On 23rd December the German affiliate of IPPNW announced that next April they plan to hold an international congress in Berlin entitled: "Time Bomb Nuclear Power: 25 years after Chernobyl". The Greek anti-nuclear movement has every reason to wish to support this congress and the related international campaign. However, in the same newsletter the German IPPNW leadership also announced: " The latest good news are that a new affiliate has been founded in Macedonia and there are promising activities concerning the re-establishing of the Polish and Serbian IPPNW affiliates." This is indeed good news, except that the German regional vice-president of IPPNW Dr. Lars Pohlmeier chose to describe Greece's northern neighbouring state as "Macedonia", in this way provoking both the Greek government and a large majority of the Greek population, including huge numbers of opponents of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
A campaign should start in Greece to oblige Dr. Pohlmeier, and indeed all of IPPNW, until such times as the Greek government and the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian (FYROM) have reached agreement on a mutually acceptable name for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to employ the internationally accepted provisional name of FYROM when referring to the country in question.
Another point: it has been the custom in recent years for the anti-nuclear movement to align with one of the sides in the mainstream debate over climate change between anthropogenic climate change sceptics and their activist opponents. For example, last summer an anti-nuclear festival at Rhodes in Greece featured a "Dance for Climate". That is just one example. Dozens of others could be given.
There is no reason whatsoever to link these issues, particularly in the light of their malicious linkage by supporters of nuclear power, and no reason whatsoever to exclude anthropogenic climate change sceptics from involvement in anti-nuclear-weapons and/or anti-nuclear power action.
I said this to one of their leaders: Personally I believe that the Don't Nuke the Climate campaign should disband itself and reorganize as an anti-nuclear-power campaign addressed to citizens irrespective of which side of the climate change debate they occupy. Linking nuclear power with climate merely provided a weapon for the other side, a weapon without an intellectual basis, but given the other side's control of mass communication, that doesn't count for much.
For anti-nuclear activists who do not want to take a neutral stance between climate change sceptics and climate change believers, and who wish to show solidarity with climate change believers, the recommendation would then be that they support the ETC Group and Hands off Mother Earth, who are the least discredited climate change believers in the eyes of chemtrails activists.
Seeing as how the pro climate change group has bungled at greasing up the sale of geoengineering to the public, am I now hearing the new angle?
Prediction: We are now being lubed up for a more fearful boogie man - limited nuclear exchange and post mitigation method. Of coarse the masses would be an easy sell for implementing this technology if say for example; it was shaping up that volatile states such as North Korea, Pakistan vs India, or Iran were to commit. It is not like this technology had not been used before, see Chernobyl and how the Russians "rained out" fallout over Belarus before it spread over a wider swath of Europe.
People would open their wallets wide to accept geoengineering. The UN and other sheep herding steering commissions would all of a sudden lift any previous bans and all those who signed on would have to follow along as represented. It would then be very easy to go public with taxes feeding a full scale annual maintenance program and it would at the same time remain under the loving care of the military and backroom stakeholders.
Nothing would be gained or change in regards to the toxins used in chemtrailing the populations of the developed states and hey, now you can even veil the chemtrail fallout and point the finger at stray radio active fallout as being the main culprit in epidemiology studies.
If an event occurred, economies throughout the world would be impacted for the long term. Money would not flow fast enough for the geoengineering "stakeholders". Then they would have the excuse to [i]coupe de grace[/i]by going full strength with something like H5N1 now that our immune systems have been softened up over two decades of exposure to weakening agents and cytokine accelerants in a bid to achieve their stated goal of an 80% decline in global population. At the same time, the excuse of war along with economically fractured health care would fit nicely into the explanation for a global pestilence.
Just food for thought. It concerns me that these two separate issues have as of late been brought together.
Thanks for pointing out another potential sell pathway / sheep herding tool.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT: MUST WE BE COMPETITORS?
This paper was delivered (in edited form) at the 2nd Rhodes Antinuclear Festival held from September 25-29, 2007
Before embarking on the declared subject of this paper, i.e. the climate change movement and whether we in the anti-nuclear movement must compete with it. I would like to make it clear what my proposal is, in other words the bottom line of what I want to say.
It is that if we do not want to be consigned to the dustbin of history, to be replaced by the climate change movement, which will then in its turn, in a rerun of history staged as farce, fail in the same way that we failed at the end of the 1980s, then the nuclear disarmament movement must return to a Europe-centred politics.
Specifically we must take up again the demands put forward in the Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament of 28th April 1980 and symbolized by this pretty badge from that time which I show to you again to you to remind you of what we were saying then: “The remedy lies in our hands. We must act together to free the entire territory of Europe, from Poland to Portugal, from nuclear weapons, air and submarine bases, and from all institutions engaged in research into, or manufacture of, nuclear weapons.”
A Europe-centred politics. A Europe-centred proposal.
I will return to these ideas later.
Is the climate change movement a competitor?
MEDIA INTEREST
At the most obvious level competition can be registered in terms of media interest. Media interest in nuclear disarmament these days is small and weak. By contrast climate change is constantly in the media and the activities of the growing climate change movement are correspondingly being given publicity. The Camp for Climate Action that was held last July at Heathrow Airport outside London attracted thousands of participants and gained very extensive media coverage in Britain and Northern Europe. “The CND movement of the 21st century has begun”, said one Indymedia commentator.
Those of us who are old enough to remember the women’s peace camps of the 1980s at Greenham Common in England, where the cruise missiles targeting Eastern Europe were stationed, will recognize the style of Greenham Common in the style of the Camp for Climate Action.
This is what anti-nuclear activist Angie Zelter says at the Camp for Climate Action website: “Preventing further Climate Change is the one issue the whole world can and should unite on. So many of the solutions to our single-issue campaigns are needed to combat climate change. We have to grasp this opportunity to become true compassionate global citizens and put the millennia of war-fighting and exploitation behind us. We are all one on this fragile planet. Let us engage in the power of non-violent civil resistance and create the change we need.”
If the words “nuclear war” are put in the place of “climate change” this statement could be taken from any one of dozens of press releases of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, or the Greenham Common women.
One young participant in the Camp for Climate Action said this: “The most treasured memory I have from last summer was partying in the evening after we did the mass action at Drax. (Drax is a coal-fired power station). Dancing with my tribe knowing that the action was being reported around the world and feeling that our actions were right. We were part of something much bigger, part of a story far more epic than our modern world has ever given us a role in, we were on the edge of history and it was amazing.”
There must have been many of us in the anti-nuclear movement in the early 1980s who similarly felt that we were on the edge of history and that it was amazing. What do we have to tell these young people in the climate change movement? If we have something convincing, something arresting to tell them, something mind-opening, something they don’t already know, perhaps we will be able to work together with the climate change movement, derive strength from it, give strength to it, and most importantly, achieve some gains from such collaboration. .
CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER
A second factor that points in the direction of competition, even antagonism, between the nuclear disarmament movement and the climate change movement is the stance of a section of the climate change movement, the most “respectable” or “realistic” section, in favour of nuclear power. Many of us may remember being impressed a couple of years ago by the radicalism of the statements on climate change of the scientific advisor to the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sir David King, and wondering how it was possible for such a terrible government as Tony Blair’s to have such an impressive scientific advisor. It turns out that Sir David King was and is an advocate of nuclear power, which he represents as the only realistic way to satisfy growing energy demands while meeting global warming targets.
Of course Sir David King’s pro-nuclear stance is not shared by ordinary members of the climate change movement, but when considering the future prospects for ordinary members to impose their will and preferences on the so-called “realist” section of the movement, the experience of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement is an example of what NOT to do and how NOT to behave if one wishes to succeed in defeating the so-called realists.
(end of quote)
The "Don't Nuke the Climate" initiative seems to me to have started in reaction to the way that the nuclear power lobby seized the climate issue to represent nuclear power as "carbon free" and therefore "clean".
It was a belated attempt on the part of a section of the antinuclear movement to free themselves from the trap they had fallen into by allowing themselves to forget about antinuclear politics at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union (when they should have been helping Yeltsin get rid of ALL the Soviet nuclear arsenal, whatever the American, French and British resistance to that project) and got diverted into "global warming".
