Dear Eric,
Thanks for your response to the French text of the meeting of the Athens chemtrails/geoengineering action committee, a meeting which was first and foremost intended as an expression of solidarity with the Cypriot activists (basically of the Cyprus Greens), who had set up their own chemtrails/geoengineering action committee six months earlier last year.
Neither the Cypriot Greens nor Dr. Nikos Katsaros are "climate change sceptics" and in that respect they are different, as it seems, from the majority of the world's chemtrails/geoengineering activists. The ETC group that achieved the moratorium on geoengineering at Nagoya are not climate change sceptics either, but on the other hand, as most chemtrails activists are aware, neither are they frank or truthful about the real dimensions and actuality of chemtrails.
In my opinion the focus of the energies of the chemtrails movement should be on the moratorium, not on climate. The question to ask all the representatives of the signatory governments (i.e. nearly all the world's governments) is: why did they sign this moratorium on geoengineering which their governments are not observing or enforcing? We should offer our assistance as civil society to get the moratorium observed and enforced.
I don't agree that exposure of lies about climate change will help get the question of chemtrails into the public arena. All that it will do is sow divisions between us and groups such as the ETC group that have achieved the moratorium on geoengineering. And it will shift us away from the question on which we should be differentiating ourselves from them: the question of their lack of frankness about geoengineering being a global reality, (not just a question of experiments or proposals). If we start arguing with the ETC group about whether anthropogenic climate change is a fact or a fraud then we will simply be doing what the majority of the population have been got to do anyway: argue about climate instead of about chemtrails.
Personally I don't believe that, even if there is warming throughout the solar system, chemtrails were devised as a means of "dealing" with it while at the same time starting a phoney climate change debate around carbon dioxide for the purpose of milking the taxpayers. The geoengineering debate started largely in the nuclear weapons laboratories and in my opinion is best understood as a way of keeping the weapons laboratories in business even if they have to move away from producing nuclear weapons.
Everyone should carefully study Edward Teller's "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen"
www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791because if you understand what he is saying you will see that he is both questioning the reality of anthropogenic global warming and at the same time proposing chemtrails as a solution to (non existent??) anthropogenic global warming. His reasons for this kind of double-think are political, not scientific: the mentality is the same as the logic of his Star Wars games, when he tried to use the bait of universal nuclear disarmament to get the Soviets to agree to a Star Wars system for shooting down the nuclear missiles whose abolition was being proposed.
We should be clear about it that it is the ETC group/Hands off Mother Earth people, not those climate sceptics who ignore the reality of chemtrails, that are our closest "mainstream" allies. The scientists from the weapons laboratories, with their Dr. Strangelove mentalities, have to be excluded from the game, and we should use the moratorium as the means for excluding them. Because some of the Dr. Strangeloves are climate change sceptics, we cannot use climate change scepticism as a criterion for distinguishing friend from foe. Given that our governments have signed a moratorium against geoengineering, our governments should not be accepting the advice of any scientist on the subject of geoengineering if that scientist has not declared support for the moratorium. We do not want people who are in the business of advocating geoengineering making scientific decisions about geoengineering.
Dr. Nikos Katsaros is one example of a scientist who believes that if any beneficial purpose is being served by the geoengineering programmes, then the programmes should not be secret. And it is the ETC group/HOME scientists, not the climate change sceptics, particularly the climate change sceptics with a background in the defence laboratories, that will help us abolish the secrecy.
Just as an afterthought: my own involvement with the climate debate is very marginal. I came to chemtrails from the nuclear disarmament movement and I saw the climate movement emerging as a competitor and a distraction. Instead of finishing the job we had started with nuclear disarmament and using the so-called "end of the Cold War" to put an end to the nuclear arms race, starting with the Soviet Union, (because Yeltsin was interested in unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament and in the Russian parliament even proposed 95% unilateral Russian nuclear disarmament), in the early 1990s the anti-nuclear movement disappeared as a mass movement and instead activists came forward talking about climate change. To the extent I was interested I tended to side with the non-sceptics, not the sceptics, because from writers like Jeremy Leggett I read of the accounts of the wheeler dealing at the international climate conferences and of the thuggish role played by the organized "sceptics". And people like Leggett were not enthusiastic when politicians such as Al Gore moved into the game to use climate as the starting point for new types of stock exchange speculation and taxation.
I am interested in discussion of geoengineering and chemtrails, not of climate, particularly if climate discussion is going to be, as Eric Cornand points out, politicized, as it is: it is a dialogue of the deaf and a distraction for our movement. The sceptics seem to be winning at the moment, but I haven't noticed the chemtrails movement deriving any benefit from this. Have you, Eric???
From: Eric Cornand
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:33 AM
To: 'Wayne Hall'
Cc: Peter Vereecke ; Frederic ; Coen Vermeeren ; Daniel Dumalin ; Ellen Vader ; Luc Vervliet ; Sven Godijn
Subject: RE: Texte du meeting d’Athènes, Grèce, Comité d’action chemtrails/géoingéniérie, Décembre 2010
Wayne,
While reading the text of the meeting, I came across a reference to climate skeptics. From what I understood there, climate skeptics do not believe there is a change in climate. I wondered if everyone has the same idea about climate skeptics and so I feel I should state clearly that being a climate skeptic does not mean that I do not believe the climate is changing. I think that it is quite clear that it is. All I am saying – as are most of the serious climate skeptics – is that the explanation from the IPCC and other ‘greenhouse effect’ believers, where anthropogenic CO2 is the devil and thus all kinds of Kyoto measures and taxes must be laid upon the citizens of the western cultures, is a hoax.
I constantly come across articles, even in scientific journals, where people try to ridiculize the climate skeptics. Not with scientific arguments, but with emotional arguments, aimed at persons, with the aim to hurt. They refuse to play the ball but instead play the man.
The whole issue has been politicized and become impossible to debate in a calm scientifical way.
This has a very serious impact on many things. Amongst which is also the whole chemtrail issue.
Why? Because if the true reason that the climate is changing, has nothing to do with CO2, than it is impossible to admit that chemtrails are being sprayed because then it would become necessary to also explain what really is happening with our solar system. So if we want the chemtrail debate to become public and open, we also have to unveil the lies about climate change and expose the true cause. I am convinced that NASA knows exactly what is really going on. And that the US government is reluctant to bring this out into the open because they are afraid that the truth may cause widespread fear, terror, instability, uprising and economic downfall. For it may well be that the truth exposes that we have no real countermeasures against the real cause of climate change which can be observed throughout the whole solar system. If so, chemtrail spraying may well be a desperate attempt to try and do something to protect Earth from devastation. In which case we would all benefit from a worldwide cooperation between all scientists, in order to find a better and more organized way to try and create a protective layer, that does not endanger our health.
These are all ‘only’ thought paths. Possibilities. But for the analytic mind, possibilities with a high degree of credibility. I could sum up all the arguments that support those possibilities. I would probably be able to fill another book with those arguments.
All I want is for people to open their minds to these possibilities. So they understand that it is not a good idea to try and deal with the chemtrail issue without dealing with the warmists lies at the same time. Expose the true reason for the climate change, and the chemtrail subject will lose its motivation for secrecy and denial.
Kind regards,
Eric
Van: Wayne Hall [mailto:halva1@otenet.gr]
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 maart 2011 06:31
Aan: Wayne Hall
Onderwerp: Texte du meeting d’Athènes, Grèce, Comité d’action chemtrails/géoingéniérie, Décembre 2010
www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indexFrancais.htm