AntiPoA21 what would you say to the idea of the United States joining the Commonwealth and working to make the Commonwealth a better alternative to the United Nations?
Deborah Dupre might be interested in discussing this idea if she could see other Americans regarding it as an idea that is not just wacky.
This proposal has just received an expression of support from the president of the anti-nuclear medical doctors association in Italy (Italian branch of IPPNW).
I said this to one of their leaders: Personally I believe that the Don't Nuke the Climate campaign should disband itself and reorganize as an anti-nuclear-power campaign addressed to citizens irrespective of which side of the climate change debate they occupy. Linking nuclear power with climate merely provided a weapon for the other side, a weapon without an intellectual basis, but given the other side's control of mass communication, that doesn't count for much.
For anti-nuclear activists who do not want to take a neutral stance between climate change sceptics and climate change believers, and who wish to show solidarity with climate change believers, the recommendation would then be that they support the ETC Group and Hands off Mother Earth, who are the least discredited climate change believers in the eyes of chemtrails activists.
Is this in reference to governance? I suppose, if I wanted to get thrown into Boston harbor or more than likely be charged with treason and hung from the nearest lamp post.
This unity already exists under NATO, the very same group responsible for past and ongoing spray operations and it has been this round table that gets its Agenda 21 directives via the UN.
By diluting with Europe, I can only see this as a step to further erode and weaken the voice of the activist community here. The UK has already proven that its citizens are allot further down the path in regards to allowing themselves to be oppressed under a nanny state. Why on earth would any sovereign look to entrust them with our freedoms especially with what is happening to all of us right now?
Now if you are referring to the linking up of activists; rounding everyone up into one manageable organization puts the whole movement at risk. Those days of naivety are long gone. We live in different times now where it is more advantageous to have individuals or cells that can carry on in a unified effort. I believe we already have that and I am sure that many of us from all over the world carry the same burden - to bring down this corrupt system from within and we will succeed without the difficulties of binding ourselves down with the bureaucracy that normally accompanies mono socialistic lobby groups.
This is definitely the wrong door to be beating on, suggesting this actually makes us part of the problem and not the solution. In my opinion we would be chasing our tails right up to our untimely deaths by going this route.
Well I guess you know better than I do what is possible for you and what isn't.
I can't think of any other solution. After all, you have a polity that you equate with freedom and democracy and a government that you can't control. It seems to me that you have to change either your government or your ideology.
Russia managed to de-ideologize its state, going backwards rather than what everyone had thought was "forwards".
And after all, the people pushing for a North American Union are trying to fuse together a monarchy and a republic. And many countries in the Commonwealth ARE republics, and some of them now are not even former British colonies.
But there is no point in flogging a dead horse and after all it is a problem for you to solve not me.
Well I guess you know better than I do what is possible for you and what isn't.
I can't think of any other solution. After all, you have a polity that you equate with freedom and democracy and a government that you can't control. It seems to me that you have to change either your government or your ideology.
Russia managed to de-ideologize its state, going backwards rather than what everyone had thought was "forwards".
And after all, the people pushing for a North American Union are trying to fuse together a monarchy and a republic. And many countries in the Commonwealth ARE republics, and some of them now are not even former British colonies.
But there is no point in flogging a dead horse and after all it is a problem for you to solve not me.
I don't think that I am alone on this one.
I'll keep my ideology - you are correct in stating that the government is out of control and yes, it is the majority of "the people" who are to blame for allowing this through their continued apathy.
However, all that is needed is an untainted venue to let the people begin to reign in their representation. The smoke and mirrors of what we consider to be our two party systems under a supposed democracy are beginning to fail. People are starting to see that their "choices" all work towards the same ends set out by the behind the scene internationalists that are steering states to hand over sovereignty.
And on Russia: "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987
It is not "the people pushing for a North American Union" It is the politicians, NGO's, CFO, Dept. of Foreign Affairs that are pushing Agenda 21 which includes the formation of the North American Union.
The horse is alive and kicking! The only problem that needs to be solved is waking the majority.
I am quite sure that you are not. But should we be happy or sad about that?
Quote
I'll keep my ideology - you are correct in stating that the government is out of control and yes, it is the majority of "the people" who are to blame for allowing this through their continued apathy.
As Brecht suggested, obviously the solution, if the people are to blame, is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Quote
However, all that is needed is an untainted venue to let the people begin to reign in their representation.
What if the problem is the representative system itself? (i.e. "representative democracy" also known as "liberal democracy")
(read the third posting, on the "Assembly of Free Citizens". There is a longer text from the link from the third posting, but that is an older formulation.
Quote
The smoke and mirrors of what we consider to be our two party systems under a supposed democracy are beginning to fail.
But all of the alternative proposals I hear are for establishment of new parties. What if the desideratum is not a new party but a new polity??
Quote
People are starting to see that their "choices" all work towards the same ends set out by the behind the scene internationalists that are steering states to hand over sovereignty.
In other countries people tend to think that the problem is the domination of their politics by the United States.
But I agree that a non-imperialist form of American nationalism would be compatible with the completion of the European integration project. And that nationalism could express itself through the political forms I describe in the "Free Citizens' Assembly" text.
Quote
And on Russia: "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987
Well, if that quote is genuine, he had to say that, didn't he, to get the support of the Politburo. But he was wrong. That may have been his purpose, but he did not achieve it.
And the result of YOUR interpretation of the situation is that you did not act to get rid of the Soviet nuclear arsenal at the time that would have been possible, with Yeltsin. Here in Greece a handful of us tried to act, but there were too few of us.
And the new system that Putin introduced (in collaboration with the Americans) was based on retention of all the worst aspects of both Communism and capitalism.
Of course that might have seemed better to Russians than the total chaos and disintegration of the Yeltsin period.
Quote
It is not "the people pushing for a North American Union" It is the politicians, NGO's, CFO, Dept. of Foreign Affairs that are pushing Agenda 21 which includes the formation of the North American Union.
The horse is alive and kicking! The only problem that needs to be solved is waking the majority.
"Waking people up" to me seems more like a matter of education than of politics. Politics starts with taking people as they are.
AntiPoA21 has a better understanding of the points I have been trying to make. His political views are the same as yours, as far as I can see. It is a shame that the interchange you and I are having is so repetitive and so bilateral.
You can identify them if they support positions that mitigate your movement or cause. A primary method of mitigation today is thesis, antithesis, synthesis (hegelian dialectic).
I've been watching and identifying the methods of public manipulation for many years. When I see someone asking people to:
(1) abandon a fundamental premise to gain a "position", or (2) supporting a corrupt public figure,
this is an indicator that manipulation is occurring.
Alan Robock is a corrupt scientist. It would be unwise to:
(1) ask him why he supports the "wrong" side, or (2) support the organization that supports him.
People must wise up and begin to comprehend the level of corruption that exists. People must understand that the lies told to manipulate the public are done so skillfully and very intelligently.
The "repetitive and bilateral" conversation we have has been induced by you suggesting #1 and #2 as "concrete" action.
Quote
As Brecht suggested, obviously the solution, if the people are to blame, is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Good idea. Problem is, the current "people" are bigger bullies - they have military and fancy weapons.
The only cure for apathy is fear or love. Those who love are not apathetic to begin with. Some of those who continue in apathy will change when faced with fear, which is being delivered slowly via vehicles like chemtrails so as to continue as long as possible without inducing fear prematurely.
Quote
What if the problem is the representative system itself? (i.e. "representative democracy" also known as "liberal democracy")
Just in case you don't already know, the U.S. was not founded as a "representative democracy", so N/A.
Quote
But all of the alternative proposals I hear are for establishment of new parties. What if the desideratum is not a new party but a new polity??
The core problem (as I've continue to state over and over) is corruption.
The idea of starting a new party is to promote candidates that are not under the influence of the corruption.
It's not a bad idea, if enough people participate, but there is a deeper problem.
The U.S. system of government has been changed fundamentally over the past 100 years so it does not resemble its origin. People must learn why this original system was so effective. Until they do, their ignorance - bred in apathy - will hinder them.
Quote
In other countries people tend to think that the problem is the domination of their politics by the United States.
How ironic you should say that.
If your country flies a flag with a golden fringe around its border in your courthouses, then your country is controlled by the same corrupt folks that control the U.S.
This is why U.S. politics have been contagious. Certainly not because they have a good reputation.
Quote
But I agree that a non-imperialist form of American nationalism would be compatible with the completion of the European integration project. And that nationalism could express itself through the political forms I describe in the "Free Citizens' Assembly" text.
Scary.
The EU is not a good idea. You seem to be a real romantic for the centralization of power.
Anyone who knows what the word "citizen" really means will not agree with your brand of "freedom".
Quote
Well, if that quote is genuine, he had to say that, didn't he, to get the support of the Politburo. But he was wrong. That may have been his purpose, but he did not achieve it.
Until you understand that global politics are centrally controlled (yes, by the same small corrupt group that adorns their flag with a gold fringe), then understanding the cosmetic changes in Russia is impossible.
Check out the book "New Lies for Old".
Quote
"Waking people up" to me seems more like a matter of education than of politics. Politics starts with taking people as they are.
Education only wakes up those who love, and those who love are already motivated.
The waking up pertains to the majority, and unfortunately, they are apathetic, and the only cure for this type of apathy is fear.
As the powerbrokers increase the level of fear induced into individual people, there will be an increased polarization (in fact it has already begun):
(1) Those who accept the new system (socialism - emotionally-based - fear-based) regardless of its flaws, and
(2) those who reject a system that monitors and controls every aspect of life in the name of security and rather desires a system promoting personal responsibility, and hence accountability, and hence morality.
The real blame here falls on the apathetic. They could have saved a life, but rather chose to walk on the other side of the road and pretend not to notice.
So education is not the key. We have never lived in a time when information was so freely available. Morality is the key, and a moral person is motivated by love, and people who love their neighbors are self-educating and are involved in their neighbor's lives, and through this process they learn about chemtrails and government corruption and are not prone to denial.
All this is to say that the root of this problem is corruption, as I've said all along.
The phrase "waking people up" is - in this stage of the game - trying to stuff enough information down the throats of those who are apathetic (don't care) that they will become afraid enough to become motivated.
Problem is (as I've said all along):
"...Mankind are more inclined to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
So (apathetic) people wait until the last minute to become active, but by then it's often too late.
As for your statement:
Quote
Politics starts with taking people as they are.
"Where people are" is the problem; "politics" is the problem.
"Where people are" is exactly what facilitated our current condition.
The only thing that will work in the end (societally speaking) is to:
End apathy - i.e. - change (personally).
There is a good reason we all hate politics.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
I am quite sure that you are not. But should we be happy or sad about that?
"Hopeful" would be a better fit.
Quote
As Brecht suggested, obviously the solution, if the people are to blame, is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Now that's just scary. Just because the majority of people are apathetic should not give the handful the right to "dissolve the people". And what is even more scary is that the very ones we are struggling against have begun to act on this. It does not make it right - it is blatantly evil.
An interesting view, I'll have to sink in a bit more on this.
Quote
But all of the alternative proposals I hear are for establishment of new parties. What if the desideratum is not a new party but a new polity??
Yes, exactly - with discretion, methodically, from within. "In the face" opposition has a history of being trampled in short order. Use their own tactic to our advantage. There are those that are already in place and with the right kind of "positive leverage" could begin to turn things around and expose detrimental activities via - believe it or not - the most feared weapon - main stream media.
Quote
In other countries people tend to think that the problem is the domination of their politics by the United States.
And in the West the people (that is, the small percentage that actually turn their channel from football or hockey) tend not to have a clue how the European Union can even function. Basically most see Europe as having been totally sold out to the Global governance scheme in step with the UN and IMF and collectivist ideology.
Quote
But I agree that a non-imperialist form of American nationalism would be compatible with the completion of the European integration project. And that nationalism could express itself through the political forms I describe in the "Free Citizens' Assembly" text.
I don't know. Kinda reminds me of the barbed wire, fenced "free speech" areas that are given to G8 and G20 protesters.
Quote
Well, if that quote is genuine, he had to say that, didn't he, to get the support of the Politburo. But he was wrong. That may have been his purpose, but he did not achieve it.
Of course he had to say it. We should come to expect this deceit from "respectable" politics. I have my own theories as to why the USSR disbanded. I think it had more to do with our international jet setters cutting backroom deals which probably included some discussion over neo governance and the inclusion of old school communism thrown into the mix. What brought it to the table still remains questionable - economics, Ronnie's Star Wars and scalar weapons, the whole country woke up with a vodka hangover and said lets start over? You can dress a pig in a pink skirt with high heals, but it is still a pig.
Quote
And the result of YOUR interpretation of the situation is that you did not act to get rid of the Soviet nuclear arsenal at the time that would have been possible, with Yeltsin. Here in Greece a handful of us tried to act, but there were too few of us.
Yes, you are correct. I was using that time to dig my bomb shelter and purchasing firearms and ammunition that are now on a ban list that was courtesy of not my elected officials, but by backdoor treaties signed in Europe by Foreign Affairs and NGO policy steering.
Quote
"Waking people up" to me seems more like a matter of education than of politics. Politics starts with taking people as they are.
Then you agree that it should happen in that order? Waken first, then educated as to how things went wrong in the first place which in turn would allow them the freedom to decide their own fit in regards to politics. If the order of this flow chart doesn't make sense then you have to be of a socialist mindset.
But hey, I won't hold it against you as long as you are not linked to the ones saturating our environment with toxins via chemtrails or support Agenda 21. Taken as is.
My intention when I came on board was to discuss stopping chemtrails. I am somewhat glad that through discussion, we have as well stumbled into examining who we associate ourselves with in these newly forming activist organizations and for us to be ever vigilant against manipulation and infiltration. ETC is a prime example; something just doesn't smell right with these guys regardless of their other accomplishments.
Now that my interest has been peeked, I will be monitoring ETC a tad more closely - what's that old saying? Keep your friends close, keep your ??? Like enouranois said, they have provided a tool. So feel free to use it where possible: IE make sure that you state the UN ban on all correspondence to public officials. (not like the ban is doing any good - see bottom)
We have to watch for subterfuge and tactics of "divide and conquer" as well.
My advice is spread your selves out but do not allow for division of your goal - don't just rely on one org to invest your time and efforts. There are plenty more honest people out there with legit information and legitimate questions and these are the ones we should loosely and freely ally with.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket or you might find that the guy you asked to carry them has already sold them at the market and pocketed your voice.
Like I mentioned earlier, keep taking in evidence - there is going to be the day you will be called upon to share it in a court of the people. I was out there just this morning taking pictures of more blatant chemtrail "leg runs". No wonder my head was pounding when I woke up this morning!
That is very interesting. How can we get Jeff Farias' signature on the Open Letter to Hands off Mother Earth?
How can we get YOUR signature on it, AntiPoA21? You said you support it but you still haven't given a name so that we can add it.
As far as the European Union is concerned, the European Union we want is the one supported by Altiero Spinelli, in the constitution he got through the European Parliament just before the advent of neo-liberal casino economics but could not get accepted at the level of the member states.
Pat Mooney and the ETC group say they want control of geoengineering to be in the hands of the UN, not the US, Britain, etc. But people at this forum don't like the UN, so we won't be getting support for that idea here. ETC also said they wanted the Royal Society to cancel their proposed geoengineering conference (which has now been held, with participation from chemtrails activists) and agree that the UN should run geoengineering.
Saskia Messager, who made an intervention at the Royal Society geoengineering meeting, said she thought the Royal Society itself seemed not to be passionately in favour of geoengineering, but more or less trying to act as a referee.
The Royal Society invited submissions on geoengineering and Rebecca Campbell submitted one and received a response to it. I commented on this at our website:
Let us try to bring all of these initiatives together. The ETC group started Hands off Mother Earth, which declares opposition to almost all forms of geoengineering. Let us say then that we do not recognize the credentials of any scientist to be involved with geoengineering unless they declare their opposition to it taking place (i.e. want to abolish it) e.g. by declaring support for Hands off Mother Earth.
On the other hand, the ETC group and hands off Mother Earth want the UN to supervise geoengineering. People here don't trust the UN, so let us make a counterproposal. That counterproposal could be that geoengineering be supervised not by the UN but by the Commonwealth, after the US joins the Commonwealth. The Royal Society might like that. So, once geoengineering is run by the Commonwealth, and the liars are forced to acknowledge that it is already happening, scientists who are opposed to it happening in the first place (and who support Hands off Mother Earth) start to supervise the closing and abolition of the chemtrails programmes.
Alan Robock is a corrupt scientist. It would be unwise to: (1) ask him why he supports the "wrong" side, or (2) support the organization that supports him.
If there is not please become a signatory, adding you name to the names of some distinguished people in the anti-chemtrails movement.
Returning to Alan Robock, my suggestion was not that (1) one should ask him why he supports the wrong side. That was more or less what Mauro and the street protesters were asking him in the video I criticize.
My suggestion was that one should ask him why he doesn't become a signatory to Hands off Mother Earth, if he is really a critic of geoengineering.
My thesis is that unlike Pat Mooney, Alan Robock really IS “controlled opposition”, which is why - although by implication Hands off Mother Earth (HOME) declare support for him by running his articles - he does not declare support for them. He wants the collaboration to be on his terms, not theirs.
As for (2) I do not support the organization that supports Robock (i.e. ETC/HOME). As explained in the Open Letter, what we support is the initiatives that the ETC group has taken in international organizations, such as, most recently, the moratorium on geoengineering.
We attach conditions to dialogue with ETC, as you will see if you read the Open Letter.
What I say is that chemtrails activists should declare unequivocally that we do not accept the credentials of any scientist to be involved in geoengineering unless we are convinced that they are really opposed to it taking place. A necessary but not sufficient condition for that would be for the scientist in question to declare support for HOME. ETC/HOME do not acknowledge that geoengineering and/or aerosol spraying for geoengineering and/or other purposes are not a proposal or an experiment but a global reality. Their “opposition” therefore remains theoretical, not practical.
For it to become practical they have to be put into a position where they have the power to take practical decisions, or be confronted if they fail to do so.
Most chemtrails activists are climate change skeptics and opposed to the UN and therefore abstentionist from this kind of proposed involvement.
I would argue that if chemtrails activists don’t want to work through the agency of the United Nations we have to make a counterproposal, that can also represent a real challenge to groups like ETC/HOME, who ARE prepared to work through the UN.
And my proposal is that this organization should be the Commonwealth, after the United States has joined it.
The Royal Society has initiated discussions on geoengineering, and has invited submissions. At least one American chemtrails activist, Rebecca Campbell, has made a submission. A Dutch/French chemtrails activist Saskia Messager has said that she got the impression the Royal Society is not really all that committed to geoengineering but is trying to act as a referee. A proposal that geoengineering be put under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth might come as a pleasant surprise to the Royal Society and help to swing the balance in the discussion for them in favour of the chemtrails activists and against the geoengineers.
Quote
The "repetitive and bilateral" conversation we have has been induced by you suggesting #1 and #2 as "concrete" action.
I hope I have shown you that I do not suggest either #1 or #2 as concrete action.
Quote
Quote
As Brecht suggested, obviously the solution, if the people are to blame, is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Good idea. Problem is, the current "people" are bigger bullies - they have military and fancy weapons.
I was trying to be ironical, on the assumption that you would believe that American republican and democratic institutions involve a form of representation of “we the people”.
In any case, all states have fancier weapons than the citizenry of those states. We in Greece are not afraid that our state will employ open and systematic large-scale deadly violence against us. Should you Americans really have such fears of your own government??
Quote
The U.S. system of government has been changed fundamentally over the past 100 years so it does not resemble its origin. People must learn why this original system was so effective. Until they do, their ignorance - bred in apathy - will hinder them.
Quote
Quote
But I agree that a non-imperialist form of American nationalism would be compatible with the completion of the European integration project. And that nationalism could express itself through the political forms I describe in the "Free Citizens' Assembly" text.
Scary. The EU is not a good idea. You seem to be a real romantic for the centralization of power.
The EU in the original form as envisaged by its pioneers such as (above all) Altiero Spinelli was a good idea. If you want to revive your original American constution, we would like to revive the constitution of Altiero Spinelli, which passed the European Parliament in the mid nineteen eighties but was rejected by the member states, so that now we have the casino-economics and militaristic Treaty of Lisbon in its place. But even the Treaty of Lisbon has a clause making possible popular initiative. And “subsidiarity”, not unnecessary centralization, is supposed to be a basic principle of the European Union.
So if you want to reform your state and get “back to basics”, please allow us the liberty to do the same. Otherwise you are no different from your oppressive “globalist” masters.
Quote
Anyone who knows what the word "citizen" really means will not agree with your brand of "freedom".
The idea of the free citizen, as expressed by G. Edward Griffin and others, has some very positive aspects to it. But to counterpose this idea of freedom to something called “collectivism” is just to continue Cold War reflexes that should have been killed twenty years ago, along with the Soviet Union. The individual and the collective are both inseparable aspects of human existence.
Quote
Until you understand that global politics are centrally controlled (yes, by the same small corrupt group that adorns their flag with a gold fringe), then understanding the cosmetic changes in Russia is impossible.
I am not familiar with this “gold fringe” idea. The Greek flag does not have a gold fringe. Nor does the EU flag, or the flag of the United States.
And few Russians I am sure would agree with the idea that the changes in their country are cosmetic. What has happened is that they now have the worst aspects of both Communism and capitalism together.
And before long, unless we change direction, we will be in the same situation ourselves.
Quote
Quote
"Waking people up" to me seems more like a matter of education than of politics. Politics starts with taking people as they are.
Education only wakes up those who love, and those who love are already motivated.
The waking up pertains to the majority, and unfortunately, they are apathetic, and the only cure for this type of apath y is fear.
In my opinion there are other tools to be used other than fear. Tools which you and I can use, because nobody is afraid of us. Those tools are shame and inspiration.
Quote
As for your statement:
Quote
Politics starts with taking people as they are.
"Where people are" is the problem; "politics" is the problem. There is a good reason we all hate politics.
Dear Rachel Smolker, Thanks very much for this. You and your colleagues have assembled quite a broad coalition of groups.
In terms of "next steps" you can continue your emphasis on the military by castigating their (several nations) massive clandestine spraying of aluminum, barium and other toxic particles in the atmosphere--which on reaching our precious fragile homeplanet soil can so alter it that trees and other flora no longer can grow there. They're called chemtrails and they're a prime example of the military's war against nature.
The sprayings have been happening for more than a decade now. Some say it's done for radar purposes, some say to reverse global warming, some say to reduce human population. Certain circles of ego-ridden climate scientists have started discussing doing it openly--while pretending they don't know it's already happening secretly.
A meteorologist is currenty suing the German military for spraying chemtrails. Germany is the only nation where altering climate is specifically outlawed in the legal code. If you wish, I can put you in touch with someone more up-to-date on this than I.
The particles cause pockets of cool air, which then combine with adjacent warm air to cause storm fronts containing huge temperature differences between them and leading to greatly increased frequencies and severities of devastating winds and floods.
Let's hope that some of the Wikileaks files will shed light on this.
An international anti-chemtrails movement is gradually getting itself together--and thus far seems to be centered in Greece and Belgium.
Hey, we even have chemtrails here in this rather remote Andean village. Some of the residents are getting angry about it and there'll be a meeting quite soon.
Yours, Keith Lampe
(N.B. I have edited this note of Keith Lampe, W.H.)
===================================
On Dec 29, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Rachel Smolker wrote:
you may find this of interest. We collected signatures (way more than visible on doc currently) in advance and during the Cancun climate talks, delivered to Obama admin, and are figuring next steps -
towards building alliances between peace/antiwar, and climate activists.
Posted by maggie in Featured Articles, Newswire on 11 24th, 2010 | no responses
We, the undersigned, declare the following:
There can be no solution to the climate crisis and no “climate justice” so long as the US military and its allies continue to pollute unabated, and to squander lives and resources. Likewise, there will be no end to war so long as global warming continues to accelerate. It’s time to break the cycle and end the death spiral!
The US Military and their allies, through their imperial wars and military actions (overt and covert) around the world, have inflicted massive suffering and civilian casualties.
The US Military is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, yet these emissions are exempted from reporting requirements.
Access to more oil, the burning of which is fundamental cause of climate change – is the primary underlying motive for current wars.
Both warfare and climate change are rendering large areas uninhabitable – displacing millions of people as refugees, and yet the rights of immigrants are increasingly limited, threatened and abused.
Climate change is likely to result in far more wars, being a “threat multiplier” and now recognized as the greatest looming threat to “security”. Access to resources – including land, food, water – is already becoming increasingly challenging, and scarcities will likely trigger conflict and further displacement in the future.
The US Military is also the largest source of toxic chemical and radioactive poisoning of peoples and environment around the globe, and plays a major role in promoting false solutions that only worsen the problems (biofuels, nuclear technologies, climate geoengineering etc)
The US and global economy is in shambles, funding for a “fair and just transition” – to ensure that people are not negatively impacted by the necessary transitions, is not forthcoming, “green” jobs remain scarce, millions lack access to basic healthcare.
The US has lead the efforts by developed countries in stymieing progress among nations, consistently refusing to pay their “ecological debt”, owed to non-industrialized countries and their peoples… All while spending trillions on furthering wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Our global commons (air, water, forests) is being bought and sold in carbon markets under the guise that this is the ONLY feasible means of generating funds to take necessary actions to prevent and adapt to impacts of climate change. The result is further concentration of wealth and power, at the expense of the planet.
We will not accept the death spiral of militarism, war and climate change. It is time to break the cycle! In Cancun and beyond, we Demand:
An end to oil and resource wars, and reinstatement of diplomacy and respect over use of force in all foreign relations
Troops brought home, military bases abroad closed down and cleaned up, those on US soil dramatically reduced and cleaned up.
Redirection of the vast majority of military funding to fund human services, ensure decent quality of life, payment of ecological and climate debt, and compensation to countries and peoples damaged by US militarism.
Dismantling of the military-industrial complex. Corporations stripped of personhood. Clean elections mandated.
IPCC to create an urgent special report on military emissions, both direct and indirect (e.g., ecosystem damage and desertification due to military activities). No reporting exemptions by powerful countries.
Urgent implementation of “real” as opposed to “false” solutions, to end the use of fossil fuels, and restore and protect public and environmental health.
Signed Organizations: (to join this continuing list, please email rsmolker@riseup.net AND rsmolker@gmail.com)
Aldrig Mere Krig Denmark
Arlington United for Peace and Justice USA
Baltimore Nonviolence Center USA
Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace USA
Beyond Copenhagen Coalition, India
Biofuelwatch USA/UK
Black Agenda Report USA
Canadians for Action on Climate Change Canada
Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project S. Africa
Citizens for Environmental Safeguards USA
Climate SOS USA/Canada
Code Pink USA
Community OrganizIng Center USA
Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality USA
Earth Peoples Intl
Ecologistas en Acción Spain
ECOMUNIDADES Mexico
Edmonds Institute USA
Energy and Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition South Korea
ETC Group intl
Friends of Brook Park USA
Friends of the Earth, South Africa S. Africa
Friends of the Siberian Forests Russia
Global Exchange intl
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance USA
Grassroots International intl
Global Compliance Research Center Canada
Global Warming Education Network USA
Green Party of San Mateo County (CA) USA
Hemispheric Social Alliance intl
Human Nature USA
IBON Foundation Phillippines
India Institute for Critical Action India
India People’s Science Campaign India
Institute for Social Ecology USA
International Tribal Association intl
International Action Center intl
Jersey City Peace Movement USA
Jubilee South intl
Krisoker Sor (Farmers’ Voice) Bangladesh
Latin American-Canadian Solidarity Association Canada
Liberazioni-3E Italy
LIFE – EDUCATION – ENVIRONMENT – EQUALITY Germany
Little Village Environmental Justice Organization USA
Milton for Peace USA
More Gardens! Fund USA
Movement for Nationalism and Democracy Phillippines
New York Climate Action Group USA
No Biomass Burn USA
Nuclear Resister USA
Organic Consumers Association USA
Peace and Justice Resource Center USA
Peoples Movement on Climate Change Phillippines
People’s Union of Democratic Rights India
Radio Free Maine USA
Réseau national Dette et Développement (RNDD-Niger) Niger, Africa
Rising Tide North America US/Canada/Mexico
Sacred Ground Historical Reclamation Project USA
Society for Threatened Peoples International intl
Sociologists without Borders intl
Somerville Climate Action USA
South Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy S. Asian
Speak Up For Wildlife Foundation Canada
Teachers and Scientists against Maldevelopment India
The Corner House UK
Tikkun Chicago USA
United for Peace and Justice USA
United National Antiwar Committee USA
Unity of Women for Freedom Phillippines
Union Pacifiste de France France
Valby and Sydvest Against War Denmark
Workers for Nationalism and Democracy Phillippines
Namely: I would argue that if chemtrails activists don't want to work through the agency of the United Nations we have to make a counterproposal, that can also represent a real challenge to groups like ETC/HOME, who ARE prepared to work through the UN.
I would like in this e-mail to focus attention on the question of relations with the ETC Group, with Hands off Mother Earth, with the moratorium on geoengineering passed at the UN Conference on Biodiversity, against the background of the fact that the majority of chemtrails activists are both climate change sceptics and opponents of the United Nations.
Many chemtrails activists focus on the fact that the ETC group does not acknowledge chemtrails as a well-established, in no way "experimental", global reality. Here is an example of one such posting: a Pat Mooney interview with Amy Goodman, and Jeff Farias's comments on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vetL-XF9Hj4
Rosalie has a high opinion of Pat Mooney, who she says she knows well, and has given the impression from what she has said in her postings that she thinks his stance on chemtrails is a result of being inadequately informed. She makes similar assumptions in her response to Diane Bronson's answer to the Open Letter some of us chemtrails activists in Greece sent to Hands off Mother Earth http://www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indexbronson.htm
What I think is more likely is that the ETC group's focus on geoengineering as a purportedly non-military project is deliberate, and aimed at taking advantage of the fact that an attempt is being made at this time to gain public consent to geoengineering ideas, thus removing from the subject the "conspiracy theory" taboo.
Chemtrails activists are under no obligation to fall into line with this disingenuous attitude of the ETC group and Hands off Mother Earth. I believe that the most effective strategy is to maintain independence from them, but to seek to strengthen their position within the circles of the scientists discussing climate change and geoengineering. One way to do this is to say that we do not recognize the credentials of any scientist to be involved with geoengineering projects if that scientist is in favour of such unacceptable ways of treating the planet earth and life on it. The only scientists whose legitimacy we are prepared to recognize are scientists, e.g. who publicly support Hands off Mother Earth.
As I said, most chemtrails activists are climate change sceptics and hostile to the UN. They therefore tend to regard the ETC group as "controlled opposition" and part of a a plan to mislead and demobilize real activists. My view would be that the real "controlled opposition" is scientists like Alan Robock, who express great reservations in relation to geoengineering, but have not declared support for Hands off Mother Earth. This is why I think that Mauro Oliveira's street argument with Robock was not good strategy, though it has given us a useful document.
How can chemtrails activists who are climate change sceptics and opponents of the UN get the right orientation towards ETC group and HOME activists who are neither sceptics nor UN opponents? The ETC group say that geoengineering should not be under the control of only a few rich countries, mainly English-speaking, but should be controlled by the United Nations. They say that Britain's Royal Society should abandon its attempts to host the geoengineering discussion and leave the job entirely to the United Nations, where poor countries can also have their say.
But unlike United Nations forums, which have not been open to chemtrails activists (the one exception being a UN NGO forum in New York, where Rosalind Peterson spoke, and has not - it seems - been invited again) the Royal Society geoengineering discussion HAS been open to chemtrails activists. Saskia Messager made an intervention and Rebecca Campbell submitted a paper, which was acknowledged.
We should therefore not necessarily support the ETC group view that the United Nations is more appropriate than the Royal Society as a forum for geoengineering discussion though we SHOULD say that only scientists supporting the HOME orientation on geoengineering are acceptable to us. What counterproposal to UN responsibility can climate change sceptic and anti-UN chemtrails activists make that will not just lead to self-isolation? .
Such a move could conceivably strengthen the hand of chemtrails activists and weaken the position of geoengineers, in institutions such as the Royal Society.
If such a proposal is seen as too eccentric, though it does not seem more wacky or eccentric to me than the idea of a North American Union that would bring together Canada and the US, then I would ask what other counterproposal to the United Nations can there be as a means for organizing the world at the international level.
Rebecca Campbell says this: "I feel that we all have been lied to in this, as in most matters (i.e. about climate change); that there is indeed climate change going on, but it is now going on at least throughout our solar system, and likely throughout our galaxy as a natural process of transformation long prophecied by intuitives whose insights are now being proven scientifically as such classified information is being disclosed. The NWO has coopted the mainstream environmental movement, and is using it to justify a depopulation agenda, while locking climate change skeptics into a limited mindset unable to consider the larger framework of cosmic phenomena now dramatically unfolding."
In her submission to the Royal Society Rebecca concealed her views on climate change and depopulation agendas but (or perhaps I should say "so") made what was in many ways a disarming and effective intervention, targeting the hypocrisy of pretending that "Solar Radiation Management" is just a proposal. How can we organize a follow-up to this effective incursion into the official discussions, a breakthrough potentially as significant as the ETC group's geoengineering moratorium.
For those who are discontented with our ignoring the aggressive "military" aspect of the aerial spraying, one other new development that is perhaps worth following up (and Keith Lampe is trying to start a relevant dialogue with it) this input from Rachel Smolker, once again, like the ETC group, from a climate change non-sceptic position. Rosalie could perhaps play a valuable role in our liaising with Rachel Smolker and the organizations supporting her stance:
I think the climate change activists have gone overboard on CO2 which may not be the main problem. They have not, for example, considered the effect of shifting the magnetic pole. No one seems to have a complete grasp of the problems much less the solutions!
The above correspondence with Rosalie Bertell and others was posted at an anti-nuclear forum.
There were two private responses from a certain Roger Helbig. One of them (the one about chemtrails not existing) was also posted to the moderator of the forum. Neither were posted to the forum itself:
1. You actually respect Rosalie Bertell – she is completely out of her element but craves attention and fools are willing to give it to her!
2.There is no such thing as Chemtrails – I guess that really means nothing to the activists, but then they are the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society –
Sister Bertell knows nothing about Depleted Uranium, Chemtrails or HAARP – they all are just ways that she thinks that she can keep herself out in public – has any one actually checked her sanity? I do not understand why her religious order permits her to make the claims about HAARP. I would expect that her husband, Jesus Christ, would not lie or condone lying. What endears Bertell to so many fools?
We came together this evening to speak to people. And to begin with to speak to our friends in Cyprus about the creation of a committee of struggle because our friends in Cyprus who are involved with the aerial spraying established such a committee this year and set an example for us and we want this evening to start the process, and the dialogue so that a similar movement can start here in Athens.
Perhaps we should say who we are. My name is Wayne Hall. I live in Aigina. I have been involved with the aerial spraying for 7-8 years. Mr Katsaros will say….
Nikos Katsaros. I am a scientist at the Democritus research centre. I am Catherine Collin. I am half French and half Brazilian. I live in Athens and I see chemtrails every day, I see spraying every day and I want to get involved more systematically.
This year there have been some developments with the subject. For a start, after the failure in Copenhagen a lot of discussion started generally about something called geoengineering. And this geoengineering became a subject of discussion and finally of an initiative by a group called the ETC group which founded a movement called “Hands off Mother Earth”. I don’t know if Mr. Katsaros wants to say anything about that initiative because we supported it, concretely. We put on our site an open letter to “Hands off Mother Earth” to make it clear that we support the initiative that was started by the ETC group and the movement called “Hands off Mother Earth”. I don’t know if Mr. Katsaros wants to say anything about that:
Nikos Katsaros: Yes, for a start let’s say a few words about what this chemical aerial spraying is, or these chemtrails, as they are called. Many people throughout the world, and particularly in the NATO countries have observed aircraft, without distinctive markings, leaving white trails which by contrast with ordinary trails do not disappear within a few minutes but instead remain in the sky for a long time and many times spread out, and moreover the aircraft that leave these chemical trails behind them don’t go in straight lines but leave grid patterns or go in zig zags and this has made many people wonder what is going on and what they are spraying us with and although to date no responsible answer has been given, governments have allowed the idea to get around that something is being done for the good of humanity, that it is a means of dealing with the greenhouse phenomenon, in other words global warming or climate change, so in these aircraft trails, in the fuel they put particles of aluminium and barium which, when expelled with the exhaust, reflect the sunlight. Less sunlight reaches the earth, and the temperature falls. So the greenhouse phenomenon is dealt with, using particles of aluminium and barium. We should note here that both aluminium and barium are toxic substances. However long they remain in the sky at some point they will fall to earth, they will pollute the water-table and from there the food chain and they will not only affect human health but also damage the environment.
WH: Mr. Katsaros….
Nikos Katsaros: This is the reason for our opposition to this spraying – nobody knows exactly what it is, but this is what they have allowed to leak - and no government gives a responsible answer .
WH: Mr. Katsaros do you believe that the objective of the spraying is geoengineering, that it aims, as is implied by certain statements, not official statements, at geoengineering, that the purpose of the spraying is geoengineering?
Nikos Katsaros: To start with geoengineering is a new branch of science which has appeared in the last ten years and is aimed at handling large planetary phenomena. One of those phenomena is climate change. So part of geoengineering involves at the planetary level, dealing with the greenhouse phenomenon. And famous scientists such as Paul Crutzen who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the ozone hole recommended something similar to what is happening with chemtrails, with aerial spraying of chemicals. That is to say he recommended that particles – in this case sulphur – should be lifted up in the atmosphere at a great height. That the sunlight be reflected from them, that less sunlight should reach the earth and the greenhouse phenomenon be deal with in this way. So geoengineering – which also proposes other solutions – includes that activity which is called aerial spraying or chemtrails and we as action committee are opposed both to the chemical spraying and to geoengineering, because the consequences of planetary experiments of this kind are unknown and they should not be implemented before we are sure that they will not have consequences for the environment, for human health and for the water table.
WH: Catherine do you believe that the spraying is for geoengineering purposes? Catherine Collin: Perhaps. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I have been sick because of the spraying in Athens. And my two cats were vomiting when the spraying was very intense. Mr Katsaros is certainly right that the spraying can have very bad consequences for health.
WH: Certain people who don’t believe in climate change – skeptics – think that the spraying is for other purposes. That’s why I’m asking. Catherine Collin: Yes, climate change is a misleading idea. For as long as we talk about climate change we don’t talk about t the spraying. We remain on the subject of whether there is or is not climate change. Climate change might exist for other reasons apart from human causes. It could be because there was a shift of the Earth’s axis when the comet Phaethon passed. Many comets have come close to the Earth. There has been a shift of the axis, and that may have something to do with it.
WH: My view is that in the situation we are in it doesn’t make much difference whether the purpose of the spraying is - some people say things like this – to kill us or to decrease fertility and so on, or whether the purpose is to prepare the ground for the genetically modified plants of Monsanto that are resistant to aluminium or whether it is to facilitate the operations of HAARP, or whether the purpose is what they say, to reduce the level of sunlight that reaches the earth. The fact is that all these ideas are considered to be conspiracy theories and so are kept outside the permitted boundaries of public discussion. The only thing that is beginning now to be permitted is the subject of geoengineering because – particularly after the failure of the Climate Summit in Copenhagen - governments, and particularly the US government are trying to secure the consent of the public to the idea that geoengineering is acceptable, an acceptable solution to the problem of climate change.
And so this determines the framework of the discussion. The discussion is permitted, and so for that reason we have this discussion.
Part 2
Would you like to say something?
Nikos Katsaros: Yes, it is to be expected, Wayne, that from the moment that no government says officially why this chemical aerial spraying is taking place, conspiracy scenarios will be generated. And a lot of those conspiracy scenarios mention that after the aerial spraying some people experience headaches, dizziness, discomfort and we have the specific instance a few years ago in a town in Canada, Hispanola, 90 percent of the population of the area, after such aerial spraying, experienced something that seemed like flu and called the Canadian government health service who examined the inhabitants and found that 90 percent of the population were indeed suffering from a strange kind of virus infection but they never told those people where the infection had come from, what the facts were, and what exactly was happening after the chemical spraying. So the requirement is – and we in our movement insist - that the responsible governments of every country where this chemical spraying has been observed should give a responsible and objective answer on what is happening and if what we say is happening, why it is happening, what purposes it serves, and how we can be protected from such experiments, so geoengineering, which is a broader subject, but includes the chemical spraying, must be dealt with accordingly, because there have been international conferences and geoengineering is now a recognized branch of science which introduces specific measures and planetary experiments to forestall phenomena that concern, that affect, the whole planet.
WH: Mr. Katsaros, you recently went to Cyprus, where you were invited there by some parliamentarians and I believe bya group of citizens - THE group of citizens, the action committee, to be specific,, but perhaps you can describe to us your trip to Cyprus.
Nikos Katsaros: I saw that in Cyprus there is a real democracy. I say that in the sense that in Greece we have been struggling for years to get the Greek parliament to give an official answer to the question of whether this spraying is occurring and why. And so far nobody has given us an official answer. On the contrary they have ignored us, whereas in Cyprus the parliamentary committee for the environment of the Republic of Cyprus was convened and all the parliamentarians of the committee for the environment of the Cypriot parliament were present and at the same time they had summoned senior officials of the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the Interior Ministry, the Environment Ministry, the Health Ministry, the Agricultural Development Ministry and senior state officials from the Water Service, the Meteorological Service, the Civil Aviation Authority and a number of other state functionaries and at the same time they had invited a representative of the British base at Akrotiri.
So it was a wide-ranging and very serious discussion on the phenomenon of the aerial spraying, which was convened, I should point out, in response to a position paper delivered by the Citizens’ Initiative against Chemical Aerial Spraying and to the testimonies of the Citizens’ Initiative against Chemical Aerial Spraying a number of responses were given by the relevant functionaries and finally there was unanimous acceptance by the Environment Committee of the Cypriot Parliament of the position paper delivered there that after chemical spraying special planes should be sent up and should collect in special filters and that then there should be analysis and an official answer be given as to what substances are to be found in this chemical spraying, why it is being conducted and if is not being conducted to provide reassurance to the Cypriot people because there is a prevalent anxiety that this aerial spraying is being carried out from the base at Akrotiri, probably, so that it influences many phenomena including various other protests that have made their appearance there.
But the fact is that the Cypriot parliament has shown a responsible stance to this subject, and I believe that they will go forward also with the commitment they have undertaken for experiments to be conducted to show whether something like this is occurring in Cyprus or not and the committee of initiative against chemical spraying will carry out inspections and make use of the media to inform people what is happening with this spraying.
WH: Mr. Katsaros let’s talk a little about the significance of the stance of the Cypriots, because what happened in Cyprus may well be unique. It’s an initiative of the Cyprus Greens, who have a parliamentarian, Mr. Perdikis, who is actively involved with the subject of the spraying. That is something that has no counterpart in any other state in the world, for a Green party to become involved with this specific subject, despite the fact that there have been many appeals from citizens to the Green parties. There was no response. Only in Cyprus, and perhaps, our hope is now that this will act as an example, and it will spread.
We should not forget that three Green parliamentarians in Germany took out a lawsuit against the German government that this chemical spraying is taking place and they have not been informed. So it would be good for the moment, whether it is the movement in Cyprus or the Greek movement here or wherever else such movements are established to pressure their responsible governments so that they give honest and responsible answers to the question of the chemical aerial spraying that hundreds or thousands of people in the world are constantly observing. So too our action committee aims to pressure the Greek government and the responsible functionaries to give a responsible answer. The same, I believe, should happen in other countries, because citizens’ movements exist there too. Many of them, of course, direct questions to their governments. These questions are not answered but the more this demand from the citizens intensifies for their governments to answer, the more urgent it becomes, so that at some point they will be obliged to tell us what is happening. If it is happening for the good of humanity why isn’t it publicized so that all the scientific community, everyone who can, can help solve the problem of the greenhouse effect or climate change as they describe, as they give us to understand.
WH: Let’s talk about a new development which is the moratorium that was passed at the UN international convention on Biological Diversity. This moratorium was a product of the initiatives of the ETC group as we have mentioned. They managed to secure the support of almost all states with the exception of the United States and a few other insignificant instances – essentially all the states of the world support this moratorium, which means now that geoengineering, and specifically what is called Solar Radiation Management , which is the phenomenon that is linked with chemtrails in the popular consciousness, is now illegal, and this development is something that should become known.
It was buried by the media. Few people know about it. But despite that, the moratorium was passed and the question now is: what is our reaction?
We have found out who went from Greece to that Convention and who represented Greece there. And I think that the next step is to speak with these people and to ask them what their opinion is of the reasons that the Greek state signed a moratorium that it is clearly not observing. What do you say to that? Nikos Katsaros: This is truly a very serious matter because for a start many people who heard from us about the chemical spraying, the chemtrails, either thought that we were ridiculous or that we were dreamers and in many cases we became the butt of ironic remarks. And now we have the United Nations in a conference that took place on biological diversity officially recognizing that there should be a moratorium, in other words a suspension, of geoengineering activities, and specifically a suspension of all activities that are either programmed or are already occurring in the form of chemical spraying for the next five years .
So we have official recognition from the United Nations that such experiments are either taking place or are about to, and because this sows doubt about people’s safety from the chemical spraying, there is a moratorium, that is to say a halt to this activity for the next five years, so it is official recognition and I address myself to all those who thought us marginalized, made us the object of ironic comments, thought us silly people with our heads in the clouds that the United Nations itself acknowledges that this is happening or is programmed to happen and warns that it should not do so. And this is the other great responsibility of the Greek government and the president of the Environmental Committee of the Greek Parliament, who was present and voted for that moratorium, to tell us specifically whether in Greece this spraying is taking place, if it is planned and what the authorities are planning to do, finally. The authorities, the state must answer this question.
And we, as active citizens, and Catherine also, and you, and all of us, must help, must pressure the government to give an official answer. Given that it VOTED that moratorium what measures it plans to take. We can’t wait any longer.
WH: Mr. Katsaros I was born in Australia and I still have some links with Australia and because of the initiative we are taking I discovered that in Australia too certain chemtrails activists have found the names of the people who went to Nagoya, and they will ask the same e question there. Catherine, you have lived in many countries. Do you think it is possible for us to ask the same question in many states?
Catherine Collin: Yes, yes, in France, from where I came, there are people who are anxious about chemtrails, what they see, what they feel. And in Switzerland. And in Brazil.
WH: Of course many people have a suspicious attitude to the moratorium. Particularly the skeptics, and people who are not in love with the UN. They have the view that perhaps the UN is worse than the spraying. Have you seen that phenomenon anywhere?
Catherine Collin: I have read that the UN has a vested interest in having control geoengineering. It wants to have the upper hand, to be in control . The moratorium is just for show, finally.
WH: The ETC group thinks that it is preferable for the UN to have responsibility rather than the United States or the Royal Society in England. The Royal Society has started a relevant discussion in England. Up until now, as the ETC group says, it is more or less an Anglo-Saxon initiative, all the discussion on geoengineering. Because not many other states participate in the discussion on geoengineering and particularly not the poor countries. That’s why the ETC group believes that it is better for control, and discussion on geoengineering to take place in the United Nations.
Nikos Katsaros: I would like to add here that these skeptics who don’t recognize the initiative and this decision of the United Nations to some extent are perhaps justified on that point because there is indeed an article in the United Nations charter that forbids experiments aimed at climate change because they are afraid that probably, in this way, regulating climate change, they will very likely develop the next generation of weapons of mass destruction.
But with this initiative of the United Nations it is at last recognized that nobody has the right to manage the sunlight reaching the earth because this management of solar radiation is aimed at bringing changes to the climate with unknown consequences, or consequences that will benefit only certain individuals, for reasons that are still unknown.
So it is very positive, and everyone from their own viewpoint should support this decision taken by the United Nations and responsible governments, particularly those that signed it, should declare explicitly and categorically what measures they plan to take and also to pressure the governments of the great powers , like the United States to give their reasons why they did not sign and what their purpose is. WH: As far as the ETC group is concerned, which started the “Hands off Mother Earth” initiative, I believe, and I think all of us believe, that their negative stance towards geoengineering is honest, But not everything they say in relation to geoengineering is honest. For example that the geoengineering programmes have not been put into application on a large scale. Perhaps this lack of frankness on the part of the ETC Group was in a way the tax they had to pay to be more inside the action, more inside the discussions, than we are, for example. But we should not accept direct collaboration or dialogue with them unless they are prepared to give us reassurances that they will stop talking to the media about whether chemtrails exist or don’t exist. That is the subject that preoccupies the media.
It is not a subject that preoccupies us, because we know what we believe. I don’t believe that in reality it preoccupies the ETC group either. But the ETC group operates within a certain system. When journalists come with questions, they have to say something to them. But I think that if they want collaboration, or discussions, with us, they will talk with us, and not with the media. This is perhaps a hard stance, and of course it does not exclude support, because we support them, without qualification. But if it is a matter of collaboration and discussion, we want honesty. I don’t know what you want to say about that. About the ETC group.
Catherine Collin: Yes, we agree completely.
Nikos Katsaros: I would like to add that because many of those who are listening to us don’t know who the ETC group are, that there are – all over the planet – various initiatives, with different views, both in relation to geoengineering and in relation to the specific subject of the aerial spraying. All of them have a common purpose, to publicize the matter, because whether it is being developed or whether it is already in application, this is a positive step, in my view, that there is recognition that such experiments are being planned, or are happening and they must be prevented, so we should applaud the initiative and embrace this initiative of the United Nations, but the most important thing is that we should pressure the governments, particularly those that signed it. WH: In relation to climate change, many activists against chemtrails are skeptics
Part 4
But you don’t have to be a skeptic in relation to climate change to agree that a bigger problem than climate change are the practices that are being proposed – purportedly as a means of dealing with climate change: geoengineering, nuclear energy, pollution trading, genetic modification of plants, use of plants not as food but as fuel.
All of these phenomena are being justified in terms of dealing with climate change. That is a big problem.
Nikos Katsaros: That is a big problem and certainly behind it there is great power, specifically big international corporations that are trying to gain advantage, in any way possible, publicizing the negative consequences of climate change. I continue to be optimistic that there is time to avert the phenomenon of climate change if an agreement can be achieved among the states of the world, that it should come about through the initiative of the United Nations and that at the same time there should be exposure of those big international corporations who work to exploit the phenomenon of climate change for their own benefit to acquire ever greater profit and we should note that private companies have emerged everywhere on the planet, which promise to cause climate change, that is to say to cause droughts in one area or to bring rain to another area, and even to exploit them for private purposes. So we have to struggle by every means to stop big corporations from exploiting this phenomenon for their own advantage.
It is real, it exists, but some interpret it in their own way , so that the big corporation can derive as much benefit as possible, whether they are Monsanto, whether they are big pharmaceutical companies, they are big companies producing agricultural products.
WH: Well, have we got anything else to add to what we have said?
Yesterday, from what I heard, a meeting was held in Larissa, with many people present and a local committee was formed. And the organizer of that meeting in Larissa says that such initiatives and such meetings will take place elsewhere also. Can we believe that today we are commencing a networking at the national level, and let’s hope that….
Nikos Katsaros: It is something very positive and initiatives will have to be taken by other people in other parts of the country for the purpose of pressuring the responsible government to give responsible answers and at the same time to take concrete measures and inform the Greek people of them.
As always, I firmly believe it's essential that the global warming scam (now renamed "climate change" to attempt to avert attention from the climate-gate fraud) be exposed.
Many things in life are complicated, but this isn't.
Global warming was invented to justify the "need" for geoengineering (chemtrails). Since there is NO global warming, there is NO need for geoengineering.
Once you remove the root problem - the global warming fraud - all other related problems simply disappear.
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
Peter Vereecke in Belgium has the honour of being the first chemtrails activist to implement the policy of finding and talking to a government representative who went to Nagoya and signed the moratorium on geoengineering. Peter is a climate change sceptic, but he is implementing my policy, not yours. and the politician he spoke to is not a climate change sceptic. And she admitted to him that chemtrails are a reality.
It's very telling that we have a 193-nation moratorium on chemtrails which is completely worthless. Nothing has changed, and this should tell us something.
The more I learn about the ETC the more I realize that they appear to be controlled opposition.
On the S0-CALLED moratorium side of things, at least the ETC Group is connected to Eugenics funding through the FORD FOUNDATION, (who has been with ETC for years). Is ETC COVERING UP chemtrails by denying their existence while promoting a moratorium that may be designed to make people believe today's skies are normal? Is ETC leading the way to cover up chemtrails in a strategy known as CONTROLLED OPPOSITION?"
The way to wield supreme power in any situation is not to stamp out any opposition. This would only create pressure that would eventually explode. What is needed is to allow for an opposition you can control and if this opposition believes it is independent it is even better for it will attack the ruling power and lead the people to believe that the power is tolerating descent.
Control is thru funding. ETC is calling for world-governance of geoengineering. THATS A SINGLE AUTHORITY dispensing our weather. NONE OF THIS STOPS CHEMTRAILS.....is that the point?
It's time we call out the lies and stop the corruption, and this includes the global warming hoax which is the foundational justification for chemtrails.
Once again, there is NO such thing as global warming, so there is no justification for geoengineering. Geoengineering is a front for population control, and the evidence of this is partially uncovered by this video:
"Geoengineering is a front for population control"
I am afraid I have to totally agree with this. There is just way to much evidence from many sources, not just the ones listed here, that connect the eugenic malthusian movement to financially backing geoengineering and having a long standing relationship with the UN. Hell, eugenics is even UN policy through their deceptive dialog: Sustainable means what? UN doc Canadian Signatory to implimentation of Agenda 21 depopulation
One eugenicist even went so far as to write a paper criticizing the UN for pussy footing about depopulation and to get on with it: "This paper argues for revisions to be made to Chapter 5 of Agenda 21 to include specific population reduction goals in order to restore efficacy to the UN’s sustainable development initiatives." Scott Valentine UN amendment paper
And these are the people ETC want to hand governance over this biological weapons platform to?
It is no wonder that the spraying has not stopped - if anything this so called, un-legislated Phase II climatic research is being "ramped up".
ETC can kiss my A$$ - they are a puppet. Too bad for all the honest people that went along for the ride only to be sold out. No wonder why my posting was removed from hands off -- it perhaps was a bit too close to the truth for them.
Note that there is an English-language transcript if you don't want to spend half an hour looking at a video.
Note also that the most pro-ETC positions are being put forward by Dr. Nikos Katsaros, who is the best known anti-chemtrails campaigner in Greece, appearing frequently on television. He was also invited to Cyprus in October to speak to parliamentarians and government officials about chemtrails. I am the one introducing the positions you support. Catherine Collin, the third member of our committee, has the same political views as you guys do, but you see it is I not she who am challenging the views of Dr Katsaros.
The strategy of opening dialogue with politicians and officials who signed the moratorium on behalf of their governments has been started now in the two parts of Belgium, Dutch speaing and French speaking.
It is not a strategy that is available to you in the US, but you can support the Canadians.
![[Linked Image]](http://orbisvitae.com/ForumExtras/Images/tlfalbcusm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://orbisvitae.com/ForumExtras/Images/lkexcbnekm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/Cuba/FidelAlan.jpg)
